Kids not welcome. Right or wrong? (Largo: relocation, gated, work)

[Nirvana-Guy]

Retirement Community Sues To Oust Toddler

POSTED: 5:59 pm EDT April 1, 2007
UPDATED: 8:19 pm EDT April 1, 2007

LARGO, Fla. -- A neighborhood association in Largo wants 3-year-old Kimberly Broffman to take her Big Wheel and hit the road.

Moderator cut: copyrighted material


http://www.local6.com/news/11481668/detail.html#

[CelticLady1]

Well, the retirement community may have the law on their side, but it doesn't change the fact, that they are acting like a passle of twits. Assuming that this news story has the correct facts, it sounds to me like the grandparents are doing what they can to comply with the rules, but what's a person to do, if one's house doesn't sell? For goodness sake, how much trouble can a three year-old be? Would theses old codgers rather that this little girl be sent back to live with a druggie mother?

[sunrico90]

Due to the association’s rules and by-laws the family is a precarious position. Associations look at this matter as an individual failing to comply with the rules that the family accepted at the time of their relocation to the community.

According to the article a signed a mediation agreement was agreed and the family failed to meet the stipulations that both entities agree on. We can’t read what that is, but if a legal document was signed and a member fails to comply, therefore someone has not meet the terms and conditions.

The family has a difficult situation that might require for them to relocate before the house is sold. I do see what the grandparents are doing and I do agree with their view. But the association has a signed document that validates what the family must do.

A possible option will be for the community to present a motion to the association and request an extension of the mediation agreement or allow the child to stay. Again many areas can be affected by special request and the association can be placed in a difficult position.

If this goes to court the outcome will be in favor of the association.

I must also add that this type of community has agree on certain rules that can't be changed without the approval of the community. Most of the resident just don't want kids in their streets....

[macguy]

Originally Posted by sunrico90

Due to the association’s rules and by-laws the family is a precarious position. Associations look at this matter as an individual failing to comply with the rules that the family accepted at the time of their relocation to the community.

According to the article a signed a mediation agreement was agreed and the family failed to meet the stipulations that both entities agree on. We can’t read what that is, but if a legal document was signed and a member fails to comply, therefore someone has not meet the terms and conditions.

The family has a difficult situation that might require for them to relocate before the house is sold. I do see what the grandparents are doing and I do agree with their view. But the association has a signed document that validates what the family must do.

A possible option will be for the community to present a motion to the association and request an extension of the mediation agreement or allow the child to stay. Again many areas can be affected by special request and the association can be placed in a difficult position.

If this goes to court the outcome will be in favor of the association.

I must also add that this type of community has agree on certain rules that can't be changed without the approval of the community. Most of the resident just don't want kids in their streets....

They have no choice, it sounds like they have looked the other way for a long time (three years) already. Suppose someone sold a place in there on the deal that it is an adult only community. The new owners will be back suing them. It is adult only or it isn't. They are obligated to enforce the rules.

[Jammie]

This is really sad. My guess is that the law is on the side of the association, but ethically speaking, I think it's awful to try to force them out when they're doing everything within their power to get their place sold and leave. IMHO people can be so cruel. I may not be quite as old as the people that are their neighbors, but I've never understood why some people just don't want to have children around. Is it just me or don't some of you who are middle aged like to hear children playing and laughing?

[macguy]

Originally Posted by Jammie

This is really sad. My guess is that the law is on the side of the association, but ethically speaking, I think it's awful to try to force them out when they're doing everything within their power to get their place sold and leave. IMHO people can be so cruel. I may not be quite as old as the people that are their neighbors, but I've never understood why some people just don't want to have children around. Is it just me or don't some of you who are middle aged like to hear children playing and laughing?

Three years? In fact they could have sold when things were selling like crazy.

[Jammie]

Originally Posted by macguy

Three years? In fact they could have sold when things were selling like crazy.

I understand what you're saying. I also wondered why they weren't able to sell when things were selling like crazy there. And I agree that the law is on their side. I just don't understand why their neighbors would have a problem with one little girl living there.

[daniellefort]

I think it's crazy too. They are making every effort move and we all know about the FL housing market. Nobody buying, nobody selling. If this child ended up in foster care, we'd all be paying for her well being yet we all know what kind of mess she'd end up in being in the states control. I applaud them for doing the right thing and would think there would be more understanding people in her neighborhood who would support them. What would they do if this was their grandchild and they were the only family left. I highly doubt they would ignore the child and send them to foster care at least anyone who has a heart. This is a child we're talking about, not some criminal in hiding.

[sunrico90]

Originally Posted by Jammie

I understand what you're saying. I also wondered why they weren't able to sell when things were selling like crazy there. And I agree that the law is on their side. I just don't understand why their neighbors would have a problem with one little girl living there.

This is a senior community and some families just don't want kids in the area. Is sad, but that is why families move to this communities, they want certain standards and not always works for everyone.

Some might believe that if one kid is accepted (regarless of reason) will open the door for more kids....

[macguy]

Originally Posted by Jammie

I understand what you're saying. I also wondered why they weren't able to sell when things were selling like crazy there. And I agree that the law is on their side. I just don't understand why their neighbors would have a problem with one little girl living there.

One little girl represent one thousand little girls. I think in copy write law or trademark law they have something refereed to as defend it or lose it. You can't set a precedent of looking the other way and only enforcing rules as you wish. It's all of nothing. Not, the rules apply to one but not another. To be honest, them having looked the other way for three years was a violation of the rights of the other owners whose investment was made based on it being an adult community. You can't look at it with emotion.