|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 17, 2013 19:37:58 GMT -5
Cross-post from AnonNews
September 27, 2013
So if our CC&Rs are expired then we can save money buy not printing those silly Age Survey forms this year. Even though the Office says its "Federal Law", what a joke ! I'm still waiting for the FBI to come get me !
__________________________________________________
55 & older communities are an exception permitted under the Florida's Fair Housing Act FS760.37 (4a). The exemption is called the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) and allows communities to operate as “55 or over” housing. To qualify for this exemption, the following criteria must be met:
1) At least 80% of the units must be occupied by at least one resident over the age of 55;
2) The community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures demonstrating an intent by the housing provider (the association) to provide housing for persons 55 years of age or older; and
3) The housing provider must engage in appropriate age verification procedures that includes a community census from time to time.
The silly Age Survey forms must be completed at renewal time evidencing that at least 80% of the units are occupied by at least one person age 55+.
Question: At least one person 55 or older must reside in at least 80% of the occupied units, so what do you do with the other 20%?
Answer: Anything you want.
On April 1, 1999 the United States Department of House and Urban Development (“HUD “) published Federal Regulations implementing the Housing For Older Persons Act of 1995 (“HOPA”). Basically, HUD does not care how a community handles the 20% “cushion”.
So, SLohA can set any policy it wishes to accommodate the 20% allowable residency of persons under 55 as long as the requirement of 80% is met but, of course, it can only TRY to enforce a restriction on the lots that remain encumbered by its covenants. The Covenants were amended in 1989 without authority to age-restrict, but if cH allenged, would likely be unenforceable. There was NO age restriction in the original CC& R's.
As far as I can see, there is NO tax consequence (advantage) to qualifying as an age-qualified community; registering the community as such only provides legal exception to discrimination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eye Witness Guest on Dec 18, 2013 15:37:35 GMT -5
I didn't know where else to put this and felt this thread would be the best place to start .
Date 12-18-2013 Time 11:55am
I personally observed the SLR White G Maintenance Foreman's P/U West bound on SR60 traveling at over 75mph .
I was behind the truck and driver by less than a mile after I was able to proceed onto SR60 and could not catch up even by speeding up to 85mph* .
When I did catch up to see the S-bag LAKE RESORT logo on the Drivers door and JC wearing a blue shirt and prescription photo grey sunglasses I was sure who was behind the wheel.
The reason for me posting this is that this was on Company time and with a Company employee in a Company truck which SLohA and our liability insurance co. is and are responsible for.
I want to make record of this happening because it is a very dangerous situation to have an employee on the job drive in such a reckless manner with disregard for the speed limit while on the clock in a vehicle displaying our Resort emblem.
* I accept full responsibility for my driving over the limit BUT the difference is that IF an accident had happened all of SLR would be responsible for an employees actions .
This is now a matter of record , my name is known by 3 others in case a future incident were to occur I will be able to provide eye witness testimony to possibly relieve SLohA of financial responsibility of this action as it has been previously noted.
|
|
|
|
Post by An over 55 Guest on Dec 18, 2013 15:56:36 GMT -5
Gosh I don't know where you would logically post such a thing either.
Maybe Madam Admin will put up that new board "IMBECILE OF THE MONTH" and you can nominate JC for tear-assing down SR60 in the middle of the day in SLohA equipment sporting the SLR logo identifying the vehicle.
Is there a brain meltdown going on in the park?
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Dec 18, 2013 16:15:29 GMT -5
Gosh I don't know where you would logically post such a thing either. Maybe Madam Admin will put up that new board " IMBECILE OF THE MONTH" and you can nominate JC for tear-assing down SR60 in the middle of the day in SLohA equipment sporting the SLR logo identifying the vehicle. Is there a brain meltdown going on in the park? The term "brain meltdown" implies first that a brain must be present before it is hence melted. |
|
Central Scrutinizer
Guest
|
Post by Central Scrutinizer on Feb 28, 2014 7:00:01 GMT -5
A week or so ago I saw 2 (two) ladies measuring our sign by SR60 , they were making some sort to template for the lower hanging sign that reads "A 55+ Community" .
I hope we are NOT wasting money on a new 55+ Community sign since we know that doesn't apply .
My best guess is we will spend (waste) the money anyway and the sign committee will claim ignorance as to why the 55+ part is no longer valid .
And the manbod claims we need to increase the budget.........
STOP WASTING OUR MONEY .
Please VOTE NO on the Budget (that is only if manbod produces another flawed ballot)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 6, 2014 6:48:48 GMT -5
Here is an excerpt from an attorney blog:
SLohA's governing documents contain NO such language. The only "restriction" is a Rule. A rule which conflicts with the governing documents is "null and void". While SLohA does the paperwork to qualify as a 55+ community and represents itself as such, it has no governing authority or requirement to impose any age restriction on its occupants.
Going back again to the nature of our community--recreational RV park--what Developer would put such a restriction in its Covenants? SLR governing documents have not been conceptually or functionally constructed for the kind of community it now is. Instead, it has attempted various patchwork fixes to get by, hoping it is not legally called out. And, it is throttled by a Declaration that has no amendatory provision and is (arguably) expired.
In my opinion, this community could save a lot of time, angst and money by voluntarily revitalizing and starting with a fresh set of governing documents--ones that have an attainable amendatory provision-- that reflect current realities and concerns.
What do YOU think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 6, 2014 10:31:12 GMT -5
Per post under Covenants/Legal and Lawyer: the Westwood case decision: Just gotta say--again. SLR is a campground. The Declaration of Covenants permit only recreational vehicles ie movable structures and have no age restrictions. (What Developer in their right mind would limit camping to people over 55 years of age?)
I checked the PUD (Planned Unit Development) on file with Polk County and the designation as a campground has not changed. The only thing that changed was that Polk County permitted manufactured homes of 1200 sq ft or less to be sited on RV lots in 1994. Since the legal hierarchy of superior documents places the SLohA Declaration of Covenants below the Polk County Regulations, SLohA should not be preoccupied with amending an un-amendable Declaration with regard to permitting manufactured homes. Like the Westwood case whose previous age restrictions were superceded by the Fair Housing Act, Polk County's Land Use/Zoning Plan which permits manufactured homes supercedes the restriction to RV's in our Covenants.
However, even though SLohA's housing restriction may have been superceded by Polk County, SLohA still cannot enact or impose any restrictions which are not authorized by the Declaration. In other words, ALL restrictions regarding manufactured homes are Polk County only. (That is what the Petition that was going around was attempting to do--supercede the meaningless SLohA R & R attempting to regulate something beyond its authority and replacing that with Polk County regulations.) SLohA has attorneys that are supposed to help figure these things out. But unfortunately, the Board is too preoccupied trying to capitalize from cramming an internet assessment down Owner's throats. (It's coming around again in a newly-minted form--watch for it!)
SLohA illegally amended the Covenants in 1989 and gave itself the right to age-restrict, but this would surely be struck down if legally cH allenged because the Covenants do not give the Association the right to amend the Declaration. SLR may function as a retirement community and try to represent itself as such, but it is open to all ages. SLohA has no authority to enforce any age restrictions. If a young family comes along and wants to set up house, you can sell and they can buy. This might not be a popular notion, but it is true nonetheless. It just hasn't been tested and proven yet.
SLohA is too preoccupied trying to maintain the status quo that is dissolving daily and avoid doing the right thing about the Covenants breach by K C N. It is not preparing for the future and one day the future will be on its corporate A** (or the individual directors!). SLohA needs the ability to amend covenants and it does not have it. All the protesting in the world or false ballot proposals will not change that and will likely draw legal fire in the future.
The only way to amend the covenants is to shut down this loser "dig your heels in for the good of the community" strategy, revitalize and start over with 2/3 approval. Otherwise, it's gonna fall apart and SLohA will stagnate in lawlessness, liability and lawsuits for the duration.
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Jul 29, 2014 12:44:46 GMT -5
If SLR has always been a RV Park, RV Parks have Kids, so how can SLR put age restrictions in our Documents. Plus how many people can inhabit a lot in SLR?
Just Curious....
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jan 8, 2015 6:21:15 GMT -5
QUESTION: Is it necessary to fill out the 55+ survey since our Covenants are now known to be expired?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2015 8:42:44 GMT -5
Captain JG posted:
This is an interesting question in light of Covenants Expiration and legal cH allenge to the validity of certain amendments purporting to restrict occupancy.
Here is the basic criteria that must be met by a community that wishes to restrict occupancy:
The first sentence of these requirements is "...housing is intended and operated...". How is that criteria defined and satisfied?
Typically, it is satisfied in the Restrictive Covenants which specifically state an intent to restrict age for occupancy. S-bag has no Restrictive Covenants in place at the present time and, indeed, NEVER had an occupancy restriction in the original Covenants which it is now attempting to revitalize.
Additionally, the original Restrictive Covenants have No Amendatory provision and the subsequent amendments purporting to ADD a restrictive covenants will be considered null and void. These documents are currently in litigation.
To my way of thinking, answering the census makes one complicit in misrepresenting the community as one "intended and operated" for age-restricted occupancy".
While the State of Florida does not validate the underlying intention by examining the restrictive documents, it accepts the "word" of the applicant. I do not know who from S-bag has represented it as being lawfully age-restricted but that information is available under the Freedom of Information Act if anyone cares to know.
In an abundance of caution, I would NOT return the census requested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jan 8, 2015 9:06:39 GMT -5
QUESTION: Is it necessary to fill out the 55+ survey since our Covenants are now known to be expired? Thank you Admin for your response. Next Question:
I have been told in the past that IF a vote envelope DOES NOT have the Age Survey completed that the vote is NOT COUNTED. Is there any way to make sure that any ones vote IS COUNTED if the survey is absent from the vote envelope?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2015 12:58:46 GMT -5
I know of no way except a post-ballot cH allenge. Within a certain amount of time following an election, members can cH allenge the outcome with a recount, re-verification etc. If people would be willing to SIGN their ballot, then the signed ballots can be validated on the recount. That is the only way I know of to approach that question.
Any other ideas?
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Jan 9, 2015 0:35:52 GMT -5
I do not see any thing in the Ballot Pkg. that states to put your 55 plus Survey in the Ballot envelope. The Census Report states: All residents are required to fill out this Report and return it to the office with proof of age. It does not have a dead-line, and it does not require a date. This 55+ Community Census Report is a very generic form, lacking a dead-line to return report, and for what year is this Census Report.. One would assume 2015, but it is not stated any place on my copy. Maybe I am missing something.
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Jan 18, 2015 9:43:20 GMT -5
Well Now, What was that about a 55 Community, 55 was another life ago.........
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 17, 2017 19:52:01 GMT -5
Post-Irma questions about S-bag's standing as an over-55+ community: Was power service delayed to an over 55+ community unfairly?
No, this is not a skip in line scenario just because you are elderly.
Here is the skinny on registration with Florida. Florida Commission on Human Relations requires recertification of occupant % status every two years in the form of a certified letter submitted with the renewal fee. The last time I was guided to their website a few months ago, S-bag was listed then as an age-qualified community. This is a matter of public record. It is unknown what date that status expired and if S-bag renewed its qualification but in any case, it would not change the fact that services to S-bag are restored in a triaged fashion by state agencies and responders and not based on age.
There is no preferential treatment to over 55 communities during post-storm disasters. FEMA and state responders act based on need, and when people are wading waste-deep in nasty sewage waters after a surge, the initial response is geared to protect life and get the power grid operating the wastewater system. Resources are not endless and are severely stretched during disasters. Hospitals and nursing homes and any structure housing the most vulnerable will be provided protective services ahead of the more able-bodied.
How lucky are S-bag residents to have the company and support of their friends and neighbors, a safe shelter to stay in, lunches and dinners provided, and lights and air conditioning provided by the generator (until the propane got used up!). Oh and let's not forget the world class internet and phone system that relies on S-bag's power! Anyone needing any medical assistance would have had people available to summon help.
Saddlebaggers should bear in mind that we are members of a private contract community. As such, certain services are not available to Baggers that are available to the public such as direct FEMA public assistance. We have infrastructure and resources available that is not readily or easily available to individuals who are on their own post storm.
If S-bag needed more assistance, the Management company or individuals would have contacted the proper resources to request support. Although it is not comfortable in the heat, there is help nearby if life is threatened. Eight residents of a Nursing Home in Hollywood Florida were not so lucky despite help being nearby. We should be thankful that no one was injured or killed during this storm.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Sept 21, 2017 21:39:33 GMT -5
I came across something interesting recently when, out of curiosity, I researched the appropriate federal guidelines.
First of all, some background: under the Federal Housing For Older Persons Act (HOPA) of 1999, qualified communities for older citizens are exempt from the fair housing rules outlined in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act. In other words certified "Over 55" communities can legally discriminate against persons because of age. Interestingly, however, an Over 55 community may allow up to 20 percent of its residents to be below that age and still qualify for the exemption.
So how does an Over 55 community obtain this HOPA exemption? It must be certified as a HOPA by submitting evidence that at least 80 percent of the households have at least one member over the age of 54.
According to the Federal Register Volume 63, No.64, Section 100.307, paragraph (d) such evidence sH all consist of:
(1) Drivers License
(2) Birth Certificate
(3) Passport
(4) Immigration Card
(5) Military Identification.
(6) Any other local, state, national or international documents containing birth date of comparable reliability, or
(7) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit or any other document signed by any member of the household age 18 or older that
at least one person in the unit is 55years of age or older. [italics supplied]
Clearly, the S-bag BOD was not required to collect and submit copies of drivers licenses. birth certificates, passports, etc. Nor did the BOD have any right to demand such proof from the residents. All the BOD could require is a signed statement by someone in the household over the age of 18 that at least one member of the household is 55 or older.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 22, 2017 13:19:32 GMT -5
Jimherbst posted:
Jm you are absolutely correct. This is a very much misunderstood exemption by owners--even Management Companies, the so-called professionals, do not read the law! I have heard people complain that HOA's Demand Driver Licenses; despite the fact DL's are not required to comply with the exemption and they contain privacy information that can result in identity theft.
The other part that is misunderstood is that this exemption applies to OCCUPANTS--not owners. Thus, when HOA's ask owners for age verification, it is wrong. It must canvas the community of OCCUPANTS! Occupants, especially renters, will probably not eagerly make a special trip to the office to offer an age document; thus, must knock on doors to gather occupant age documentation.
Age documentation should NOT be gathered with election materials because election documents are not offered to renters. SLohA is not alone in not understanding the over-55 exemption and how to comply with it, despite the law being written in plain language.
Would YOU entrust the or board with your private identity information?
I can attest to the trouble that is caused when identity is stolen; I filed my IRS taxes a few years ago and was informed that my taxes had already been filed by another person! I had to jump through hoops--and STILL to this day must validate my identify with the the IRS. I would never EVER give this information to an HOA.
Notwithstanding the above, I do not recognize S-bag as a legitimate over-55 community and will not participate in the deception.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Sept 25, 2017 21:31:28 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse but I seem to recall when I purchased my unit back in 2011, I had to fill out a form provided to me by Shn which requested several pieces of information - including my age. I understand that, under the federal guidelines, HOPA communities must re-certify every two years. But why do owners who had filled out the aforementioned form at the time of purchase have to show their age every two years? Is management under the belief that, like Benjamin Buttons, we are aging backwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 26, 2017 13:44:10 GMT -5
I think this is because this is about OCCUPANTS, not owners. The community needs to canvas occupancy every two years. Occupancy verification is a whole separate thing from ownership age.
You did not have to present any age evidence to S-bag upon purchase. I did not prove my age when I bought nor would I have, if asked. I did fill out their survey in 2012 (I think) but that is because I didn't know then what I now know.
I still hear of owners telling others that people cannot live here unless they are 55, which is sadly misinformed. Maybe the horse needs to be beat so that the leaders here "get it".
|
|
