Axed and answered
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Sun City is hardly a valid example (Youngtown next door to it does too). Houses there have a deed restriction that any buyer has to be over 55 years old and that no children under 18 will live in the home.
I live just a few miles from Sun City. My house would be sold--likely for cash--in under a week on the market. It doesn't have such deed restrictions, and better yet, I don't live in a goddamned HOA.
Does the age-restriction covenant preclude Blackrock purchases?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Yes. It prevents straw buyers and flippers from purchasing the home too. In Youngtown, you can see a number of homes that are clearly empty and falling into disrepair. Youngtown has no HOA, Sun City does. Sun City's HOA will go after the current owner for not maintaining the home. I will say many of the homes in both are in questionable condition electrically, having worked on a number of them.
On the other hand, these at once meet current government diktat with "multi-family" housing being duplexes, while being marketed to "The Rich" as a small home / large apartment / condo that you can own and have it right next to the Glendale sports complex where the NFL etc., plays in Phoenix.
Last edited:
Grok:
No, age-restriction covenants in Sun City, AZ do not preclude BlackRock (or other corporate/institutional entities) from purchasing properties there.
Key Details on Sun City Covenants (CC&Rs)
Sun City (and nearby Sun City West) operates as a 55+ age-restricted community under the federal Fair Housing Act (and Arizona law). The core restrictions, from the recorded Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs/deed restrictions), are:
- At least one occupant per residential unit must be 55+, and no one under 19 can reside there for more than 90 days in any 12-month period (with limited variances possible while maintaining the community's 80%+ 55+ occupancy threshold for legal status).
- These rules apply to occupancy/residency, not ownership. You (or an entity) can own a home without meeting the age requirement yourself, as long as qualifying 55+ residents occupy it.
This is standard for many 55+ communities: ownership is flexible (individuals, trusts, or entities), but living there is restricted to preserve the "housing for older persons" exemption.
Corporate/Institutional Ownership
- CC&Rs and related documents (e.g., for Recreation Centers of Sun City) explicitly address non-individual ownership, including "Company" entities (corporations, LLCs, partnerships, etc.). They allow such owners to designate up to two qualifying individuals (who meet membership/age rules) for certain rights like facility access.
- No broad prohibition on corporate purchases appears in public CC&Rs or enforcement info. Business use of homes is restricted (no operating trades/businesses from the property), but passive ownership/investment is not barred.
- Single-family homes generally lack traditional HOAs (though some condos/duplexes do), with enforcement handled via deed restrictions by groups like the Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHO A).
Blackrock isn't a straw buyer or flipper.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
i need to capitalize on this.
I love shitty areas.
I love shitty areas.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
Scroll up.
I fact-checked @T. A. Gardner. He inaccurately claimed that two specific communities prohibited real estate trusts or enterprise buyers from purchasing age-restricted properties in those communities. They don't.
Q. Are communities with age-restricted occupancy requirements discriminating illegally?
A.
No, properly qualified age-restricted communities (such as 55+ or 62+ housing) are not discriminating illegally under U.S. federal law.
Key Legal Framework
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968 (as amended) prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status (which includes families with children under 18). Age restrictions can implicate "familial status" by limiting or excluding children.
However, Congress explicitly created an exemption for "housing for older persons" through the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) of 1995. This allows qualifying communities to operate with age restrictions while remaining compliant with the FHA.
Requirements to Qualify for the Exemption
To be legal, communities must meet specific criteria (they do not need to provide "significant facilities and services" for seniors after HOPA simplified the rules):
- 55+ communities: At least 80% of occupied units must have at least one resident aged 55 or older, and the community must have and follow policies demonstrating intent to operate as housing for older persons (e.g., published rules, age verification procedures).
- 62+ communities: Intended for and occupied solely by persons 62 and older.
- Government-assisted senior housing: Housing under federal, state, or local programs specifically designed for elderly persons.
Communities must also comply with age verification and maintain records. The exemption applies only to familial status discrimination—it does not allow discrimination on other protected bases like race, religion, disability, etc.
Why This Exemption Exists
Congress recognized the need for housing tailored to older adults' preferences for quieter environments, specific amenities, and lifestyles without children. This was balanced against general anti-discrimination rules. Similar exemptions do not exist for other age groups (e.g., "under 30 only" communities would generally be illegal).
State and Local Variations
Most states align with federal HOPA rules, but some have additional protections or enforcement. Rare local challenges (e.g., certain municipal ordinances) can arise, but properly structured private 55+ communities generally hold up.
Practical Notes
- These communities can restrict residency and sometimes limit children's use of amenities.
- They must still follow all other fair housing rules.
- Non-qualifying communities attempting age restrictions could face legal challenges.
In short, when they follow HOPA requirements, age-restricted communities are a congressionally approved exception, not illegal discrimination.
Age-Restricted Housing Legal Exemption | Shared Grok Conversation
Are communities with age-restricted occupancy requirements discriminating illegally?
grok.com
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
i heard that the villages is gerontific syphlllis party.Scroll up.
I fact-checked @T. A. Gardner. He inaccurately claimed that two specific communities prohibited real estate trusts or enterprise buyers from purchasing age-restricted properties in those communities. They don't.
Q. Are communities with age-restricted occupancy requirements discriminating illegally?
A.
No, properly qualified age-restricted communities (such as 55+ or 62+ housing) are not discriminating illegally under U.S. federal law.
Key Legal Framework
The Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968 (as amended) prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status (which includes families with children under 18). Age restrictions can implicate "familial status" by limiting or excluding children.
However, Congress explicitly created an exemption for "housing for older persons" through the Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) of 1995. This allows qualifying communities to operate with age restrictions while remaining compliant with the FHA.
Requirements to Qualify for the Exemption
To be legal, communities must meet specific criteria (they do not need to provide "significant facilities and services" for seniors after HOPA simplified the rules):
- 55+ communities: At least 80% of occupied units must have at least one resident aged 55 or older, and the community must have and follow policies demonstrating intent to operate as housing for older persons (e.g., published rules, age verification procedures).
- 62+ communities: Intended for and occupied solely by persons 62 and older.
- Government-assisted senior housing: Housing under federal, state, or local programs specifically designed for elderly persons.
Communities must also comply with age verification and maintain records. The exemption applies only to familial status discrimination—it does not allow discrimination on other protected bases like race, religion, disability, etc.
Why This Exemption Exists
Congress recognized the need for housing tailored to older adults' preferences for quieter environments, specific amenities, and lifestyles without children. This was balanced against general anti-discrimination rules. Similar exemptions do not exist for other age groups (e.g., "under 30 only" communities would generally be illegal).
State and Local Variations
Most states align with federal HOPA rules, but some have additional protections or enforcement. Rare local challenges (e.g., certain municipal ordinances) can arise, but properly structured private 55+ communities generally hold up.
Practical Notes
- These communities can restrict residency and sometimes limit children's use of amenities.
- They must still follow all other fair housing rules.
- Non-qualifying communities attempting age restrictions could face legal challenges.
In short, when they follow HOPA requirements, age-restricted communities are a congressionally approved exception, not illegal discrimination.
Age-Restricted Housing Legal Exemption | Shared Grok Conversation
Are communities with age-restricted occupancy requirements discriminating illegally?
It's true that many "senior communities" have high STD rates.
Grok: STD rates among older adults (55+ and especially 65+) have risen sharply in recent years.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
this is cuz i turned 55.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
View: https://x.com/seamus_coughlin/status/2072453234380230978?s=20
The claim is broadly accurate in highlighting real, documented patterns of violence, though it generalizes and uses strong language ("Muslims murder women").
The claim is broadly accurate in highlighting real, documented patterns of violence, though it generalizes and uses strong language ("Muslims murder women").
Context of the Post
The post replies to a meme contrasting a Catholic nun in a habit (left: "If this doesn’t bother you") with a woman in a hijab/niqab (right: "Why does this bother you?"). It often implies hypocrisy in criticizing Islamic veiling while accepting Christian religious dress. Seamus Coughlin's reply points to a key asymmetry in enforcement and consequences.Part 1: "Muslims murder women for not wearing hijabs"
This refers to state enforcement, morality police actions, and family "honor" violence in some Muslim-majority countries or communities. It is not universal to all Muslims or Islam as a whole, but it is a recurring issue backed by evidence:- Iran: Strict mandatory hijab laws are enforced by "morality police" (Guidance Patrol). High-profile case: Mahsa Amini (2022) died in custody after arrest for "improper" hijab, sparking widespread "Woman, Life, Freedom" protests. Recent reports (2026) describe renewed killings, e.g., a 46-year-old woman allegedly shot for refusing to cover her head at a grave. Ex-IRGC officials have publicly called for the death penalty for hijab refusal.
- Other cases: Family "honor killings" in places like Pakistan, India (among some Muslim communities), and Iran often target women/girls for dress code defiance, perceived immodesty, or refusing veiling. Examples include fathers/husbands killing relatives over burqa/hijab disputes.
- Broader context: Honor-based violence linked to interpretations of modesty/chastity is documented in reports on femicide and patriarchal practices in parts of the Middle East, South Asia, and diaspora communities. Islamic texts emphasize modesty, but extreme enforcement (arrests, beatings, killings) stems from specific regimes and cultural traditions, not uniform across 1.8+ billion Muslims.
Part 2: "For wearing habits" (Catholic nuns)
This is supported by specific targeted attacks on Christian religious women:- Yemen, 2016: Four Missionaries of Charity nuns (Sisters of Mother Teresa) were murdered along with 12 others in an attack on their nursing home for the elderly in Aden by jihadist gunmen (linked to ISIS/Al-Qaeda affiliates). The nuns were wearing their distinctive habits while serving the poor (mostly Muslims). They were explicitly targeted as Christians. Pope Francis called them "martyrs of charity."
- Other incidents: Nuns and Christian women have been killed in Islamist attacks in places like Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, and elsewhere, often as symbols of Christianity in Muslim-majority or conflict zones.
Overall Assessment
- True on substance: There is a documented disparity. In some hardline Islamist contexts, women face lethal consequences for not conforming to Islamic dress codes (hijab/burqa). Christian nuns have been murdered for being visibly Christian (habits) in Islamist violence. This supports the "difference" argument against the meme's implied equivalence.
- Nuance: Not representative of all Muslims (the vast majority do not murder anyone). Many Muslim women wear hijab voluntarily. Christian societies have had their own historical religious enforcement/coercion. Generalizing to "Muslims" risks oversimplification, but the post responds to a provocative meme with real-world counterexamples.
- Sources include mainstream reporting (Guardian, BBC, Vatican, Wikipedia summaries of events) and human rights documentation on honor violence/femicide.