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.
More drunks and potheads over fifty? I believe it. In the rent a mobs outside of Lockheed-Martin in Eagan MN, or at Summit and Snelling in St. Paul. They must be on George Soros’ payroll.
Many posters seem to be entirely ignorant of property laws.
One of my elderly relatives owns many acres of property, and a very modest single family home, in the panhandle area.
Her only living son does not have the financial resources to afford to keep his “inheritance” and retain the property that has been “owned” by his family for well over 100 years.
No HOA is involved in this situation, but it is a fact of life for many native Floridians.
It is these institutions called governments by which in establishing Justice we set up courts, criminal codes, advocates and prosecutors, police, fines, collectors and jails, without all of which contracts could not be enforced.
How like a fool you speak so carelessly of socialism! Socialism and communism are the great evils of the last century and have left hundreds of millions dead as a legacy to their effect.
Society is not socialism! Without the *social* constraints of criminal law, commercial regulation and behavioral codes, standards of weights and measure, standards of legal wording and terminology, common understandings of implicit and common contractual terms -- for not every detail, nuance, and happenstance can or should be anticipated in the wording of a contract -- we devolve to anarchy and anarchy is followed quickly by tyranny -- see France's modern history -- or a total collapse of civilization as once occurred to long ago in Van Damien's Land (Tasmania), and the humans there regressed into a state near animals, wandering naked and having almost no remaining ability to make tools -- or even to sustain a language.
But there is a quicker death wish for a group of humans then that achieved by socialism, communism, anarchy, tyranny, social dissolution and primal animalistic regression.
Even the near-beast humans in Tasmania cared for their children.
But your vile idea of "proper behavior for adults" would have us callously and idiotically (Darwin Award Category idiotic) ignore them, toss them away -- toss them out of any "Proper Adult" nest "Grow wings, damn it!".
Without children, why have laws? In that sense you ARE right. Why bother!
Let's have fun as "Proper Adults" in our age-restricted, gated havens where we can agree between adults to any behavior whatsoever -- just as long as it doesn't result in *children*. And when we die. Who cares?
The world ends.
NO CHILDREN!
I don't need a history lesson and I don't need you drooling on and on about what governments are supposed to do and quoting the Declaration for G-d's sake. They signed a deal and now want to change it. It isn't fair and they should move. You should grow up.
You had a garbage can top!!!!!!
(I hate rich kids)
***
Well, it wasn’t ours, exactly. It was rent to own, but we only had 47 payments left.
The Founders, in the wisdom of their generation knew this. The Preamble to the Constitution ends with "For the Children". This is not babble. It is a a basic, primal, fundamental social concept, a necessity.
No contract, no agreement, within the scope of a healthy society can be legitimate which places harms the children as a class.
Strictly age-restricted communities do so -- they are by that very age-restriction, harmful to children. Why? Because we always will have orphans -- children who lose their parents and are left to the care of grandparents. Because sometimes older couple do have children. Because for an older couple to adopt or take into foster care a child, an older child, is a great social virtue.
"Our Posterity" means our children, those who inherit from and follow after us.
Senior housing is perfectly acceptable. And homeowner associations are free to also simply create restrictions such as “no bikes in driveway/on property, no swing sets, no toys in view, etc. They’re kid-unfriendly and, therefore, families with kids don’t move there.
In this case, people moved there expecting such restrictions to be enforced. That family has a lot of onions expecting the rules to be changed for THEM, and then for the other brats that would follow. Give me a break.
Listen to me, you're talking nonsense. There are lots of people who, having reached an age where they want some peace and quiet, choose to live in an adults only community. These people themselves made that choice. Now they want to cancel that choice that their neighbors made. Nothing else matters. They made a contract and have to abide by it. If they want or choose to raise a 3 year-old, they have to live somewhere else.
This is easy. It's not a moral question, it's a money question. Their daughter, the junkie, has cost them some money. They have to sell and move. If they have to do so at a loss, that's the price they incur for rescuing their granddaughter from her junkie mom.
These people want to do the right thing by their granddaughter by screwing their neighbors. It isn't fair and any honest person can see that.
Bookmarked for later comment
When, however, we entertain such folly and selfishness as a culture we end up with a young generation empty of any passed-down wisdom and prone to the traps of fertile, beautiful and whimsical youth. Our condition then worsens further as a generation of fatherless bastards is birthed by those abandoned by the old, and thus lacking the benefit of the wisdom of years.
And gee, 50 years more or less since this experiment in age-restricted communities began, we have a huge percentage of bastard children.
Thus, in this particular case, in this particularly vile community we have one three year old innocent but bastard girl-child. And she is better then all the thousands of them, and there billions in equity, for they have discarded their souls and hearts and all wisdom to chase selfish anti-social "comfort" and the "pleasures" of an indolent retirement.
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.