|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2019 14:14:57 GMT -5
What makes this covenant (Question 2) ugly?
It states that if an owner who is over 55 marries a person Under 55, then when the over 55 owner dies, the underaged partner can be evicted. The Covenants states that this is conditioned on its having met its capacity for Occupants under 55. This standard, of course, is a moving target and completely capricious. It is unverifiable by owners. There is no standard set as to "capacity".
It invokes Chapter 760 which is the housing discrimination act as "in accordance with" to validate the covenant, however, I did not see anything about an underaged occupancy capacity in FL760. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
It also prohibits children under 18 from being allowed to be a permanent occupant, which in Question ONE is defined as 60 day occupancy in a 1 yr period. If Question ONE is not affirmed, this provision has no meaning, since it is Question ONE that defines a Permanent Occupant.
Take a moment and think about this covenant and what it does. If YOU had grandchildren and they were catastrophically orphaned or otherwise could no longer be in the custody of the parents, you could would be prohibited by the covenants to have them live with you in S-bag. This situation happens much more frequently in this day when one or both parents are absent or too ill to care for their children. Would YOU want your neighbors to deny you the right to provide custodial care to your grandchild? Would YOU want to take the HOA to court and file an HOA housing complaint? Is that how you envisioned spending your resources in your golden years?
Just ugly.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jan 19, 2019 23:16:51 GMT -5
Funny you should bring this up. The proposed covenant change described in Question 2 is something I have been ruminatng about for two weeks now. Last week I had an impromptu meeting with Chap. Among the questions I had regarding the proposed changes to the covenants was "Why are we proposing to be more restrictive than what is required by HUD". The Housing For Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA) permits an exemption to the housing discrimination prohibitions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act for "over 55" communities. In order to qualify for the exemption "At least 80% of the units must be occupied by at least one resident over the age of 55" That means that up to 20% of the units are not required to have anyone in the household over 55. But the proposed covenant change would require ALL units in S-bag to have at least one permanent resident over 55. As such, the proposed covenant change would make S-bag more age restricted than HUD requires. In a previous post, I have expressed my discomfort with S-bag's age restriction. I believe that the more we seniors separate ourselves from the community-at-large the more vulnerable we become to the politicians who portray us as "greedy geezers" for the purpose of rallying support for major cuts to Medicare and Social Security. This was at the top of the list of entitlement reforms proposed by House Speaker Paul Ryan and other deficit reduction hawks. As many of you know, I was in municipal government for over 32 years. During my tenure, I witnessed many public hearings over the proposed location of a group home (officially known as a Community Based Residential Facility, or, CBRF) in a residential neighborhood. Now, I can understand the neighbors' alarm over a proposed halfway house for paroled felons but what I wasn't prepared for was opposition to a CBRF for the elderly. I was shocked to hear comments like " If this home is put in our neighborhood, we will constantly be woken up by paramedic vehicles responding to medical emergencies". Even some of the City Council members complained that the presence of elderly CBRF's would cause property taxes to rise due to overtime costs related to increased paramedic calls. Again, the more we isolate ourselves from the community-at-large, the easier it will be for these myths to become commonly accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2019 12:26:23 GMT -5
jimherbst: "What was Chap's answer to your question?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2019 16:14:57 GMT -5
Question 2 "Over 55+" needs to die.
I hope that the people in S-bag are not as mean-spirited and greedy as the creators of this proposal are.
S-bag already has an over 55 provision; a provision that is in accordance with the current HOPA guidelines and has caused no problems since 1989. Leave it be.
The law, as it now stands, allows flexibility in maintaining a senior community without adding a new, untested, overreaching restriction that has no quantifiable guidelines to CAPACITY. The 20% allowance to 55 was legislatively intended to be a cushion that is reasonable for allowing residence by surviving young spouses and children. S-bag, having written 2 pages of new definitions in Question One, failed to include a clear definition of "capacity". Thus, there is no understandable way for anyone to observe the covenant. "Capacity" means whatever the board du jour wants it to mean. If you are not one of the favored ones, S-bag will always be "to capacity" and there is no way to verify what capacity IS because there is no definition. If a 17 yr old grandchild comes to live in the home and take care of her fragile grandparent, they will have to go and the fragile member will have to leave the community because they need care to live independently. If a younger surviving spouse wants to continue to live in the community, she will receive eviction papers and likely take S-bag to court.
That opens the door to a nasty HUD lawsuit. Homeowners can file a HUD complaint online and need spend nothing on a lawyer. Federal HUD lawyers will be the entity representing an aggrieved homeowner and it will be ALL the OWNERS fighting a federal government entity with YOUR assessment dollars. If HUD decides that SLohA needs to be punished and put under a Consent Order, it will be the owners who pay. With your special assessment provided under another question on your ballot. (That will be separately addressed but in essence it gives the board unlimited authority to assess and lien owners for EVERYTHING.)
Over 55+ is already a done deal in S-bag. This mean-spirited and ambiguous excess is unnecessary and risky. Giving the board, management company and its lawyers more reasons to deny owners the constitutional right to enjoy their property and care for families is over-reaching and BEGS for divisiveness and expensive lawsuits in the future. Who benefits? The management company with its cut of referral fees to the attorney's--and the ATTORNEYS. What Question 2 does is to create and environment of opportunities for these players to enrich themselves at the expense of a quiet peaceful neighborhood. Ask yourself what you are getting in exchange for constant bickering and legal fees among neighbors.
Please look beyond the words. This is peoples' lives and problems of life that most of us will be confronted with someday. It reflects a value of putting property over people to adopt this degree of control.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jan 20, 2019 16:26:02 GMT -5
Chap acknowledged that the proposed covenant is stricter than what the HOPA law requires but said "that's what they want". I didn't pursue whom he meant by "they" because I wanted to move on to my questions about other proposed covenant changes and I was aware that he needed to get back to his work schedule.
|
|
