Why, this looks like a job for...
Posted on 04/03/2007 6:15:39 AM PDT by ShadowDancer
Community Sues To Oust 3-Year-Old
Child With Drug-Addict Mom Lives With Grandparents
POSTED: 3:04 pm EDT April 1, 2007
LARGO, Fla. -- A Florida homeowners group wants 3-year-old Kimberly Broffman to take her Big Wheel and hit the road.
They've banded together to oust the toddler from their Tampa-area community, which bans residents under 18.
The child's grandparents, Judie and Jimmy Stottler, admit Kimberly's been living there in violation of homeowners' association rules for three years. They said her mother has a drug problem, and isn't capable of caring for the child.
The grandparents said they live on a fixed income and can't afford to move until they sell their house. So far, there have been no takers to buy their house, even after they lowered the $189,000 asking price by $10,000 six months ago.
They also said they can't afford to hire an attorney.
Judie Stottler supports the family with her $18,000-per year dishwashing job because Jimmy Stottler is disabled and is unable to work.
Judie Stottler's friends told the St. Petersburg Times that they are worried.
"It is so ridiculous that this has gone so far," said Keith Tinsley, a cook who works with her. "She's trying her best to sell her house. It's like they are trying to force her to put Kimberly in foster care.
"These people keep batting her down and batting her down. They're just mean."
Judie Stottler said she is scared that she wil lose her house before she is able to sell it.
"We don't have any family to take us in," Judie Stottler said.
The Lakes homeowners association filed suit to oust Kimberly last month.
Again, I hope your neighbor opens up a used car lot right next door to you and see how you feel then. Iv’e seen it happen before, and it’s not a pretty sight.
Or are you the one with a car up on blocks in your front lawn, and a fridge on your front porch?
LOL! 'Pain in the neck' (or some other choice of anatomy) would describe 99.9% of bureaucracy.
----
What most folks don't understand is what a nightmare this creates for the HOA.
If the HOA allows them to stay, it is in violation of its contract with everybody else because of its failure to enforce the rules about minors living in the community.
Like you stated, getting everyone to agree to a change in the rules is ludicrous, so the HOA has no choice but to enforce its own rules...no matter how swiftly some people want to label it as a 'heartless' act.
You're reaching here...you're trying to equate involuntary servitude, pre-civil war, which was legally muddled by definition...with a clear contract, freely entered into.
That has some sway with some, I suppose.
Slaves such as Scott, were all bought and traded under “clear contracts freely entered into”. Such a high standard you have! (not)
Mandatory homeowners’ associations should be banned.
Ban children!
Slaughter everyone under 55!
Oh, please. A child is a party to the contract as both natural and common law state what you create, you have a right to control.
A child is a creation of its parents, thus they have legal control of the minor until he/she reaches his/her age of majority.
-----
it was natural law, as the folks in the fighting to stop that improper contract knew.
ROFLMAO!
A contradiction in terms, sir, as natural law does NOT operate under the auspices of might makes right.
They have to find their own cheese (I think my sister has some...)
Why, this looks like a job for...
HEY! I draws the line when yuh bad mouths muh Goat and muh beer cooler!
For what purpose does G-d grant a person any mightiness whatsoever? To uphold wrong?
Oh, good grief.
I'll no longer attempt to engage you in a battle of wits...
you're obviously unarmed.
-----
Good day
When I was four, some Grampa took my stick away from me and hit me with it. I wanted to cry, but the HOA had a “no-crying” clause.
He never found out about my other stick . . .
Try not to kick to death any babies on your way out the door, Mama.
Aw, c’mon, a wee bit of going over the top can be fun ...
Of course not. Our mightiness is one of spirit. The ability to use logic and reason and show someone the error of their ways so that they may, of their own free will, change their actions.
-----
To have someone change their actions by use of force is nothing more than robbing that person of their free will, or 'right of conscience', as the Founders referred to it.
Just because you can't get someone to agree fast enough to suit you doesn't give you the legitimate authority to usurp their rights.
-----
That's just what the people in this story are doing. They are usurping the rights of their neighbors by forcing them to accept their granddaughter.
That is something they have NO right to do.
Attempting to shame the HOA. They should know you can’t shame the shameless.
Home Owners associations are a crock of crap and a bunch of commies run them.
Or maybe prospective buyers saw that toddler and figured the place would be overrun with kids before long? Or, perhaps the grandparents purposely priced their home out of the market to avoid moving?
If an HOA can’t discriminate on race, gender, religion, etc., how can they discriminate based on age? Is there judicial precedent for this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.