U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2016, 12:32 PM
 
9,681 posts, read 15,864,806 times
Reputation: 16033

Advertisements

I still have young--adult---children who are struggling to make their way in the world. DD18 and DS19 both now live elsewhere and think they have it all figured, but, stuff happens. I want to keep a safe harbor for them as they establish their own lives. We will be buying a house soon, and consider it a transition home. A home for dh and me, but also a place where the kids can light if they need to. Much can happen in the next years......so we don't want to consider a retirement age-restricted place, at least not yet.


Besides, in general, I would not want a place with so many restrictions, regardless of my age! If I reach a point in life I'm so old I need extra help, I could hire such, like a cleaning lady, lawn service, etc, but I just don't want to consult a list of rules every time I make a decision!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2016, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Sylmar, a part of Los Angeles
3,985 posts, read 2,541,986 times
Reputation: 8514
A lot of those places don't allow dogs. a instant no deal with me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 08:18 PM
 
6,806 posts, read 3,864,772 times
Reputation: 15515
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Vega View Post
A lot of those places don't allow dogs. a instant no deal with me.
55+ where you have a house all allow dogs in my experience, and many have a "play" area for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Dothan AL
1,450 posts, read 876,706 times
Reputation: 991
One of my residences is 55+ Florida community. I like the older people. Seldom do I know anyone well enough to attend a funeral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Dothan AL
1,450 posts, read 876,706 times
Reputation: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Vega View Post
A lot of those places don't allow dogs. a instant no deal with me.
I would not like nosy dogs around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 05:10 AM
 
Location: Ponte Vedra Beach FL
14,628 posts, read 17,929,938 times
Reputation: 6716
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryleeII View Post
...Besides, in general, I would not want a place with so many restrictions, regardless of my age! If I reach a point in life I'm so old I need extra help, I could hire such, like a cleaning lady, lawn service, etc, but I just don't want to consult a list of rules every time I make a decision!
You'll find rules/restrictions in all condos or HOAs - whether or not they're 55+. It's always best to read them closely before buying property in any particular community. Robyn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 06:14 AM
 
10,604 posts, read 14,202,393 times
Reputation: 17203
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Uh oh. You may want to reread your original post, MMOB's reply, the rule you posted and correct your mistaken (and arrogant) reply before MMOB responds.
The member claimed that I said something I never said. They then showboated tortured logic to take something to a conclusion that might occur mathmatically but is never required to happen.

In fact, every attorney will advise a 55+ Community to beware of making this grievous error. In fact, even HOPA cautions that.

My original post stated that the purpose of the 20% is to give the community latitude. The 20% is never mandatory . The Congress of the United States chose this to allow for primarily surviving spouses. It's well-documented everywhere in the history of HOPA.

In fact the surviving spouse can be kicked out if the community so chooses depending on the bylaws. See, I can go to a ridiculous extreme, too.

Every 55+ knows this, therefore will low-ball the 20% not Max it out because of the risk of losing the exemption. It's exactly what every lawyer and HOPA advises.

THEREFORE they are not going to permit a bunch of under 55 residents living in condos alone in the members example.

I guess you and the member are also unaware that potential residents are interviewed, and the documents reviewed, and must be APPROVED by the community, by law perfectly legal. The members hypothetical is averted.

AGAIN, completely regulated by each communities' documents.

Therefore, unless the community are a bunch of fools the members hypothetical will never happen. Further, the member's hypothetical clearly was put forth to create a community that is not Housing for Older Persons in the majority. Therefore intended to conflict with the spirit of the law - a requirement which I have highlighted for you above in red.

The community is also required by law to census the residents' age status every two years. Besides federal law, each state makes their own additional law. Such as if the census is required to be reported to the state or not and more.

I posted the facts and the government documents. If you want to prove me wrong bring me some case law. You're a lawyer so that should be very easy for you.

You gave me a chuckle though, a lawyer accusing someone else of being arrogant. I'm not a lawyer but I have prevailed in court pro se against two huge Phila law firms and a New Jersey personal injury shark with 15 plaintiffs and defendants with a 365-day discovery.

55+ communities are only required to meet a minimum standard of 80/20. They can even require 100% 55 or even older if they so choose - including both spouses who reside there.

They can also make 55 + in every single unit mandatory if they so choose.

Last edited by runswithscissors; 04-19-2016 at 06:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 06:43 AM
 
10,604 posts, read 14,202,393 times
Reputation: 17203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
Wow, who peed in your Cheerios yesterday morning?

I realize that sometimes intent can be a little difficult to discern when reading posts on the web, which is why I not only specifically wrote that I was just kidding, I even used not one, but two, friendly emojis to emphasize the point that I was just being humorous. Oh well.

As for the rest of your frothing-at-the-mouth rant...I have no idea what you're complaining about. With all the steam coming out of your ears, and your eyes red with fury as you pounded away on your keyboard, you somehow missed the fact that my post was supporting your position against the OP. The only thing I did was correct your statement that the federal law permits only 20% of the residents to be under 55. You just made a common mistake of confusing residents with units. Nowhere in my post did I say that communities had to allow anyone to be under 55. The law sets a bar as to how lenient communities can be in allowing under 55 residents and still qualify as a 55+ community. If a community doesn't want to permit anyone to be under 55, that's perfectly fine.

Again, you just made the common mistake of writing that the federal bar was set at 80% of residents, when in point of fact, there is no bar at all for number of residents. It is simply the minimum number of units that must have a person 55 or older in order for the community to qualify as a 55+ community. You'll notice that I not only emphasized the word units for you, I also pointed out that we're discussing the minimum qualification to be covered by the law, not the maximum.

To put it in succinct terms: You misspoke, miswrote, misunderstood, or misapplied the law. (I'm not picky; choose any one or more of the appropriate "mis" words to describe your error.)

I'm sorry that my correction of your misinterpretation (hey, there's another "mis" word for you to choose!) of federal law upset you so. Next time you make a mistake (one more for you), I'll just allow you to continue in your ignorance.
I casually used the word "community" colloquially in a brief sentence to illustrate a point of how these communities are not just some capricious concept.

It was your choice to be sarcastic, then say just kidding, and accuse me of ignorance because I didn't deliver a legal dissertation.

Knock yourself out with reductio ad absurdum all you want - the internet loves nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 06:46 AM
 
10,334 posts, read 9,379,305 times
Reputation: 15922
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
I don't quite get the point of this thread. Why should anyone care if someone else wants to live with others of the same age? It personally is not for me, but I don't have a problem with the idea.
Because some enjoy 'stirring the pot' just to see how people will react; or because they think it's up to them to decide how others should live their lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 06:52 AM
 
10,604 posts, read 14,202,393 times
Reputation: 17203
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
Fortunately there are as many 55+ housing options as all of us...
From excellent rural / lakes / golf to urban centric, some with continuing care, others kick you out as soon as you need a walker.
.
That's not true that's illegal.

Even if you're joking you should know someone is going to repeat that and go unhinged over the statement.

You're conflating using a walker with needing transfer assistance. Transfer meaning a legal technical term whereby certain communities base their resident services and policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top