Community Sues To Oust 3-Year-Old

Thank you for adding additional factual information into the thread.

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.

Men are not as good as their word. Sometimes they are and sometimes they ain't. That's why throughout history -- thousands and thousands of years of recorded human history, my friend -- we have institutions called governments, that are instituted between men to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR CHILDREN.

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!

That is blather. Wake up. These people signed an agreement to live in a community of adults. That was a free choice. Now they want to change the rules and force the other free people who made the same agreement to live with a child. They have choices and can make one to move where their child will be welcome.

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.

There are no adults without children. We ALL need children. Supporting children is a social necessity that goes beyond the confines of the immediate family.

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.

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.

"There are no adults without children. We ALL need children. Supporting children is a social necessity that goes beyond the confines of the immediate family."

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.

Senior housing where it is part of a non-age restricted community is okay, when it is part of providing for the special needs of seniors disabled or made prey simply because of their age. Here that is not the case. The community is age-restricted and is so order to "drop out" of greater community. In order to live apart, in what in saner and less selfish, me-me-me eras, would be their ripe age of wisdom. The kind of wisdom that would help keep young wombs empty until they have a good male mate in a long-term committed relationship.

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.