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.
After I read the OP's post, I put my shoes back on and looked all around. Nowhere did I see a fence or a wall that kept children out or one that kept me in.
I see more children since moving to a 55+ community than the last ten years that I was working. Besides the grandchildren who are visiting our neighbor, we see about 200 children at church each Sunday. In addition, there are 50-100 children who make an appearance at the museum that I volunteer at and the high school students that I work with after school.
I get tired of these threads which are generally started by people who DO NOT live in 55+ communities telling us why living in 55+ communities is all wrong. Maybe they need to get some personal experience first.
So true.
When I relocated to FL. I rented a 2400 SF house in a 55+ HOA. I wasn't particularly looking for that but my agent lived there and had the listing. People spent $450K on these houses during the real estate bubble.
I was GLAD I was only renting because there were SO MANY KIDS there visiting and being babysat by the residents I decided oh HECK NO, these HOA rules are TOO BROAD.
For example, they had to make a rule for the pool that one hour per day was adults only.
WHAT???? The adults who are residents and PROPERTY OWNERS should get the pool for the ENTIRE DAY and the KIDS be limited to an hour a day.
Then I bought a condo in a different HOA with more restrictions and fewer kids showing up. It was MY PREFERENCE.
The fact that the people running for President, and a ton of Senators and Congresspeople, a zillion business people not to mention LAWYERS and DOCTORS all over the country are 55+ seems to elude the OP.
You're confused about the terms. An age restricted community does mean 55+ whether they market it as Active Adult Community or not.
It MUST BE deeded that way because it's a federal and state government term that has laws and regulations to be 55+. "Senior Housing". For example there's an 80/20 rule whereby 20% of the community is "permitted" to be under 55 to give the association some leeway ie if someone under 55 might be an heir.
OTHERWISE it would be called discrimination.
The OP is just making up facts that don't exist. Even in some Assisted Living communities the place is buzzing and busy all the time.
Speaking of making up facts that don't exist....
Actually, I'm just kidding you by reusing your sentence, but in truth, what you've written is a common misconception. The actual rule is even more liberal than what you wrote.
The law actually states that 80% of the units in a 55+ community must be occupied by at least one resident who is 55+. So theoretically, a 55+ community could actually have a majority of residents who are under 55. For example, if you have a community of 100 homes, each occupied by 2 people, then 80 of the 100 homes could have one person over 55 and one person under 55. The other 20 homes can have both people under 55. Consequently, this hypothetical community would have only 80 residents who are over 55 and 120 residents who are under 55, yet it would still qualify under the law as a 55+ community.
We live in a 55 plus. We just came back from 10 weeks in FL. Our friends are leaving for Australia on Thursday. Our other neighbors are currently in New Orleans and later this summer they'll be off to Italy. There's more kayaks on top of car roofs and bike racks than you'd see anywhere else. My husband belongs to a country club and plays golf. I love walking and gardening. I admit, I had some doubts when we bought in here 5 years ago but these people, my neighbors, run circles around me. Coming up... a beach bonfire/picnic!
Living in a "regular" place is no guarantee of anything. We've had 2 neighbors in the house to the left of ours of us die (one from cancer - the other from a Parkinsonian disease). One in the house to the right of us has pancreatic cancer now. One 2 doors down died too (another Parkinsonian disease). All were men in their 50's. Then there was the oldest guy on the block across the street a few doors down. Early 60's. Who had a heart attack while driving - and died in the ensuing accident. Then there are friends who don't live in our neighborhood who have died. A former employee and a golf buddy who both died of cancer in their early 40's. A lawyer friend who recently died of ALS (he was in his early 60's). You know enough people - you get older - you find that death isn't a stranger. Robyn
Actually, I'm just kidding you by reusing your sentence, but in truth, what you've written is a common misconception. The actual rule is even more liberal than what you wrote.
The law actually states that 80% of the units in a 55+ community must be occupied by at least one resident who is 55+. So theoretically, a 55+ community could actually have a majority of residents who are under 55. For example, if you have a community of 100 homes, each occupied by 2 people, then 80 of the 100 homes could have one person over 55 and one person under 55. The other 20 homes can have both people under 55. Consequently, this hypothetical community would have only 80 residents who are over 55 and 120 residents who are under 55, yet it would still qualify under the law as a 55+ community.
Here we go. Go back to law school.
No you weren't "just kidding". You were being snarky. And wrong.
I wasn't writing a legal dissertation since obviously there's not even a fundamental understanding of these communities or ANY senior communities for the most part.
The 20% MINIMUM STANDARD is designed to allow the Association to PERMIT EXCEPTIONS when appropriate. It depends on the community covenants and the exceptions may be narrowly defined perfectly legally. HOPA does not care how the association deals with the 20%.
But thanks for proving the ORIGINAL POSTER wrong. Even if you had to use wrong legal interpretations and reductio ad absurdum math.
"There continues to be confusion concerning what is often referred to as the 80/20 split. HOPA states that the minimum standard to obtain housing for persons who are 55 years of age or older status is that “at least 80%” of the occupied units be occupied by persons 55 years or older. There is no requirement that the remaining 20% of the occupied units be occupied by persons under the age of 55, nor is there a requirement that those units be used only for persons where at least one member of the household is 55 years of age or older. Communities may decline to permit any persons under the age of 55, may require that 100% of the units have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older, may permit up to 20% of the occupied units to be occupied by persons who are younger than 55 years of age, or set whatever requirements they wish, as long as “at least 80%” of the occupied units are occupied by one person 55 years of age or older, and so long as such requirements are not inconsistent with the overall intent to be housing for older persons".
IMO, it is not so much that Dave lives in an age restricted community, it is that he lives in subsidized senior housing. The poor elderly have a shorter life expectancy. Dave's immediate neighbors are both elderly and poor. They might not be dropping like flies but statistically speaking, Dave's neighbors are more likely to die sooner than later.
No you weren't "just kidding". You were being snarky. And wrong.
I wasn't writing a legal dissertation since obviously there's not even a fundamental understanding of these communities or ANY senior communities for the most part.
The 20% MINIMUM STANDARD is designed to allow the Association to PERMIT EXCEPTIONS when appropriate. It depends on the community covenants and the exceptions may be narrowly defined perfectly legally. HOPA does not care how the association deals with the 20%.
But thanks for proving the ORIGINAL POSTER wrong. Even if you had to use wrong legal interpretations and reductio ad absurdum math.
"There continues to be confusion concerning what is often referred to as the 80/20 split. HOPA states that the minimum standard to obtain housing for persons who are 55 years of age or older status is that “at least 80%” of the occupied units be occupied by persons 55 years or older. There is no requirement that the remaining 20% of the occupied units be occupied by persons under the age of 55, nor is there a requirement that those units be used only for persons where at least one member of the household is 55 years of age or older. Communities may decline to permit any persons under the age of 55, may require that 100% of the units have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older, may permit up to 20% of the occupied units to be occupied by persons who are younger than 55 years of age, or set whatever requirements they wish, as long as “at least 80%” of the occupied units are occupied by one person 55 years of age or older, and so long as such requirements are not inconsistent with the overall intent to be housing for older persons".
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.
I never see or hear a child where I live. That's because I own enough land to create my own neighborhood. I don't hear any ''salsa'' music or any other music where I live. It's not only because of my land but because my neighbors are educated and prosperous. The dregs of society are the noisy, the criminal, and the generally unpleasant. My immediate neighbors are coyotes, bear,antelope, mule deer, elk, rabbits, muntain lion, and probably wolves. I've seen all but the last two on my place. The song of the coyotes beats that of any human
I live twenty miles from town. I have two miles of gravel, then highway. If I choose to socialize with humans when I get there, they'll be the right sort of humans.
People over 55 can be just as bad as the others. Find the right spot and you're free of all of them. If you're really lucky you might see a mountain lion eating one. I keep my binoculars handy.
I generally prefer the world of fifty years ago with few exceptions. One of those exceptions is that within twenty years I'll likely (should I still be alive ) have immediate access to everything ever published without leaving my geriatric paradise.
I never see or hear a child where I live. That's because I own enough land to create my own neighborhood. I don't hear any ''salsa'' music or any other music where I live. It's not only because of my land but because my neighbors are educated and prosperous. The dregs of society are the noisy, the criminal, and the generally unpleasant. My immediate neighbors are coyotes, bear,antelope, mule deer, elk, rabbits, muntain lion, and probably wolves. I've seen all but the last two on my place. The song of the coyotes beats that of any human
I would much rather live near children than near coyotes, bear, mountain lions, and wolves. And I would much rather hear the sound of children singing Christmas carols than the sound of a very cold blasting wind on Christmas Eve. On the other hand, I like the idea of living in a Wyoming city such as Cheyenne or Casper, because of the relatively low taxes and crime rate, compared to states with big cities. And I could probably get used to the cold wind.
What's so good about the song of coyotes?
Do you have good internet access? Most places as isolated as yours, anywhere in the USA, don't have good internet access.
I would much rather live near children than near coyotes, bear, mountain lions, and wolves. And I would much rather hear the sound of children singing Christmas carols than the sound of a very cold blasting wind on Christmas Eve. On the other hand, I like the idea of living in a Wyoming city such as Cheyenne or Casper, because of the relatively low taxes and crime rate, compared to states with big cities. And I could probably get used to the cold wind.
After a few years of disliking the wind, Boreas became a boon companion. I'm only thirty miles from Yellowstone where well over a million people from all over the world come every year for the vacation of a lifetime. I live here.
Quote:
Do you have good internet access? Most places as isolated as yours, anywhere in the USA, don't have good internet access.
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.
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.
That's because I own enough land to create my own neighborhood. I don't hear any ''salsa'' music or any other music where I live. It's not only because of my land but because my neighbors are educated and prosperous. The dregs of society are the noisy, the criminal, and the generally unpleasant. My immediate neighbors are coyotes, bear,antelope, mule deer, elk, rabbits, muntain lion, and probably wolves. I've seen all but the last two on my place. The song of the coyotes beats that of any human
) have immediate access to everything ever published without leaving my geriatric paradise. 
