Adults Only: Discriminatory?

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Sometime back in the 90's, legislation was passed that made it illegal for landlords, or realtors to "discriminate" against families, specifically people with children.

Prior to that legislation, a landlord, for instance, could rent to "adults only" in a particular building. That's no longer the case.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I don't like kids, but I can understand why some people might prefer to live in a building or neighborhood that's restricted to adults.

How about senior citizens? When it comes to raising kids, they've already been there and done that, and except for the occasional visit from grandchildren, they'd just like to have some peace and quiet. Why shouldn't they be able to have that option?

Speaking of senior citizens, are retirement communities being "discrimatory?"

Or how about younger adult singles? If they'd rather not be around people with kids, shouldn't they be able to make that choice?

Wouldn't people who have children prefer to be around other people with children anyway, so their kids would have someone to play with?

I'm just not sure why the wishes of one particular group are allowed to override the wishes of another.

What are your thoughts/opinions?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,005 • Replies: 17

No top replies

Quote:

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) clearly states that if other criteria are satisfied, a community qualifies as a senior community so long as 80 percent of the homes are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older (42 USC §3607(b)(2)(C)).

http://www2.ceb.ucop.edu/newsletterv7/Est_plan.htm

That is how it works in my area. Children under 18 are permitted to visit for only 30 days a year, but that might be my homeowner's association rules.

Theoretically, an 18 year old could live with a relative over 55 in this town.
When we bought the house, we had to show proof of age. We had an interesting scenario once. There was an unmarried couple living in our neighborhood. They owned the house jointly. He was over 55, she was in her early fifties. They split up, and he sold his part of the house to her. She was "grandfathered" in, under the 20% rule.

I think that people have the right to live in the type of neighborhood that they want. If a builder wants adults in his apartment building, one of the ways to do it is to only build studio and one bedroom apartments. That would not be attractive to most families.

I enjoy not having to listen to kids running around screaming. Been there, done that. If I want to see kids, (and I do find that refreshing, once in awhile) I just have to drive a few miles to the next town, and go to the mall. Then I see enough kids to last me for awhile!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I think that people have the right to live in the type of neighborhood that they want.

See, that's where I start wincing, though.

A neighborhood free of black people?

Free of gay people?

Free of people with disabilities?

I don't think it's an absolute right. I'm not sure what I think about this particular case.

0 Replies

There are several communities going up in our neck of the woods that have a separate section for over 55's. They are mixed communities of single family, townhomes and condo's with a designated townhome section that requires that one member be over 55 and anyone under 55 has to be that persons spouse.

There is a national builder becoming quite popular for this in planned communities. He has developed three such communities in our general area. One just getting started will even have a separate clubhouse and activities director for that group. I asked how they got by with doing that and they said there are ways around it, without giving me the specifics I wanted.

0 Replies

Many communties, even older trailer parks, in Florida have 55+ age ownership/habitation requirements. I always thought it was discriminatory because it prohibits younger people from making the investment and seeing appreciation.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Many communties, even older trailer parks, in Florida have 55+ age ownership/habitation requirements. I always thought it was discriminatory because it prohibits younger people from making the investment and seeing appreciation.

I don't know about all Florida communities, but in mine, only one person OCCUPYING the house needs to be over 55. The house can be owned by a person younger than 55. So a younger person can buy a house here, which he can rent out until he retires, let it appreciate, and then sell it, (not very likely in today's market), or have grandma come to live with him.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I think that people have the right to live in the type of neighborhood that they want.

See, that's where I start wincing, though.

A neighborhood free of black people?

Free of gay people?

Free of people with disabilities?

I don't think it's an absolute right. I'm not sure what I think about this particular case.

I can see where that remark might stand the hair on the back of your head. But in truth, people have a concept of the place that they want to live, and that concept may just attract certain people, and not others.

It is done informally all the time, by the nature of the neighborhood. How many blue collar people do you know who own houses on Park Avenue in New York?

If you don't want to mix with gay people, you avoid certain parts of San Francisco, Key West or Greenwich Village in NY. Nothing sinister about that.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If you don't want to mix with gay people, you avoid certain parts of San Francisco, Key West or Greenwich Village in NY. Nothing sinister about that.[/color][/b]

Or gay bars. For some reason, they tend to be chock full of gays.

0 Replies

if people want to handpick a community, there's always celebration, florida. it's a bit creepy though, like the florescent mauve town in edward scissorhands.

0 Replies

I was wondering yesterday about Celebration, FL.

The plans for the Ideal Small Town had a horrid fascination for me.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

I was wondering yesterday about Celebration, FL.

The plans for the Ideal Small Town had a horrid fascination for me.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is done informally all the time, by the nature of the neighborhood. How many blue collar people do you know who own houses on Park Avenue in New York?

If you don't want to mix with gay people, you avoid certain parts of San Francisco, Key West or Greenwich Village in NY. Nothing sinister about that.

Good point, Phoenix.

0 Replies

There is a difference in spirt between a community for senior citizens and a community that prohibits blacks, gays, Muslims or any other group.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

There is a difference in spirt between a community for senior citizens and a community that prohibits blacks, gays, Muslims or any other group.

Noddy- No one is suggesting that a community has the right to exclude certain groups. That is atrocious, and illegal, although to some extent, it does happen.

Certain neighborhoods attract different groups of people. Some places are more diverse, some homogeneous. People tend to want to live where they are comfortable, so will choose neighborhoods that meet their criteria. Some people want to live with a mixed group of people, others prefer neighbors who are similar to them.

Knowing Manhattan, for instance, you know that just about each area has its own particular demographic. That does not mean someone who is quite dissimilar from the demographic can't live in a particular area. The probability is that he won't choose to.

0 Replies

Yes, I think you're referring to people just naturally gravitating towards a particular neighborhood or community -- rather than any actual restrictions being placed on the area (except, of course, for the Park Avenue reference, which would be determined by finances).

Noddy wrote:

Quote:

There is a difference in spirt between a community for senior citizens and a community that prohibits blacks, gays, Muslims or any other group.

I totally agree. However, laws don't always allow for these subtle distinctions, such as the "spirit" or good intentions behind a particular situation. Laws tend to be more sweeping in nature, i.e., "This is how it's going to be under any and all circumstances."

0 Replies

To deny a community to "kids", in general, is, on the face of it, discriminatory. Therefore against the spirit of the Constitution.

On the other hand, observing what passes for "appropriate public behavior" in many children these days, perhaps some allowances could be made under Government's desire to provide for "domestic tranquility".

Halfback

0 Replies

Stray Cat wrote:

Yes, I think you're referring to people just naturally gravitating towards a particular neighborhood or community -- rather than any actual restrictions being placed on the area (except, of course, for the Park Avenue reference, which would be determined by finances).

Yes, finances are part of that. But, let's look at it another way. A CEO of a big corporation has the funds to live in just about anyplace that he wants. Would that CEO choose an area that is composed mostly of factory workers? Not very likely.

If you are an atheist, would you want to live in an area that is predominantly occupied by Hasidic Jews, or fundamentalist Christians? I doubt it.

Each area has a "flavor" of its own. Some people prefer vanilla, some chocolate, some strawberry. I think that these preferences tend to give each area a particular "style", and attract residents who feel at home with that style.

0 Replies

I agree, Phoenix. Well said.

0 Replies

Adults Only: Discriminatory?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know