Some Elementary Kids Playing in HOA Private Road

So we are ungated, 95 townhomes off a town side street with a 25mph speed limit and electronic sign to indicate driver speed. No playpark, no pool. About 10 kids, older elementary play basketball in the street, with net on sidewalk from time to time. In addition homeowner let dog off leash accidentally, car whipped round corner and injured dog and drove off. Dog Owner came to meeting wanting humps and suddenly about 5 vocal parents want then too, for the kids.

We set up committee, police won't lend a mobile speed check machine, our roads are only 300ft long and 24 feet wide not enough room for a mobile speed check station they say. If we want to install humps they have to be to Town standards for emergency vehicles (more expensive) and they advise we need resident approval if a hump will be outside a particular house and 50%+1 overall approval.

I hate to stop kids playing, but don't like having the insurance threat, and do you want to be responsible when a kid dies thrown at me either?

If having done our due diligence, we decide to continue "as is" is that a sensible approach? BTW I have noticed a couple of beware of kids stands pop up round where kids play.

Sigh, what to do?

Kids playing in the street is a thing, especially if the community has no playground areas.

What we do:

* We enacted a speed limit for the community, put up signage, and we enforce the speed limit. We also enforce the no street parking restriction in our CC&Rs, because street parking makes the problems worse (reduced visibility, kids darting out from between parked cars, etc.).

* We put regular notices in the newsletter about the dangers to kids who are allowed to play in the street and warnings to drivers who probably don't want to kill anyone. We also talk about the issue during meetings. So the membership gets nagged in print and in person.

* We make sure we're adequately insured.

Then we hope that's enough.

Thank you all for your replies, much appreciated

doubtful

Those who lobbied for a different decision says it could.

Familial status is actually mentioned in the fair housing act.

hi,

How will the HUD ruling for discrimination against familial status can apply to playing on the streets? This "ungated" community has a road. I don't know if the road is maintained by the HOA. It sounds like it is.

The question is not challenging the information but I wanted the information for my own knowledge. One link I found is the following.

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/discrimination_against_families_children

Was there a court case that decided this?

Thanks for the help.

It's a safety issue, not discrimination. Just prohibit recreation on common area thoroughfares to protect pedestrians and drivers. It's similar to Kerry1's issue of pedestrians using the parking ramp. Neither kids nor adults can play in the street.

Ellen,

Thanks a bunch for the links. It was very helpful and gave a lot of contextual information on the situation.

Why would you intentionally post false information, wasting everybody’s time?

It just irks you that I have a 100% success rate against my board in court.

An appeal to Board moderators...how did my original post about kids playing basketball in our private roads and safety turn into a fight between posters on AI. I feel hijacked. Bless their hearts though!

No losses. 5 complaints with 5 judgments in my favor.

GregoryT1, pardon? So far I have not posted anything from AI in this thread.

The post where I gave case law quotes from this law firm site https://isaacsonlawlv.com/the-fair-housing-act-and-discrimination-based-on-familial-status/

So far I see nothing flawed in what the isaacsonlawlv.com site presents.

I have not read ever citation at the above law firm site. If there is something in a particular in the case law that does not make sense, feel free to ask, and I will look at the case law more carefully.

I caution laypeople that reading and interpreting case law for practical purposes takes practice. Many times appeals (and higher) court decisions (meaning the case law) are too dense for me to parse. Many appeals (and higher) court decisions assume a certain background in certain law that a non-specialist may not have. E.g. the recent SCOTUS decision saying that the Sackler family could not use bankruptcy to avoid individual lawsuits in opiod wrongful death suits? Something like this. The underpinnings of how the majority came to this decision are like way over my head, though one can find sound bites on the net, of course.

Other times seeing the "rule" an appeals court or state supreme court or the U. S. Supreme Court established is easy.

I think knowing something of "hostile environment" discrimination case law helps a lot with understanding familial status fair housing cases. Unlawful hostile environment discrimination is a big subject with precedent and so caveats going back to 1987 and a seminal case in workplace, sexual harassment law. This 1987 case has since been applied to other types of discrimination. The essence: HOA Manager Jones yells at a kid for playing in the street. Jones created a hostile environment to kids. Without the Fair Housing Act, communities that are hostile to families with kids tend to result in the families leaving the community, depriving kids arguably of, inter alia, attending better schools in nicer neighborhoods et cetera. This deprives families with kids of having the same opportunities as families with no kids. Hence Jones's act is discrimination (says the law). In 1988 Congress said this discrimination is not acceptable.

Again, I admit that trying to keep kids safe from being hit by a car competes weirdly with fair housing rights. I did not write the case law but do understand the reasoning. Discrimination against families with kids was at one time quite the thing, hence Congress stepped in. It still happens a lot. I am supporting two parents as we speak as they battle (now with a nonprofit and HUD having their backs) a HOA that shows strong signs of not wanting kids to be in sight, making noise and so being kids, and so on. In this particular case, I can see things going south in a few ways. "There is no perfect client." But mostly I feel pretty sure the HOA is going to pay $100,000 or more in legal fees and penalties and get nothing in return except a HUD Conciliation Agreement (or private settlement) where the HOA agrees to cease doing much of what the HOA has (recklessly and foolishly) been doing. I estimate the HOA has already paid $15,000 in legal fees, digging into an untenable position. The HOA attorney shows signs of being uneducated when it comes to the FHA. Or the HOA attorney is heating his pool on the HOA's dime.

Again I appreciate your manners.

Oh shut up. When I post AI content, first I will note that it is AI content. Second, if I know it is false, I will ask others if they can find the mistakes.

By contrast, you will keep posting certain blatant falsehoods. These falsehoods have a significant bearing on how directors conduct themselves. Despite your being corrected many times, you persist in posting these falsehoods.

I offered you a deal. It says volumes that you value your being able to post your falsehoods more than making a deal.

I am a woman. Though I realize you cannot believe a woman could be so self-confident.

Congratulations on hijacking the thread. I do encourage the moderator to delete it.

Self-confident is not the description I would have selected.