Banning Children's bicycles/skate boards, etc > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Banning Children's bicycles/skate boards, etc

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

AlexL1
(Florida)

Posts:295

03/10/2010 6:49 AM
It is going to come up to ban children from riding their skateboards, bicycles, etc on the streets within the condo comples(not city streets) and also on the sidewalks...Some of those low to the ground peddle things are dangerous in the streets(condo streets) when the kid is darting(yes, darting) in and out of parked cars into the street when people are driving up to 20 MPH(even though not allowed)... it is dangerous for the kids. Many complaints about having to dart away from kids on those things when they are on the sidewalks of the complex... mostly from elderly people.. Thus, where can they go? There is going to be a suggestion(strong suggestion) that they be banned all together... The CC&Rs do not mention that they cannot be used. Has anyone had problems with these things? I also am concerned about being accused of discrimination against "children"

MaryA1

Posts:0

03/10/2010 7:01 AM
Alex, When the board writes this rule they should not mention "children" otherwise they will be in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Just state, "Skateboards and bicycles of any type are prohibited from being used on the sidewalks and streets." By not mentioning children, there is no discrimination issue.

RogerB
(Colorado)

Posts:4647

03/10/2010 7:04 AM
AlexL, Your concern about discrimination is well founded. The HOA may be allowed to establish a rule to ban skateboards, bicycles, etc in the common areas - but not just for children. The issue is safety and what can be done to allow children to play while not being a significant disturbance to others. And when making such rules ask how does the HOA effectively police and enforce those restrictions. It is a difficult problem to resolve and that is why 55+ communities are becoming more popular.

AlexL1
(Florida)

Posts:295

03/11/2010 6:28 AM
Yes, one can fairly easily ban skateboards, etc and not mention children but.... am still concerned..... It seems only fair that children(I mention children) should not be cut off from playing and one of the things they play with is their small bicycles, etc.... In essence, it seems that they would have NO PLACE to pay with that type of instrument.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:2381

03/11/2010 12:28 PM
i would like to say that the advice offered here to remove the ban on "children" doing X and Y and instead simply banning Activity X and Y was absolutely fantastic. I cannot tell you how many times in my world(s), i see similar rules being made to ban or prohibit a certain thing, and yet it truly fails to get to the real problem. In this case, we don't want 'kids' to dart out into traffic, and be hit. So, we ban "kids" from doing things that would cause that. But, in effect what we are saying is that if you are an adult, the same behavior that we find dangerous and horrible in children is suddenly acceptable. Is it really? Is it okay to dart out into traffic as a 28 year old? Is it okay to rollerblade and crash into someone's flower planter if you are 58? THe day before your 18th birthday, you can't ride a skateboard. Then, two minutes after midnight, you suddenly can? What changed to make you safer? If only more boards, and more people, would look to the real root of their issue, and work a rule to deal with THAT, instead of applying a ton of rules to the outside, cosmetic, or expressed symptoms if the issue, things would be easier. Thank you for the great advice. thank you very much, it was a pleasure to see it brought forward.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

03/11/2010 6:12 PM
Well, considering the op is from Fl and the subject is a condo, I would belive the associations could restrict any activity on common property. We all know the problem is a constant most places and we know somehow people find a way to live with it. So if this complex consults with Insurance coverage people and requests they write up something that describes what liability is covered and what is not, this might prove helpful. The problem is still what are you going to do with the kids? Are these children owners children constantly in residence or are they renters children. If the later, there should be something in the rental leases that addresses this problem and assigns liability. If they are owners children, then I think the condo should make every effort to provide a safe environment for the kids and a safe place to play. After all, we provide sun decks for common use, Bar B que facilities, parking spaces, etc, all as an amenity for the owners. I can't see how the kids can be allowed to play at anything, or anyone else for that matter, to do anything that threatens the association. We have concrete walls around a garden are, and no one is allowed to walk on the top of these walls, they are hollow, present a danger, and the condo is liable. Is there any possibility play area could be designated for recreational use. We have a sand area we constructed that is used for fun and games but we do not allow skateboard, etc in the garage. So we post a sign and try to enforce the restriction and are visible doing it. Probably not much help for here but it sort of works for our condo with short term renters which is 95 % of our rental market. We have way too many folks that rent for the health of the organization and from the looks of things there are going to be a lot of condos that are going to be effected by the new FHA requirements on # of rental units allowed in a condo to qualify for FHA and maybe some other type mortgages.

GlenL
(Ohio)

Posts:3526

03/12/2010 5:39 AM
Robert they can ban activities but unless it’s a 55 or older community they can’t discriminate between children and adults as this condo found out when the US Attorney filed suit against them: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/02/26/childrens_play_restrictions_spur_suit/

Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair. - George Burns

AdamS6
(Ohio)

Posts:9

05/09/2010 8:10 PM
I have to say that this is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you've forgotten - allow me to remind you that this is America, land of the FREE. Drive slow and watch out for the kids being kids, and let me hope I never ever meet you or anyone like you.

JohnF12
(Florida)

Posts:3

05/09/2010 10:08 PM
I can tell you with certainty that restricting children's "skateboards, bicycles, etc" is familial discrimination. I would think that the focus should be on those people that are "driving up to 20 MPH(even though not allowed)" If the people were not driving that quickly, then would it be as dangerous for the kids?

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

05/10/2010 9:14 AM
Posted By AdamS6 on 05/09/2010 8:10 PM I have to say that this is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you've forgotten - allow me to remind you that this is America, land of the FREE. Drive slow and watch out for the kids being kids, and let me hope I never ever meet you or anyone like you. Sorry, but in "FREE" America, we have a plethora of rules and regulations by which we must abide. Not only is it not "ridiculous" (though it may be the most ridiculous thing YOU'VE ever heard), it's a lot more common than one would think. For one thing, it's already ILLEGAL in our jurisdiction (our city/county) for bicycles to be ridden on sidewalks. So it's probably already a law in Florida, too. Alex, you may want to investigate that. In which case, if it is already illegal for bicycles to be used on sidewalks, you would only have to restrict them from the condo roads.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

05/10/2010 9:18 AM
Posted By JohnF12 on 05/09/2010 10:08 PM I can tell you with certainty that restricting children's "skateboards, bicycles, etc" is familial discrimination. With all due respect, this is not true at all. Many adults ride both bicycles and use skateboards. In fact, a great many do. So if the activity is restricted, it would apply to them as well. If your association owns the roads in your development, and they are designated as common area, and the board can make rules and regulations regarding what can and can't happen on common areas, then you might be able to build such a rule. However, I'm not sure you will be able to with the sidewalks, but, if they, too, are owned and maintained by the HOA, then possibly you can. In our area we have skate and bicycle parks, and we have bike trails in various other parks. Does your community have such a thing?

SteveM9
(Massachusetts)

Posts:1442

05/10/2010 10:00 AM
You should ban all humans from your community. Problem solved. (wink)

DwightT
(Idaho)

Posts:653

05/10/2010 10:53 AM
FYI: Bicycles are defined as Vehicles in almost all state laws, and bicyclists are given the same rights and responsibilities as all other vehicle operators. Even if the Association owns the streets, I would find it very unlikely that a flat-out ban on bicycle use would stand up in court. The problem isn't the use of bicycles (or any other type of transportation), it's the improper use, including the improper use of motor vehicles. Darting in and out of parked cars is improper use. Cars parked on the streets is probably also improper use. Excessive speed (for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles) is improper use. Instead of trying to ban legitimate modes of transportation, maybe it would be better to start a general education campaign geared towards educating all residents in proper use of their vehicles.

JoelM1
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:60

05/10/2010 11:33 AM
We had a gentleman in his late 60's slip and fall on a sloped part of the common ground. He ended up with a broken hip. My kids fall in the same spot all the time and pop right back up. I guess we will have to ban all seniors from the area as their bones tend to be more brittle.

JoelM1
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:60

05/10/2010 11:45 AM
Posted By JoelM1 on 05/10/2010 11:33 AM We had a gentleman in his late 60's slip and fall on a sloped part of the common ground. He ended up with a broken hip. My kids fall in the same spot all the time and pop right back up. I guess we will have to ban all seniors from the area as their bones tend to be more brittle. In case the analogy is missed let me explain: The OP suggestion was to ban children specifically from a certain activity (riding a bike/big wheel/skate board) because there is a much greater liklihood of a child being injured while doing the activity than an adult. In my example the activity is walking on a sloped part of the common area (which is almost all of the common area) and that activity when done by a senior has a much greater liklihood of injury than when done by a child or younger person. I see no reason not to ban seniors from our common area all together.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

05/10/2010 2:01 PM
Posted By JoelM1 on 05/10/2010 11:33 AM We had a gentleman in his late 60's slip and fall on a sloped part of the common ground. He ended up with a broken hip. My kids fall in the same spot all the time and pop right back up. I guess we will have to ban all seniors from the area as their bones tend to be more brittle. Insert Eye-Roll Smilie Here

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671

05/10/2010 3:36 PM
Alex, The best that you can do is to post signs banning use of bikes and skateboards on the common area sidewalks. But has anyone thought about trying to enforce this? Condo commandos? Yuk, another job for them to drive normal people crazy. Put up the signs and just be reasonable about the boards and bikes. With the signs up, the association is at least covered in case someone does create a real problem with the wheels.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

05/10/2010 6:40 PM
Posted By DonnaS on 05/10/2010 3:36 PM Alex, The best that you can do is to post signs banning use of bikes and skateboards on the common area sidewalks. But has anyone thought about trying to enforce this? Condo commandos? Yuk, another job for them to drive normal people crazy. Put up the signs and just be reasonable about the boards and bikes. With the signs up, the association is at least covered in case someone does create a real problem with the wheels. Excellent point, Donna. If the ban is placed, the HOA does not need to worry about "enforcement" with signs that reiterate the restriction. At that point, violation is at the homeowner's risk as it is the homeowner's responsibility to be in compliance.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

05/10/2010 8:31 PM
Donna and Michele, Don't know how it happened but I really think the conclusion one can draw from this thread, bears some scrutiny. To proclaim that because an association puts up signs they have no more obligation or responsibilty is just not proper. The posting of signs is an attempt to warn someone of something. It doesn't mean by warning them the danger don't exist. Take a swimming pool, you can post signs no swimming after 9PM. If someone goes in the pool and is harmed, the defense of the association would not be, "I posted a sign." That is why most states (Read insurance companies) are requiring all pools be fenced. Then you jump somewhere to ridiculing the "Condo commando", certainly you can not label a person a condo commando because they would warn someone of dangerous conduct, even if it is "signed". Isn't that a choice that everyone has the right to make? This coming from some Board members who freely admit the Board (their board) will not self enforce rules and convenants, but they will rely on "the condo commando, or the squeaky wheel to keep them informed of misconduct and they will at some point decide, well maybe, the Board should intercede and take steps to correct a problem. I am not protecting the trouble maker, but this post isn't about trouble makers, and I defend myself and ony other owner that feels the need to use their mind and care enough about their association that they want to protect it, in fact it is their obligation, sign or not. If a child is endangering themselves or others or an adult is endangering the association, you should just ignore them or not, dependent on whether a sign is posted? You can post your property "No trespassing," does this mean if someone comes on your property where there are no sign posted and harms themselve because you created a hazzardous condition, you are not liable. Does it also mean if they walk right past the sign and hurt themselves the owner is not liable. I advocate good signage, but it does not absolve the individual or the association from reasonable conduct, and it is certainly reasonable to not ignore dangerous conditions.. I would believe that if all that was required to protect a business from liability was a sign, within two weeks, the insurance rates would drop 80% and the sign makers output would increase 5000%. (figures are a wild a-- guess).

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

05/11/2010 4:20 AM
Donna and Michele,he Don't believe for a moment the posing of sign absolves the HOA of all responsibility. If true, the insurance rates would drop 90% and the sign makers business would increase 5000X. Also don't understand why it seems relevant to bring up some condemnantion of "Condo Commandos" in this thread. Condo Commando or not, (and how would you know from obeservation here on this thread). It seems to me you are blaming the circumstances (dangerous activities happening on HOA property) on the hapless Commando. How can you jump from a persons concern about the safety of others, in spite of signs, to lable it an act of a "Condo Commando". Wasn't long ago we had a thread that expounded on how some Boards will rely on these complainers to serve as watch dogs for the board and notify them of enforcement issues that the board said they, as individuals, would not do one on one confrontation, it's not their job. Would you as an individual ignore a car speeding through your neighborhood 30 miles over the speed limit on a daily basis. You say signs are posted, the HOA and "The Board seems to be who you want to protect", are not liable or should be concerned. I may have swung a little far in the opposite direction, but certainly you would agree that you can not post enough signs(if you believe what you propose)that the Board or the association are now worry free about respsibilities.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

05/11/2010 5:29 AM
To Donna and Susan, Sorry about this double post saying much the same thing. I got a new Laptop and I generally post on my PC. Trying to resolve these mating issues and apparently not doing a very good job. Long story, but again, sorry for the double post, don't chew am a-- out double.

DonnaS
(Tennessee)

Posts:5671

05/11/2010 7:09 AM
Robert, I will chew you out just once. Posting signs will alert boarders and bikers that they should not ride their vehicles on the sidewalks. There should be no one ready to pounce on them for doing so but a friendly reminder unless of course they are becoming a nuisance. They will need ingress and egress to other non HOA places to ride so I think that a soft glove approach is called for. If they start to gather in masses to ride, that is a different story. Then the HOA can take harsher steps to curtil the riding but taking this easy and post signs first, gentle reminders will cause this to not escalate into a holy war between the wheels and the HOA. Short story. My Florida HOA had a goon build a skate ramp with a huge jump for his boarder kids. He placed it in the middle of his cul-du-sac, driving his car around it to insure that cars could get past it. He did NOT consider larger vans and landscape people who were towing work trailers, who could not get past. After a few attempts by the Board to get rid of it and he refused, we ordered the HOA landscapers to load it onto their trailer. They had to cut it apart to move it. He must have feared us because we never heard back. It was ours to remove being that it was on HOA property--the street. We were gated and streets are HOA property. HA HA.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

05/11/2010 7:13 AM
Robert: I completely understand your position, and I didn't mean to imply that posting a sign would prevent someone from suing the HOA. People can sue for whatever they want, pretty much. My point with the sign is that it alerts the homeowners about the restriction and that violating the restriction is then at their own risk. That includes allowing people in their homes violating the restriction. My comment regarding the sign was intended to mitigate the idea that because there is a restriction that the HOA must always actively "police" to enforce it. A sign that reminds (warns) people of the restriction would help in that mitigation. At that point, again, the violator is made aware of the restriction and takes on a certain responsibility for ignoring the notice. It's sort of like no trespassing signs and signs at our lake that state the lake area is for the exclusive use by our association residents, that there is no swimming, boating, ATVing, etc allowed. Well, that won't stop someone from coming there who is not a member of our association and that won't stop that person from engaging in the activities that are noted as restricted on the sign. So if someone (member or not) then violates say the swimming restriction -- and gets hurt, I can certainly bet that we would still get sued. But our signs can reduce to an extent any damages. Possibly still not completely, nothing ever really does, does it? But I do know that NOT having the signs opens our pockets MUCH wider and MUCH deeper. So I guess this is a long-winded way of saying, signs won't be the magic teflon barrier, but NOT having any signs if the ban is enacted would be likely be more problematic.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:4491

05/11/2010 7:22 AM
PS: I have no problem with "condo commandos." One association's "condo commando" is another association's eyes and ears. In our case (though not a condo) we have a complaint-driven violation notification/compliance process. It's not humanly possible for our board to "police" our neighborhood of 600 residents and we don't have a management company to do it. We have to rely on the residents to care enough about the investment they made in their own homes to respect the controlling documents and expect compliance from not only themselves but their neighbors. It's not being "nosy" as some would like to imply, or actually outright state, it's being a responsible resident. Our documents state that every member is responsible for enforcement. Most won't directly confront a neighbor when there is a board that can act as the enforcement arm. However someone needs to let the board know when there may be a violation. If someone doesn't care enough about their own investment that they will let violations that will erode that investment continue simply because they want to "mind their own business," then I have no sympathy for them when the neighborhood goes into decline, as it inevitably will, if restrictions are not enforced.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

05/11/2010 11:31 AM
Donna and Michele, Oh, if we were all perfect. Michele, I referred to you as Michele once and Susan once. Woe on me. But both your responses are full of reason, as usual and several good ideas and observations were made by both of you, as always. Not that I have buttered you up, forgive the expression, I don't claim ownership, it just came to mind, I do think the reference to the Condo Commando did not indicate this sorry soul would be likely to take the soft glove approach. I have a long history of being a Commando (I was called the xxxxxhaven Cop.)after years of looking back I think I did more good than bad. Being nice did not seem to mitigate the effect you have on some people when they elect to think NO ONE can tell them what to do. I have always encouraged homeowners to pay attention to what goes on with their property, now if they elect to let people trash it, then signs, boards, whatever is not going to help. That makes this association membership and mutual responsibility the core of living in the association.

AnnaD2
(Florida)

Posts:924

05/11/2010 3:13 PM
Alex, now that everyone has given their opinions about "children", "adults", "signs" etc, I'm going back to your original question. We DO have rules concerning "people" riding bikes, scooters, trikes, skates, skateboards and other such toys on sidewalks. Our rules prohibit the use of any of those types of "vehicles" or "toys" on ANY sidewalks, walkways, breezeways or in the pool area. They do NOT prohibit people from using those items in the parking lot. Residents here are REALLY p---ed about having kids AND adults being able to dart in and out between parked cars and riding while people are trying to enter and exit the property. It's unreal, but every time we bring this up there are parents who actually ENCOURAGE their children to engage in such dangerous behavior. We can't control ignorance. It's amazing how many adults see no problem with their children playing in traffic. Yet the rules prohibiting such behavior on the common area sidewalks and walkways and breezeways is that people entering and exiting their FRONT DOORS should have the expectation that they will not have to encounter a "person" zipping by on a "toy" at breakneck speed. We all share "common" walkways as soon as we step outside. I personally got knocked on my butt when I took one step outside my front door to go to work. A "person" riding a skateboard crashed into me. I got knocked to the ground (cement), broke a toe and the "person" almost got knocked over the railing. From a liability, safety, and "common sense" view you CAN make rules about those common areas. Alex I hope you're still reading these posts since I noticed your original one was from March. It was resserected from someone who just wanted to be mean. P.S. Robert---I'll expect to get a "dressing down" from you shortly. It seems that every time I post anything you tend to go on a personal attack about what I have to say. I'm still here---but I do not post very often because of your "negative" attitude about my comments. I know you live in a "swanky" condo community...I do not. I've had my challenges and have learned so much from everyone here. I only post "experiences" and "suggestions"...and I'm one of the "underdog communities". I see myself in many "new" posters, here...and I like to think I can help them out in some way.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:5164

05/11/2010 4:07 PM
Anna, You comments directed to me come as a surprise and the first of this sort I received, as far as I can remember. Living in a "swanky" condo hardly describes where I live. However , I have to admit I don't know what I wrote about you, I am sure I responded to a message that was posted on the Board. Attaching your name to some kind of vendetta is just not there my friend. Of course I am distressed if I upset you and you certainly have taken me out of character with your description. However, I absolutely will not believe I picked you for some kind of personal attack. If whatever you wrote and you posted under Joe, I would respond to that post. I offer my apology if I have offended you, I do not offer any apology for what I wrote.............I have no conflict that is personal........ Give it some time Anna, I am sure you think you have nailed me dead center, or you would not have written what you did, but if I am the one that is keeping you from posting your thoughts on this site, may I suggest your reason is not worthy of the action you are taking.

AlexL1
(Florida)

Posts:295

05/12/2010 8:19 AM
AnnaD2: I had to smile when you asked if i was still observing comments in view that my original comment was long ago... YES... still observing.. By the way, I liked your comments very well....... One family here puzzles me the most... I wonder sometime if they REALLY are hoping their little kids get killed or hurt so they can sue because those kids are in the traffic area darting on small ride-able toy things IN and OUT and not even looking for cars.

AlexL1
(Florida)

Posts:295

05/12/2010 8:21 AM
Michelle: VERY WELL put

AnnaD2
(Florida)

Posts:924

05/12/2010 4:11 PM
Alex...I SWEAR we must live in the SAME complex, because every time we bring this up, there are parents who encourage their children to play in traffic because there "are no rules" saying they can't play in the street. What morons! Yes Robert, I said that. There are people who WILL subject their children to harm because there are no rules saying that they don't specifically have to take responsibility for their children getting hurt. It's amazing. I know how you feel Alex---because the people driving in and backing out should not have to have their heads on a "sivel" to make sure kids aren't acting like...."kids". But we have just as many adults driving in and out on bikes (to go to work) that also should be responsible for their own safety..... It goes on and on........

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Banning Children's bicycles/skate boards, etc