At a time in history where it seems someone is always offended about something, it seems a little peculiar that children under age 18 can be legally excluded from moving into a community and everyone is apparently OK with it. I mean, think about it…………. Let’s say it’s both a “55 and over community” and a “no pets” community. If the owner gets a doctor’s note, their dog gets to move in, but the child can still be prevented from moving in. Does that bother or offend anyone?
It gets worse. Rules promulgated by the Obama Administration now make it almost impossible to ban convicted felons from your community. But in a 55 and over community, you can still ban the 17 year old valedictorian who just graduated from the local high school. Sound ridiculous?
If the law allows community associations to exclude children under 18 if there is at least one occupant age 55 or over in 80% of the units, would it be legal to create a reverse 55 and over community? Suppose the law allowed all persons age 55 and over to be banned from the community as long as 80% of the units were occupied by someone age 18 or younger? Instead of being allowed to move into a community when you turn 18, once you turn 55 you have to move out.
Would that be legal? Does that seem like a place you would want to move to? To those that are 55 or over, does such a community offend you? Do you have a right to be offended, especially if you live in a 55 and over community?
Maybe it’s because I love kids, but it seems that if children under a certain age can be precluded from moving into a community, it’s not so crazy to think that persons above a certain age can be precluded too. Are age restricted communities a good idea? Why is it OK for elderly people to legally say that they only want to live with other elderly people but not OK for younger people to say they only want to live with younger people? Thoughts?