Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/23/2006 9:00:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 9:00:53 AM EDT by The_Macallan]

How or why can a community legally ban "certain" people from moving into a neighborhood based on something like age, but NOT based on something like race or citizen-status?

There are "Over-55" retirement communities all over the country that prohibit middle-age people or families with kids from moving in. How the hell can that be legal when doing the same thing to keep non-American citizens out would be "discriminatory" and a Federal crime?

I'm not advocating allowing neighbors to have the power to decide where anyone else can live - but rather I'm questioning how can "some" communities can get away with such a blatantly heavy-handed intrusion on our freedom to buy a house, own property and live where we want based on a person's age but not any other characteristic?


Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:01:17 AM EDT
because old people vote.

personally, you couldnt pay me to live near that many cantankerous old farts
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:04:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
because old people vote.

personally, you couldnt pay me to live near that many cantankerous old farts



No shit, probably a 30 minute commute just to the gate
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:08:31 AM EDT
ever hear of the AARP, it's the mob, but with old people
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:16:24 AM EDT
Because no one's sued them yet.

There was a movie theater in SF that allowed no children at all. They were sued and had to let kids in.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:17:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:52:27 AM EDT
there are 4 of those places within a 1 mile radius of my house.

And one with a gate that leads straight onto a major road. Driving fing sucks sometimes around here.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 9:56:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tannim:
Because no one's sued them yet.




I want to meet the young guy that sues a retirement community to let him in.

Wait, no I don't.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:18:47 AM EDT
Yeah, but who would want to live in such a place?
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:24:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2006 10:28:04 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
How or why can a community legally ban "certain" people from moving into a neighborhood based on something like age, but NOT based on something like race or citizen-status?

There are "Over-55" retirement communities all over the country that prohibit middle-age people or families with kids from moving in. How the hell can that be legal when doing the same thing to keep non-American citizens out would be "discriminatory" and a Federal crime?

I'm not advocating allowing neighbors to have the power to decide where anyone else can live - but rather I'm questioning how can "some" communities can get away with such a blatantly heavy-handed intrusion on our freedom to buy a house, own property and live where we want based on a person's age but not any other characteristic?



Age discrimination isn't applicable unless the person is over 40, so the Age Discrimination Act is not applicable.

The Fair Housing Act forbids the following:

" Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices

As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful--

(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.

(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. "

Age isn't on the list.

To sum up the Federal law on the topic:

Discrimination based on sex, religion, race, or ethnicity = bad.

To discriminate against someone over the age of 40 because they are over 40 = bad.

Discrimination on the basis of age against someone who is under 40 is perfectly acceptable.

There's your answer.

Under the age of 40, age is not a protected attribute under current Federal law.

Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:27:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tannim:
Because no one's sued them yet.

There was a movie theater in SF that allowed no children at all. They were sued and had to let kids in.



That would depend on the state laws. Federally, discrimination against under 40 is allowable. State statutes may exist in California that might prohibit ANY age discrimination.

But Federally, there is no law against it.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:31:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
I want to start a development that bans old people. 25 - 40 year olds only.



You can't.

That violates the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
Top Top