Senior community/kids situation (possible trigger!)

[BakersDozen]

I'm curious to know what the Hive thinks of a situation that is being played out where I live. The basic facts (which could be a trigger for some due to how the kid lost his parents...I apologize!) are:

1. 15yob loses his mom to cancer and his dad to suicide last year within a 2-week time span.
2. Grandparents, who live in 55+ community, take grandson .
3. Grandparents have been given notice that grandson cannot stay with them per HOA/community rules.
4. HOA has given family until June (I believe) to sell/move. I believe grandson has been there since October/November? Possibly before that...

The community where I live is rather small and this situation is really causing a lot of drama and ugliness.

What would you think about the situation? Is the HOA to blame? Should the grandson be allowed to stay indefinitely if the residents vote on it? Should the grandparents have just moved instead of bringing this to the center of the community's attention? Should the grandparents demand their HOA money back? Or sue? Should the HOA be responsible for helping the family move? Should we do away with HOAs and segregated communities altogether? (These are not my own questions rather a few of the many ideas/opinions being thrown around.)


 

[moonflower]

Presumably the grandparents bought a house in this community because they didn't want to live around kids.  Now that they do want to live around kids (that is, their own grandkid), they shoul move to a community that allows kids.

Generally I think community segregation like this is silly but if they signed onto it in the first place and are only complaining now because they realize there is a value in a non-age-segregated community, the burden is on them to move somewhere where people share the same beliefs.

[Shoeless]

The compassionate thing would be to allow the young man to live there until he was 18 and off to college.  It's a pretty unusual circumstance. 😞 

[Ausmumof3]

Unless he’s racketing around dealing drugs or something I can’t understand the lack of compassion.  However I’m not overly familiar with laws and culture there over these kind of things.

[Ausmumof3]

I guess the only thing i just thought of is if there’s a convicted sex offender there who isn’t allowed in a certain proximity of a kids dwelling or something.  Horrible thought though it is.

[BakersDozen]

Quote

But what a merciless group to turn this young man’s horror into a melodrama. 

Is it the group or the grandparents, though, who turned the kid's horror into a melodrama? (Again, not my question, taking from comments/arguments I'm following.) This was not known until the grandparents went to the media and had their grandson interviewed along with them. One guy used the word "exploit" for what the grandparents did...was he off base?

 

Quote

The compassionate thing would be to allow the young man to live there until he was 18 and off to college.  It's a pretty unusual circumstance.

This suggestion has been made repeatedly but a few are saying that this might set a precedent and where does it stop? 3-year old twins next month whose parents are gone? A 9-year old girl? Could allowing the young man to stay create huge ethical/legal issues in the future?

[moonflower]

It would be the compassionate thing, but it would set a precedent that I can understand the rest of the senior community not wanting to set, and in some cases if an HOA doesn't enforce its laws then it loses the right to enforce them. 

The simple truth is that the grandparents wanted to live in a community without teenagers, kids, babies, families - until they needed to take care of their kid. 

[Liz CA]

If I was a senior living there I would rather that the young boy gets raised in a stable environment at his grandparents' house than quibble about the HOA laws. Sure, there is the precedent thing but how many times does a kid lose both parents? I can see both sides of this issue but since I am not a fan of living segregated from all other age groups, I would not care.  Seniors that moved there to not be subjected to younger people will likely be upset. My personal view is just that the wellbeing of this traumatized young boy is paramount to my insisting on the HOA guidelines. Some kind of hardship clause (would have to be defined somehow of course and this would likely cause more strife) may be something to consider if the HOA wants to be more flexible.

[EmseB]

In the grandparents' position I would have been looking for a place to move as soon as I took in the grandkid. I would expect 6 months, maybe as much as a year, of being allowed to stay in the community with a teenager in those circumstances, but not permanently.

[Jean in Newcastle]

If the grandson has been there since October or November and they have until June, then they have been given over six months to find a new place. That seems like the HOA is  being flexible right there. 

[gardenmom5]

By giving them until June - it sounds like the HOA is trying to be generous within the rules.  People who live there want to live in a community of older adults, they have that right.  To suggest the HOA be disbanded because they want to enforce this rule sounds very self-serving.

I would imagine if they are making good faith efforts to find - and get into - new accommodations before June, the HOA would be more willing to work with them. Have they started looking?    The HOA does have their rules on their side - and the grandparents signed those rules when they moved in.

do they own or do they rent?  if they own, can they rent for a few years until their grandson reaches college age?

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, BakersDozen said:

Is it the group or the grandparents, though, who turned the kid's horror into a melodrama? (Again, not my question, taking from comments/arguments I'm following.) This was not known until the grandparents went to the media and had their grandson interviewed along with them. One guy used the word "exploit" for what the grandparents did...was he off base?

 

This suggestion has been made repeatedly but a few are saying that this might set a precedent and where does it stop? 3-year old twins next month whose parents are gone? A 9-year old girl? Could allowing the young man to stay create huge ethical/legal issues in the future?

the grandparents going to the media to try to guilt the HOA into letting them stay - is exploitation.  they're *using their grandson* in trying to get the wider community to guilt the HOA into allowing them to get their way - against the very HOA rules they supported when they moved there - to allow their grandson to stay.  when I read they did that - they lost my support and sympathy. 

I'm sorry for this teen to lose both parents - but before their deaths - the grandparents were happy to live in a community where other older adults didn't want children living their permanently.  

forcing them to make an exception- does present the problem of disallowing the HOA to enforce their own rules.  the way some hoas are set up, making an exception becomes the new rule.   the proverbial camel's toe in the tent.

[BakersDozen]

Quote

do they own or do they rent?  if they own, can they rent for a few years until their grandson reaches college age?

They own the home.

[Chris in VA]

Is it just a Senior community and not one of those step-up in care kind of communities, where you can go from independent living to assisted to full-time nursing? I think they are being pretty flexible. I assume they gave til June so the child wouldn't have to change schools again. 

 

[Shoeless]

2 hours ago, BakersDozen said:

This suggestion has been made repeatedly but a few are saying that this might set a precedent and where does it stop? 3-year old twins next month whose parents are gone? A 9-year old girl? Could allowing the young man to stay create huge ethical/legal issues in the future?

Could they put this up for a vote in the community?  

 

[easypeasy]

First, poor kid and poor grandparents who have also lost a child and in-law child. What a set of tragedies. 😕

Second, I wouldn't assume that all/most people living in a retirement community live there primarily because they want to live in a child-free setting. My parents considered such a place when my mother was having health problems because the houses were specifically built for people with mobility issues (Wide doorways and driveway, etc). There was a very nice clubhouse and emergency staff nearby at the retirement center that was also on the grounds of the neighborhood. The lack of kids, for my parents at least, was just a side-effect of living in a retirement community. (Eventually this one opened up to families as well if at least one parent/child had mobility issues or similar health issue). 

With that said, hopefully the grandparents could rent out their current home while they move elsewhere for a few years if an exception cannot be made in this case. 

In an ideal world, the community could vote and so long as the kid wasn't a little punk, he could live there for the next three years so that he would have a stable household situation with lots of neighbors looking out for him. 

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, BakersDozen said:

They own the home.

there are a number of different styles of senior communities.  can they rent their house or do they have to sell it?  (hoas can have limits on percentage of owned vs rented properties.)

[historically accurate]

My brother and sister in law had to choose their second choice family members to be put in the will as guardians because her mom (their first choice) lived in senior housing and wouldn't have been able to have the children move in with her. It sounds like in this (completely horrible) situation, the HOA has given quite a bit of time to make a housing change, so I think it's on the grandparents to move. 

I live in a mobile home park; we specifically bought into this one instead of the other one since the other has a limit on the number of children per house (our current one has a square footage limit per person). I was pregnant with #2 when we bought, and 2 children was the limit at the park. I assumed I was done, but who knows what my feelings would be further down the road. We did end up with 3 kids, and yes, we would've had to move out if we had bought into that park. Now, all that said, our park is marketed as a 55+ community, but it's not a requirement to live here. So, we try to be respectful of the fact that many of the residents do not enjoy kid noise/teen snark. If their situation is no one under 18 or 55 or whatever, the grandparents should respect that. In my opinion, it sucks no matter how you look at it, but their circumstances have changed, and unfortunately, they need to adjust their living situation.

[Pawz4me]

It's a tough situation all around, and I have sympathy for both sides.

[Bambam]

7 hours ago, Liz CA said:

If I was a senior living there I would rather that the young boy gets raised in a stable environment at his grandparents' house than quibble about the HOA laws. Sure, there is the precedent thing but how many times does a kid lose both parents? 

I see more and more of the folks here who end up with guardianship of their grandchildren and end up raising them. Not because both parents are dead - but because both parents will not/cannot raise their own children - sometimes parents give their kids to grandparents, sometimes state takes them away, etc. So, at least here, I see this being a regular thing. There are at least 3 families in our small congregation who are in this situation.  So, I don't think the situation of grandparents suddenly welcoming children into their household as being unusual. 

[alisoncooks]

It's a terrible situation, but I think they should move. The community shouldn't have to change to fit this one family's new needs. And I agree that it could become a slippery slope. 

[Valley Girl]

When  you buy into a 55+ community, you are doing so in full knowledge of and agreement with the rules. You've probably paid a premium to live in such a community. Presumably you LIKE and SUPPORT the stipulation that there are no kids. (It's not a community I'd want to live in though I have family who have chosen that option.)

This particular case is, of course, a very sad situation. I'm not generally a fan of HOA, but it sounds as though this one has given the grandparents a lot of time to find other options. And chances are, it would continue to work with them if they needed an extra month or two beyond June, assuming the house was up for sale. The thing is, if they bend the rules for this family--and that's a MAJOR rule to bend--what about the next set of special circumstances? Because there are all kinds of reasons grandparents end up being the primary caregivers of grandchildren. Lots of them are heartbreaking. But the other residents deserve consideration, too.

Fact is, sometimes life sucks.

ETA: I just reread the OP. My answers to the questions are in italics.

What would you think about the situation? See above. Is the HOA to blame? No. Residents agree to the rules. The HOA is enforcing the agreement the grandparents voluntarily made. Should the grandson be allowed to stay indefinitely if the residents vote on it? A vote would likely not be able to be made for one situation. They residents would probably have to change the "no kids" rule so that it applied equally. That would change the nature of the community and possibly have some repercussions if it's subsidized or something. Should the grandparents have just moved instead of bringing this to the center of the community's attention? Yes. Should the grandparents demand their HOA money back? No. They have been benefitting from the services their dues provided (grass-cutting, snow shoveling, etc.) Or sue? On what grounds? They agreed to the terms. Should the HOA be responsible for helping the family move? The HOA sounds like it's being generous with time. They (i.e. the other residents who pay dues) don't need to foot the bill. Should we do away with HOAs and segregated communities altogether? That's a whole 'nother discussion!

 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Valley Girl

[vonfirmath]

8 hours ago, BakersDozen said:

I'm curious to know what the Hive thinks of a situation that is being played out where I live. The basic facts (which could be a trigger for some due to how the kid lost his parents...I apologize!) are:

1. 15yob loses his mom to cancer and his dad to suicide last year within a 2-week time span.
2. Grandparents, who live in 55+ community, take grandson .
3. Grandparents have been given notice that grandson cannot stay with them per HOA/community rules.
4. HOA has given family until June (I believe) to sell/move. I believe grandson has been there since October/November? Possibly before that...

The community where I live is rather small and this situation is really causing a lot of drama and ugliness.

What would you think about the situation? Is the HOA to blame? Should the grandson be allowed to stay indefinitely if the residents vote on it? Should the grandparents have just moved instead of bringing this to the center of the community's attention? Should the grandparents demand their HOA money back? Or sue? Should the HOA be responsible for helping the family move? Should we do away with HOAs and segregated communities altogether? (These are not my own questions rather a few of the many ideas/opinions being thrown around.)


 

 

My in-laws live in a community that no one under a certain age is allowed to live there.  They were aware of the rules when they purchased there.  The age used to be a bit younger and a couple where the wife was a bit younger got pregnant and had to move since the baby was not allowed.  It did not become a big fight or anything. They just moved. Their baby was more important than living in the community.

 

PS we have gone to visit them several times, with our kids. Sometimes staying with them and sometimes in a hotel.  Kids are allowed to visit and everyone seemed to love them the year we went to the community Thanksgiving dinner.  Kids are NOT allowed on the amenities without a resident along (And there are only specific hours kids are allowed in the pool, etc).

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by vonfirmath

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Bambam said:

I see more and more of the folks here who end up with guardianship of their grandchildren and end up raising them. Not because both parents are dead - but because both parents will not/cannot raise their own children - sometimes parents give their kids to grandparents, sometimes state takes them away, etc. So, at least here, I see this being a regular thing. There are at least 3 families in our small congregation who are in this situation.  So, I don't think the situation of grandparents suddenly welcoming children into their household as being unusual. 

We have that situation here too.  Pne of my friends got guardianship when her daughter died after her husband died.  They are in the late 70's with twin girls in their teens.  The others had to take their granddaughter because mom has serious mental health issues and is in a mental health hospital in another state and also, because of that, who knows who the Dad was? 

[Liz CA]

32 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I've had students almost every year of teaching who live with grandparents, or great aunts or uncles or other relatives. 

I think the line here can get fuzzy quickly.  Do we say only kids who are orphaned?  What if the parent is alive but too ill to parent?  What if they've been removed by CPS?  

What about adult children?  Can you move in your daughter with cancer?  Your son with ID?  Your adult child with addiction or mental illness?  

But on the other hand, as I said in my area senior housing if often cheaper than other options.  This family may be caught between a rock and a hard place. 

 

This is exactly what I meant by stipulating and now it gets tricky because people will say "why do you think your circumstances warrant special treatment and mine don't? And all the situations you listed here are a form of crisis - some in need of long-term assistance.

OP asked  "should we do away with HOA?" I would not miss them - but this is just my 5 cents.

[Sherry in OH]

The HOA sending a letter means other residents have complained and asked the HOA to enforce its covenants.   A vote of the community is unlikely to go the way the grandparents want.  One of the key selling points of 55+ communities is that no children or younger adults live in them.  One family's tragedy isn't likely to sway most of the residents into wanting to open their community to families.  (The vote would not be allow this one child, it would be to allow children in general.  Allowing one child and not others would be asking for a discrimination lawsuit.)

The grandparents could seek legal advice regarding whether or not the HOA is violating housing laws, but it probably isn't.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

HOAs are disclosed before someone chooses to buy in a neighborhood that has one. And this particular HOA was built around a specific premise (55+) which is why a lot of people chose to live there in the first place. 

[lauraw4321]

Generally these restrictions run with the land and are only enforceable if they are enforced universally. If the HOA doesn’t enforce, it risks losing the restriction entirely and being liable to the other homeowners for failing to enforce the covenants. It’s a tragedy, but the law isn’t forgiving in this circumstance. 

[SanDiegoMom]

That's unfortunate -- I have read of other 55+ that have exceptions for if the grandparents have to raise a grandchild -- the rules over all were a lot more forgiving.  If I were in that situation I probably would make one attempt to ask for an exception to be voted on, just to try.   It's worth a shot. And then just be prepared to move. That's a bummer though. 

[ashfern]

This isn't the first story like this that I've heard about. My ILs moved into a 55+ community. The community caters to that age group with activities geared to their interests. I know of some communities where you can only have guests for a certain total amount of time each year and others where you can only have guests during the same time frame as the rest of the community. I don't know how they skirt around the anti-age and anti-family discrimination in the housing laws.

My grandfather always said that being around young people kept him young. The area that we just moved from had a bunch of "active adult" aka 55+ communities. Some of the people who lived there were rude when they were in the wider community expecting everyone to cater to their requirement of no kids.

[gardenmom5]

51 minutes ago, Sherry in OH said:

 

The grandparents could seek legal advice regarding whether or not the HOA is violating housing laws, but it probably isn't.  

it might benefit the grandparents to talk to a lawyer - who could give them a reality check.  most lawyers would see the grandparents had the rules presented to them  up front, they knew the rules - and are only complaining when their circumstances changed. no lawyer worth their salt would take the case as it would be a waste of their time and they're not getting a payout.

the grandparents would do better to spend their time getting their house on the market and looking for a new residence..  I'm sure the HOA would have been more willing to fudge departure date if they were showing good faith efforts to move - but now - the grandparents are burning bridges.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Seasider too said:

Heavy sigh. Yes, of course y’all are right about asking for special considerations after you’ve already engaged the rules. The HOA did allow the exception for a time, and didn’t require a school-year move. The INTJ in me sees that side. But my knee jerk reaction was out of compassion for the specific circumstances. 

IF finances were flexible, I would say they need to move so the teen could actually live in a community with his own age peers, and in their shoes, that’s what I would do. However, we don’t know whether or not the reason they’re fighting it is related to financial hardship (unless that was upthread and I missed it). 

I think the only reason I’d move to such a place is if one of my grown children were failing to launch due to laziness. Those rules would give me a good reason to shove them out the nest. I suppose the same might apply to shiftless grandchildren, and perhaps that’s why community members don’t want a precedent set. If I were a neighbor, I’d be turning a blind eye towards this incident of rule breaking, or at the very least, do all in my power to aid them in a successful relocation. 

I looked it up out of curiosity. The family is reportedly cash-strapped and has financing restrictions on their home loan. They live on a fixed income. The HOA also has an exceptions clause. For whatever reason, they are choosing not to use it.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Library Momma]

There may be other factors or laws at play.  In my town you need a minimum of 2 acres to build a new home.  A large 55+ community was built a few years ago and they were given special permission for higher density housing based on the 55+ mandate.  If younger people or families moved it in would violate the zoning laws and I assume lead to fines.

[Jean in Newcastle]

40 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I looked it up out of curiosity. The family is reportedly cash-strapped and has financing restrictions on their home loan. They live on a fixed income. The HOA also has an exceptions clause. For whatever reason, they are choosing not to use it.

But exceptions have been made - for over six months so that the grandchild can live there and finish out the school year. 

[OH_Homeschooler]

9 minutes ago, Library Momma said:

There may be other factors or laws at play.  In my town you need a minimum of 2 acres to build a new home.  A large 55+ community was built a few years ago and they were given special permission for higher density housing based on the 55+ mandate.  If younger people or families moved it in would violate the zoning laws and I assume lead to fines.

 

I hadn't thought about this zoning issue. I was also wondering if insurance was somehow an issue? I don't understand how these kinds of communities work though.

I imagine a boy probably wouldn't love living in a seniors-only community. He would probably enjoy living somewhere with kids closer to his own age.

[Sneezyone]

38 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But exceptions have been made - for over six months so that the grandchild can live there and finish out the school year. 

 

That was not a formally adopted exception, it was a grace period before enforcement action and not covered by their bylaws. They can literally, according to their bylaws, formally grant an exception for X period of time.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

18 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But exceptions have been made - for over six months so that the grandchild can live there and finish out the school year. 

 

Yes, but they could do more. I would never live in this kind of community as I've seen WAY to many reports of crotchety behavior and attitudes toward younger generations. Sun City boomers were infamous for this 20 years ago. It's not a good look. It's one of those things where it's their right to do it but it's also incredibly telling about who they are and what they value.

 

ETA: And I'm not directing this at you, personally.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

Wow.  I think they should make an exception!  If necessary to preserve the rules, they could vote on it just this once.

Exception being if the kid isn't acting in a way that is conducive to peaceful living.  Is he doing things that are really noisy, illegal, bringing disruptive friends around?

What is the age when young people are allowed to stay?  How close is he to that age?

I would be trying to move out of there ASAP, due to the stupid attitudes; but it isn't right for them to be forced out like that.

[EmseB]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Yes, but they could do more. I would never live in this kind of community as I've seen WAY to many reports of crotchety behavior and attitudes toward younger generations. Sun City boomers were infamous for this 20 years ago. It's not a good look. It's one of those things where it's their right to do it but it's also incredibly telling about who they are and what they value.

But if people want to have that attitude and move specifically where they can insulate themselves from young people because they have a stinky attitude about young people then that's their prerogative, right? I mean, I would never move to one of those places, but it seems like they are attempting to keep themselves to themselves.

What is happened to that family is tragic. I do understand why a 55+ community would not make a permanent exception to the age rules though.

[Jean in Newcastle]

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Yes, but they could do more. I would never live in this kind of community as I've seen WAY to many reports of crotchety behavior and attitudes toward younger generations. Sun City boomers were infamous for this 20 years ago. It's not a good look. It's one of those things where it's their right to do it but it's also incredibly telling about who they are and what they value.

 

ETA: And I'm not directing this at you, personally.

That’s ok. I don’t plan on living in such a community. 😉

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Wow.  I think they should make an exception!  If necessary to preserve the rules, they could vote on it just this once.

Exception being if the kid isn't acting in a way that is conducive to peaceful living.  Is he doing things that are really noisy, illegal, bringing disruptive friends around?

What is the age when young people are allowed to stay?  How close is he to that age?

I would be trying to move out of there ASAP, due to the stupid attitudes; but it isn't right for them to be forced out like that.

People are allowed to stay when they are 55 plus. 

[EmseB]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Wow.  I think they should make an exception!  If necessary to preserve the rules, they could vote on it just this once.

Exception being if the kid isn't acting in a way that is conducive to peaceful living.  Is he doing things that are really noisy, illegal, bringing disruptive friends around?

What is the age when young people are allowed to stay?  How close is he to that age?

I would be trying to move out of there ASAP, due to the stupid attitudes; but it isn't right for them to be forced out like that.

I am only in my late 30s, but IME dealing with society (and my own kids!) "just this once" never works out as just once.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If the HOA did not have an exception clause in its rules then I would say their hands are tied and they aren't being heartless, as refusing to follow their own rules would put them in a precarious legal situation going forward.

However, the board *can* give permission at its discretion, and I can therefore conclude everyone on the board is a gaping *******.

[gardenmom5]

this article on it showed up on DM.

it has more information - of course it's from the grandparents POV, as this is their tactic right now.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

Wow.  I think they should make an exception!  If necessary to preserve the rules, they could vote on it just this once.

Exception being if the kid isn't acting in a way that is conducive to peaceful living.  Is he doing things that are really noisy, illegal, bringing disruptive friends around?

What is the age when young people are allowed to stay?  How close is he to that age?

I would be trying to move out of there ASAP, due to the stupid attitudes; but it isn't right for them to be forced out like that.

The minimum age is 19. 

[DoraBora]

We don't know the whole story here.  Is it possible that this boy has caused problems in the neighborhood?  It would be understandable if he is acting out, considering the terrible losses he's experienced.  The HOA may want to be quiet about that because they don't want to disparage him or his grandparents.  (Someone upthread pointed out what a thankless job it can be to sit on an HOA board.)

Edited January 16, 2020 by DoraBora

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But if people want to have that attitude and move specifically where they can insulate themselves from young people because they have a stinky attitude about young people then that's their prerogative, right? I mean, I would never move to one of those places, but it seems like they are attempting to keep themselves to themselves.

What is happened to that family is tragic. I do understand why a 55+ community would not make a permanent exception to the age rules though.

 

It is their prerogative. However, they ALSO moved to a place where the bylaws allow exceptions to be granted. It doesn't require a permanent exception. The boy is 15. It requires a 5 year deferment/exception which could also include other conditions (noise, disturbances, etc.).

[EmseB]

We don't like living in a community with young people!

You should all just move to your own neighborhood then and live with each other and your own bad attitudes about young people!

Okay, fine.

Hey, we need our young person to live with us because of personal tragedy. 

Okay,  he can stay for the school year while you get things figured out.

Man,  these people really have suck attitudes about young people!

That's why we moved here!!

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

I wonder if the community voted themselves out of the school district?  Having school age children reside would change that situation and cost every homeowner.

 

Communities in AZ/FL are famous/infamous for not supporting local schools even before this one kid moved in. It wouldn't surprise me that they voted themselves out but I don't think having kids in residence is the issue. Selfishness is. Someone obviously funded schools for their kids.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, EmseB said:

We don't like living in a community with young people!

You should all just move to your own neighborhood then and live with each other and your own bad attitudes about young people!

Okay, fine.

Hey, we need our young person to live with us because of personal tragedy. 

Okay,  he can stay for the school year while you get things figured out.

Man,  these people really have suck attitudes about young people!

That's why we moved here!!

 

That would make total sense if we were talking about small kids. This is a high school student (that the immediate neighbors reportedly like and find helpful) who is four years removed from meeting the existing requirement.