adult only swim time

Erika,

I believe this would be a violation of the FHA laws. IMO, the BOD should check with their attorney before making this change.

Erika a simple Google search of swim rules and HUD will give you a plethora of rulings on the subject but here are a few:

In HUD v. Paradise Gardens, a Florida administrative law judge ruled that a community association's rules limiting swimming pool use by children had no legitimate safety purpose and therefore violated the familial status provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act. Paradise Gardens in Margate, Florida, had pool regulations which barred children under the age of 5 from the pool altogether and restricted 5 to 16 year olds to swimming between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The administrative law judge ruled that the time restrictions were actually intended to keep children from the pool completely because the hours available to them were when they were in school, or during summer vacation, at the time of most danger from the hot Florida sun. The judge also rejected health and safety arguments for barring younger children from the pool because expert testimony established that the sanitariness of a pool was unrelated to the age of the swimmers and that close parental supervision would assure the safety of children of any age. The association and three individuals were ordered to pay damages for emotional distress, humiliation and inconvenience to two complaining families $4,000 for one family and $3,500 for the other family. In addition, the judge assessed civil penalties of $3,000 against the association and $100 each against two of its spokespersons.

Federal judges in California have been equally protective of the rights of families with children. In the case of Llanos v. Coelho, a federal district judge held that an apartment complex's rules restricting children from swimming in several complex pools and from playing in "adult" areas violated the Federal Fair Housing Act. This case arose in the Del Monte Pines apartment complex in Fresno, California where a single mother with a baby daughter moved into the "adult" section of the complex. At the time she moved in, the Del Monte Pines was divided into a family section and an adult section. The complex had six swimming pools, of which only two were open to children. Children were also prohibited from riding bicycles, skating, riding skateboards, or playing in adult areas. The federal district judge concluded that the apartment complex's rules restricting children's access to certain facilities were discriminatory on their face. The judge rejected the apartment complex's arguments that the rules were required by a reasonable business reason and that they were justified by safety concerns for unsupervised children. He said that the prohibition on children playing in adult areas "effectively prohibit[ed] children from accessing a large area of the complex" and discriminated against families based on familial status.

An apartment complex in Torrance, California, discovered too late that its rule prohibiting children from playing in the building area at any time violated the Fair Housing Act. In the case of Fair Housing Congress v. Weber, a tenant and her minor son lived at the Vista De Anza Apartments for more than four years until they moved out after receiving an eviction notice. During the time they lived there, the apartment managers told the minor child not to splash in the swimming pool, bounce his basketball, or ride his bicycle. An apartment rule stated that children were not "allowed to play or run around inside the building area at any time because of disturbance to other tenants or damage the building property." The federal district judge held that the apartment complex's rule that prohibited children from playing in the building area was discriminatory on its face and violated the Fair Housing Act. The apartment complex maintained that the rule was justified because it accomplished the goals of insuring the children's safety and maintaining quiet. The judge found that these justifications were legitimate, but she concluded that the complex had not met its burden of showing that the rule was the least restrictive means of accomplishing these goals.

Erika,

In justification of my earlier posting, here are some remarks from an HOA attorney in AZ regarding the Fair Housing Act:

"Review the assn's rules and regs to make sure that the rules do NOT focus on age unless absolutely necessary. Most rules are meant to apply equally to all ages. For ex, rules should not state, "Children may not ride their bicycles on the sidewalks." Rather, "No one is aowed to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk."

"If an assn's rule does focus on the age of a person, make sure that the rule has a legitimate safety purpose. (There are vewry few rules that will fit into this category.)

"Also make sure that the assn's rules are enforced uniformly. Do not allow members of the BOD to enforce a rule only against a certain type of person (whether it be children, a minority race, a person with a disability, etc.)."

Regardless of what your gov docs say, making a rule that only applies to a particular group of people (such as children or adults) is a violation of the Fair Housing Act, unless the rule is made to secure the safety of that particular group of people. I doubt there is a safety issue at hand by making a rule setting aside a particular time for adult swim.

Erika,

Why didn't you tell the BOD they may be in violation of the Fair Housing Act? IMO, they should run this by their attorney. You never know when one member will decide to file a complaint with HUD -- then they'll be very sorry they violated a fed. law. And, even if it's determined they are not in violation their lives will be miserable in the interim. In fact, you could file a complaint yourself!

I too have some issues with this "kids time" and "adult time" Pools are just plain hard to regulate but why does everyone feel entitled? Give the darn pool up for 2 hours, both sides. Fair Housing Act does not have kids wanting to swim when they want to and I as a senior citizen want to be able to swim without the fear of getting wacked with a cannonballer or waves up my nose. Geez, society does not know the meaning of shared or joint ownership. It's all about me, all of the time. Ugh

To Donna and Diane this is exactly my point. As a community we all pay dues to share a community pool. I don't own it and neither does anyone else. It is a shared amenity. If someone has a problem with sharing then they should buy their own private pool and do with it what they will. Again I do not wish to have separate times for adults and children. I believe the pool is big enough for all residents. I have been to our pool on many occasions with my daughter and been the only two there. I also failed to mention that there is lap swim times Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9-10am. And water aerobics m/w/f from 9-10am. This is scheduled before the pool opens at 10. I think it is a little over the top to request much more "adult" time.

I agree with Erika. If you want to be able to use a pool at your leisure without being bothered by others, then that pool needs to be on your own property. Equal access means any member has the right to use the pool during open hours. If you do not want to be there when children are playing, that is your decision... but no one is telling you that you cannot use the pool. If you have adult only hours, you are telling certain members that they cannot use the pool based on age. That is a violation of the law. However, "Exercise Hours" may work? Regardless, I don't think you would be violating any laws by asking children or their parents to please be considerate. Unfortunately, they may choose not to.

Diane,

Good one. This is the age of "Entitled" mentality.

'cannonballing' is rough play prohibited by the vast majority of pool rules
one needs to enforce behavior ... not ban groups illegally

ps. if you have lap only time, this would apply to everyone (including adults)

i do believe this is why they are called SWIMMING pools

Probably.