Most hotel pools (I know we aren't talking hotels, I don't doubt they have similar rules) have no diving, running or canon ball rules. Also no kids in the hot tub. As I was saying, most parents don't say a word to their kid when they break the rule. My 13 year old has gotten out of pools because of horseplay.

We've been known to also tell the front desk and we don't stop until they kick the offending family out. I'm a paying guest and have every right to enjoy what I'm paying for without having the fear that I will get hurt.

I don't doubt that 3-4 swim time is the only time some adults actually get to enjoy what they are paying for.

I pretty much gave up on using any community type pool or hot tub after the disgusting things I've seen going on in them. For example, one time I was sitting in the hot tub and two perhaps 12 y.o. boys were sitting on the edge feet dangling in hawking into the water. I got out and mentioned it to their mom, who looked to be a respectable well dressed business woman, her reply, oh they wouldn't listen to her anyways. I couldn't believe it, my dad would have belted me this side of kingdom come if an adult had complained about me doing that way back when. My mom would have dragged me out of the place by my ear apologizing profusely had she been there.
Another time I was sitting on the edge and a teen couple were sitting in the hot tub, the girl on the guys lap squeezing his zits.
Now just to show it ain't all just disgusting kids, go into the saunas and see how many guys are snorting up snot and hawking it onto the floor. I was so disgusted once I said something to the guy and all he said was.. oh they wash the floor. But I have to walk thru it.. didn't make any difference.
Never ever again will I go into any type of community pool be it at a resort, a community center, hotel, anywhere.

livvysmom - thanks for providing the link to the case you thought was relevant to yours:

The Keys Association says that the reason for these rules is that adult residents of The Keys enjoy using the main pool for lap swimming and "lap walking" or "water-walking," and that they prefer the relative tranquility of a swimming pool not filled with active and noisy children. In recognition of this need, the Court told the Association that they could impose other reasonable, age neutral restrictions on the use of the swimming pool, such as setting aside certain hours for lap-swimming or lap-walking, or imposing reasonable restrictions on noise or roughhousing in the pool area

So, the court decided that yes, the community can implement timeframes for use by adults.

Quite frankly, I can't believe that you're complaining about the rules in a community that is more than majority retired and elderly people. That is YOUR fault for buying into a community that does not fit your needs or demographics. If you wanted full child monopolization of the pool, perhaps you should have bought in a more family friendly community.

oh well, by the time we retire, they will all be dead

Geez. I have no words.

"oh well, by the time we retire, they will all be dead "

"Geez. I have no words."

Thank you-I was beginning to think I was the only one horrified by that statement
Pattie (mom of 6 and in total agreement with the majority here!)

Oh, for crying out loud. The Wide World is full of rules and restrictions for the betterment or safety of others. Sometimes you're one of the "others" and sometimes you're not. I can't believe you've already gone to the extent of contacting State agencies about a restricted swim time because it's inconvenient for your daughter's nap and dinner times. Your children can swim any time the pool is open except for ONE HOUR, and you want to fight that? Your husband should use this as an opportunity to teach your children the value of respecting the rights of others instead of being an (to use your word, "infuriated") example to them that they're entitled to everything. You and your husband are short-changing your kids on this one.

I'm so tired of our "kid-centric" society. I'm "infuriated" when I go out to dinner at a nice restaurant (it's a rare treat when we go out) and there's some noisy kids sitting near me (and their oblivious parents). I was peeved when parents thought it was o.k. to ask if their kids could come to our wedding (years ago) when the invitation specifically said, "Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so", on the inner envelope (and I had to tell them no). I can't stand it when I'm visiting a friend and their kids are hovering like they are a part of the conversation - "Go Play".

Lest you think I'm a kid hater, I am not. I have three of my own, with the oldest being 12. I love them, but there are certain times I want to enjoy being with adults, and my kids don't need to be the center of attention.

Well, I have certainly have learned how many people feel about this.

This rule in itself does not really bother to the extent that it is coming across. It is really a broader issue of our board turning the condo into a family unfriendly place to be. I like older people just fine - in fact we bought our place there to be close to my parents who spend half the year down there. However, our condo is not a retirement or adult community (there are plenty of those in Florida to pick from). Many of the people on our board have recently become full time residents and have put new rules into effect that are somewhat self-serving.

The two I mentioned above (changing the minimum rental period from 2 weeks to one month) and now deciding that no pets are allowed are examples. The problem with these rules is that these same people rented their units for years while they had primary residences in another state -- now that they don't have to -- renters suddenly "produce too much garbage." As for the no pets rule -- their little dogs are all getting old (just as they are), so when their dogs die they will not be replaced.

My problem with things getting too restrictive is two-fold. I find too many rules come to bite you later. For instance, during the boom years (a few years ago) you could put whatever rules you wanted into place and condo were selling like hotcakes. Not anymore -- we have 15 units alone for sale in our building and only 2 have sold in the last 15 months (and no I am not trying to sell). When you suddenly decide "no pets" you have eliminated probably half the potential buyers (and no, I don't even own a dog). Also, many elderly people depend on those little dogs for companionship.

There are other issues I have with them -- we go through managers like people change their underwear -- the managers always leave because someone on the board is on their a$$ all the time. They are not always good fiscal managers -- they levy accessments for projects and always run out of money. But that is another issue.

Anyhow, thats it.

*IF* by excluding children from the pool for the hour is indeed in violation of the FHA (or other law), I would be concerned.

Although I agree wholeheartedly with the other posters here that adults should have time to enjoy their pool sans children, having association rules & regs that are non-compliant with state and/or federal law is not a good thing and could be potentially very costly to the association.

Association members need to realize that their condo docs must be updated every so often (for example; associations can no longer ban satellite dishes in MA). Even if these particular rules aren't enforced, just by being on the books is a lawsuit waiting to happen & a huge liability to all residents of the community.

Well, I have certainly have learned how many people feel about this.

This rule in itself does not really bother to the extent that it is coming across.

Ummm...have you looked at your subject line? If your initial concern was not the rule, then why is it the main and only topic of your post?

It is really a broader issue of our board turning the condo into a family unfriendly place to be.

This sounds like you're shifting your reasoning because no one is buying your side.

Well, I have certainly have learned how many people feel about this.
This rule in itself does not really bother to the extent that it is coming across.

Ummm...have you looked at your subject line? If your initial concern was not the rule, then why is it the main and only topic of your post?

It is really a broader issue of our board turning the condo into a family unfriendly place to be.

This sounds like you're shifting your reasoning because no one is buying your side.

Absolutely agree.

This sounds like you're shifting your reasoning because no one is buying your side. I agree also.

Truly out of what you are mentioning the pool hours would be the least important. Changing rental rules and pet rules may affect saleability, somehow I don't think the pool hour rule will do that.

Also, changing the rental and pet rules sounds like changing the by laws and every owner should have gotten a vote. Did you vote, did you give someone your proxy to vote???? If this is a non age restricted condo, and you (and the other younger owners) are letting the retirees run the show, then shame on you.

"Also, changing the rental and pet rules sounds like changing the by laws and every owner should have gotten a vote. Did you vote, did you give someone your proxy to vote???? If this is a non age restricted condo, and you (and the other younger owners) are letting the retirees run the show, then shame on you."
in our HOA in order to change anything in the CC&Rs there must be 75% of the homeowners agreening to the change.
You can't even elect a board unless there is a certian % of votes we were told this is not our HOA law it is either a county or state law.
I would be more concerned if the board was chaning the rules without meeting the requirments.
What is the saying "pick your battles"

Red Herring:

"It is really a broader issue of our board turning the condo into a family unfriendly place to be."

If this was really the issue why didn't you address it in your OP?

What I posted earlier (the Board simply changing the By-Law at whim) MAY have happened here if I'm reading your latest post correctly. While I don't disagree with the others who think it's fine to have an adult swim time, IF the rules changed without the proper notification and owner votes, it's not allowed.Florida has a state agency and OMBUDSMAN who can tell you if the change was permissable in the manner in which it was handled. YOu do NOT have to go to the expense of an attorney. Contact the myflorida dot com website and find out who to call/contact. I forget what the name is - something about Business and Professional something but it clearly indicates Condominiums, etc..You probably have a local office. Their office is helpful for both owners AND Board of Directors in finding out what is allowed.

A suggestion - If you don't like the way the association is run, then work to get elected to the board. That way you and other families like yours will have representation on the board. If you can't get elected, attend every board meeting and association meeting that you can.

I've been part of too many condo associations where only a handful of the owners attend meetings or can be bothered to send proxies. The rest sit back and complain.

The OP may have been involved in the condo association and board, but that isn't clear from the posts.

To answer a few questions:

***If your initial concern was not the rule, then why is it the main and only topic of your post?

I guess what I meant to say was that DH gets a lot more excited about the pool rule then I do. It is the main subject of my post because I wanted my original question answered -- is the rule enforceable? I figured someone here was probably on a HOA board somewhere and would know. Instead people went on and on about kids at cocktail parties, swim clubs and hotels.

****Also, changing the rental and pet rules sounds like changing the by laws and every owner should have gotten a vote.

We did not get to vote on either of these issues (either by ballot or proxy). Many letters were written by people opposed to the rental change -- but ultimately it was adopted. Interestly, since then a FL statute was passed (due to a lawsuit) that says that the old rental period must be grandfathered for existing owners if a change occurs. Unfortunately, the law passed after our rental period change happened so it does not affect us. As for the pet rule, I think it was kept fairly quiet and not many people even know about it.

***A suggestion - If you don't like the way the association is run, then work to get elected to the board.

Actually, after the rental period change fiasco a few years ago, my DH did run for the board along with a few others who felt strongly about it. He did not win a seat. It is difficult to get on the board when you live 1200 miles away and only use the unit 4 weeks per year. Those who live there enjoy much greater name recognition. Also, those who live there are the ones who tend to vote (most others do not).

By the way, I enjoy an adults only party as much as the rest of you. This condo is our "little slice of heaven." It takes a lot of sacrifice for us to be able to keep this place (HUGE taxes, association fees and assessments) but we want our children to have fond memories of their vacation home. The condo in Fort Myers Beach that we stayed in when I was a kid was so kid-unfriendly -- my cousin and I couldn't even walk to pool without being yelled at for walking on the grass. We weren't allowed to use the pool table and were even questioned when we visited the condo reading room. I just don't want that to happen here.

Wow, you're not even full time residents? You live there for four weeks of the year? And you're complaining about your kids not being able to use the pool for one hour of the day?

Give me a break.

Livvysmom,

I understand your position. I also have some experience as a nonresident condo owner. We own one condo where the condo association is inept (that's putting it mildly). We have written letters many times to all of the property owners to let them know our positions on things and the things we have observed when we are there. In other words, we have made an real effort to make our names known (though I think some of the owners think we are "rabble rousers" and maybe we are).

If I were complaining about something, I don't think it would be the pool issue. From what you've said, I'd be on a mission to reverse the rental period issue. That really makes it hard to rent a vacation property.

To address the rental issue: Our condo association also passed a "no rentals allowed for the first three years" and I know you are not going to believe this, but if you voted NO on that rule or IF YOU DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL, you are NOT bound by that rule. It will ONLY apply to those who voted to accept that rule and NEW owners who buy after the rule was passed. My husband had our condo attorneys check this out as it didn't seem possible, but it IS THE LAW in Florida.

As a matter of courtesy to others, I would follow the rules on children in the pool. However, if they changed the bilaws regarding pets or rentals without due process, I would operate under the previous bylaws and let them take me to court.

Here's an article by Benny Kass who is an attorney specializing in real estate and HOA's. He writes a syndicated column. This one addresses a few of the issues mentioned in this thread. You may want to send your question into Mr. Kass and see if he'll answer it in his column.

______"Can Condo Rentals Be Banned?- Benny L. Kass

Question: I have been appointed by the Board of Directors of our Condominium Association to investigate whether our association can impose restrictions on renters in our building. Having reviewed some material -- and talked to a lot of people -- I am totally confused. The number of non-resident owners within our complex is currently over 40 percent. I have heard that this high ratio of investor-owned units will cause problems with our ability to obtain mortgage loans, whether we want to sell or refinance. Can the Board legally impose restrictions on leasing? Our Bylaws allow leasing of units, so long as the lease is for one year or more.

Answer: The simple answer to the complex problem is no. Your Board does not have the legal authority to restrict leasing. But your Association can adopt such a restriction, although it "ain't" easy. In any condominium association, there is what we call the "hierarchy of the power source". In order to determine what a Board can -- and cannot do -- we must first look to the operating statute in the jurisdiction where your condominium is located.

For instance, in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia there is a specific condominium statute. This law is the highest power source. Generally speaking, these laws do not address the issue of rental restrictions. Check with legal counsel for the law in your jurisdiction.

The next level power source in a condominium is the Declaration. This is a document which the developer of the condominium (called the "declarant") records among the land records. The Declaration spells out certain basic concepts of the condominium, such as a definition of common and limited common elements, rights of mortgage lenders who have outstanding loans to unit owners, and the percentage interest which each unit has in the entire project.

The third level power source are the Bylaws of the Association. The Bylaws are usually an exhibit to the Declaration and recorded among the land records. The Bylaws cover such matters as the composition of the Board of Directors, the obligations of the owners to pay assessments, voting rights and responsibilities, and insurance issues.

Finally, the lowest power source -- but nevertheless very important þ are the rules and regulations of the Association. The Board of Directors has the authority to prepare and adopt Rules, which can include such areas as pet restrictions, assessment collection policies, swimming pool procedures, and garbage and trash collection requirements. According to all experts in condominium law, the Board can adopt any rule or regulation so long as it is not in conflict with a higher power source, such as the Bylaws. Since your Bylaws allow leasing of units, the Board could not enact a resolution contrary to that position.

Leasing of condominium units is a major problem facing many condominium associations today. The "secondary mortgage market" -- where organizations such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy loans originated locally -- is a primary source of mortgage money for condominium loans, both for purchases as well as refinances. These secondary mortgage lenders impose restrictions on the number of investor units in a condominium association; in general, no more than 40 or 50 percent of the units can be investor owned (i.e., rented). If an association exceeds these limitations, it becomes difficult for potential purchasers and/or unit owners wishing to refinance to obtain mortgage financing.

Condominium Associations throughout the country have wrestled with this issue, and have come up with a number of potential solutions, including:

1. An absolute leasing prohibition.
2. Prohibiting existing owners (whether they be investors or not) from selling their unit to investors.
3. Establishing a percentage of units within the Association which can be rented at any particular time -- i.e., 40 percent.
4. Permitting leasing for a fixed period of time (i.e., two years), after which the unit must be owner-occupied for at least another two years.

There are, of course, variations on these proposals; perhaps one of the most common is to include a "grandfather" clause in the Bylaw amendment, which would either (1) completely exempt current owners from these restrictions or (2) establish a grace period, after which time the restrictions would then be applicable to all owners.

But, in my opinion, this is a matter which cannot be accomplished by a Resolution adopted by the Board. It requires at least a Bylaw amendment, and to be on the safe side, it should really be an amendment to the Declaration.

In order to amend the Bylaws or the Declaration of a condominium association, it generally takes a two-third vote of all the owners. If your association already has more than 40 percent investor owners in your complex, you are urged to start the amendment process now -- and grandfather in those owners who are currently renting. Grandfathering is not a legal concept, but a political reality. If you want to muster sufficient votes to amend your legal documents, you have to make concessions to those owners who currently rent their apartments, and will be directly impacted by any such amendment.

Keep in mind that many owners will claim that any such amendment is a restriction on property rights. Those owners will state -- and often with merit -- that when they purchased the unit, there were no restrictions, and they want the unit to be kept for investment purposes.

However, most courts which have dealt with restrictions on leasing have taken the position that when you live in a condominium, you are subject to the rules, regulations and legal documents of that condominium. If those documents are properly amended -- and serve a useful, reasonable purpose -- the amendments are applicable to everyone living in the complex.

In effect, when you live in a condominium, your home is not always your castle. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals addressed this very issue. In Burgess v Pelkey (decided September 30, 1999), the Court held that an amendment to the cooperative or condominium instruments (i.e. the Bylaws or the Declaration) which "restricts the occupancy or leasing of units in the cooperative or condominium complex" is valid and binding on all existing owners in the complex.

According to the Court:

To hold otherwise would negate uniformity, a principal purpose of cooperative and condominium living arrangements, by creating disparity among units subjected to differing regulatory regimes. The Court further affirmed the concept that "potential purchasers of condominium units should thus realize that the regime in existence at the time of purchase may not continue indefinitely and that changes in the declaration may take the form of restrictions on the unit owner's use of his property." The issue of investor-owned units is -- or should be -- taken seriously by all condominium unit owners -- and especially Boards of Directors.

From my own personal experience, I have seen unit owners turned down for refinance loans (or potential purchasers denied favorable mortgage loans) because of the high number of investor owners within a condominium association.

However, since this is a highly emotional issue, you and your Board should begin to educate the owners as to the problems of having too many renters within your complex. Perhaps your committee should hold an informational meeting first, to discuss the various issues and to listen -- and learn -- what the owners want.

All owners, including investors, should realize that if there are too many renters, the condominium may take on the appearance of an apartment complex, which may cause all units to depreciate in value.

There will be strong opposition to any restrictions, and factions will develop within your association. To the extent possible, you should try to avoid creating internal dissent, and an educational campaign will go a long way toward keeping the peace. The worst way to approach this subject is for the Board of Directors to suddenly announce that there will be a vote to amend the Bylaws (or the Declaration) without giving everyone ample opportunity to express their views.

After all, since your Association is supposed to be a democracy, your Board should heed the will of the majority." _________

Follow the link to read about a California case that addresses the FHA, pool restrictions,discrimination, and children

novahomesick, very interesting. You provided good reading on how these cases have been handed in the past. I like the paragraph that explained that although age-related restrictions were discriminatory, activity-related restrictions were valid rules. It made a lot of sense. I especially liked how the judge sent the parties back to the mediator, recognizing that the relationships between neighbors and the expense of litigation were important issues.

So, livvy'smom, it seems that you do have a point about age-related discrimination, but the board can go through the proper channels and declare certain hours are only for lap swimmers and lap walkers. Given that young children are unlikely to be able to do either, the effect will be the same. Young children will not be in the pool during those hours. But you won't feel discriminated against, since they will be allowed to do those activities as soon as they are able, if they want to.

"NOT FOR CITATION - United States District Court
For the Northern District of California"

The ruling does not set a precedent.

This is slightly off topic, but just as an FYI, there no longer is any such thing as a "not for citation" or non-precedental ruling in federal courts. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) were amended last year to prohibit all federal judges from designating any of their opinions/rulings that way. The change is prospective only, but I thought that you'd still find that to be of interest.

This one of the main reasons I will NEVER, NEVER live in an HOA EVER AGAIN! And I was the Vice President of the association.

Everybody is an attorney. And can cite case law in other states to back up their arguement.

The board of that condo just wanted to have some quiet time for the adults in the complex and here comes a part timer who thinks the rules are bad because their kids can't do what they want. Get a life!

We experienced the same thing in the Poconos of PA. There were full timers that enjoyed the indoor pool and we had committees that kept things neat and clean so as to keep the dues low. Then the part timers came on weekends and treated the committee members like hired help. I was once told to "pick up that garbage in the corner". I told the lady "It's your clubhouse too. You pick it up!"

The OP should realize they are the newcomer. They must assimilate to the EXISTING rules or work to change them. But bringing in legalities just causes animosity. "The law's on my side! Change those rules!" And there goes the "neighborhood" aspect of condos.

NEVER AGAIN!!!!!

Funny thing is, it appears the OP could make a case if she so desired, but think about the humongous can of worms she can create.

In addition to the animosity of her neighbors, she could inadvertently get her kids even more restricted than the one hour a day rule.

So the condo makes it "lap swimming only" from 8am to 3pm and "Marco Polo play time" from 3pm-4pm. No more age discrimination and everyones happy, right??? The good news is, her kids are young enough to become Olympic swimmers with all the lap swimming training.

Look, I have no interest in playing lawyer but, as a former HOA president, the OPs argument caught my attention. The covenants and rules of HOAs cannot supersede federal/state law. It is a primary responsibility of the Board to ensure that the CCRs remain in compliance with federal/state law to protect all homeowners from the consequences of violating those laws. When the FCC came out with their rulings governing HOA restrictions on satellite dishes and television antennas, our Board had to rewrite the rules to ensure compliance. We kept a lawyer on retainer for such purposes. We didnt have a pool so we never had to grapple with the issue.

As one reads about the Fair Housing Act, it seems that the OPs complaint about discrimination may have validity. Isnt it the responsibility of the condo board to listen to the OPs concerns and run the rules by an attorney to ensure compliance? Information found on HUDs website indicates the fines for FHA violations can be quite steep. Frankly, as a former HOA board member, Id want to know.

Philosophically, I agree with most of you who want kid-free time. I hate being in a pool surrounded by cannonball divers and marco polo devotees. But, whats the real objection? Is it the children themselves or is it the behaviors many of them evidence around pools? What if it were a group of 21 year olds playing the same games? Would our emotions run so high if we were talking about a polite 13 year old quietly swimming laps? It seems to me there are other ways to accomplish the goal of quiet swimming time for everybody but thats remains a point of debate.

I think the OP should call the local housing authority for guidance and then approach a Board member in as friendly and cooperative manner. She might actually be doing the HOA a favor.

novahomesick, thank you for the link...it is extremely informative.

IMO...bottom line, more often than not, I would imagine that HOA's include such rules not to discriminate against children per se...but to prevent rude and irresponsible behavior from interfering with others enjoyment.

Those parents who are responsible parents...who do teach their children how to be respectful of the rights of others, and who imbue in their children the fact that the world at large does not revolve around the child's desires unfortunately reap the problems caused by those parents who allow their kids to behave in ways that prompt such rules to be adopted.

As long as there are parents who believe that their child's right to do as they please supersedes the rights of all others, unfortunately responsible parents will bear the brunt of the restrictions imposed.

That said, it is more beneficial to use broader languageand not just in a legal senseas a canon-balling adult is even more obnoxious than a cannon-balling childbigger splash.

Language that prohibits the poor behavior itself regardless of age can be a win-win all around.

BTWthis is not only a problem for those who reside in homes governed by HOAsread below:

Well said, Novahomesick. I had a relative who joined her condo's board because she felt strongly about stuff like window treatments facing the golf course. She was soon spending all her time keeping the community in compliance with the law, and dealing with insurance regulations. She's swamped with work. It's a lot of responsibility. Like you said, it might be better to give the HOA a heads up so they could talk to their lawyers and switch to a use rather than age restriction if necessary.

Lauren, I think we belonged to the same club when we were young:
"I remember all the kids sitting and standing on the edge of the pool so anxious waiting for that last adult to get out and for the life guard to blow the whistle. then it was insanity as we all jumped in."
Our pool always had two lanes marked off for lap swimmers, so adult swims were just clusters of adults standing in the corner of the shallow end chatting (the ladies wearing their fancy swim caps covered in purple flowers).

I had a relative who joined her condo's board because she felt strongly about stuff like window treatments facing the golf course.

Oh, the silly things that get people worked into a lather!

I sure don't detect any discrimination against children in the original post. There is ONE LOUSY HOUR in each day when children aren't allowed in the pool. Doesn't sound like discrimination to me when it appears they are allowed in the pool the remainder of the open hours.

I think it's also important to mention that at least in Florida, HOA and CONDOMINIUMS are under DIFFERENT statutes. They are similar in some ways, in others the rules apply differently. I have known them to be completely opposite from one another as to what can/can't be done "according to Florida law."

novahomesick: It seems to me there are other ways to accomplish the goal of quiet swimming time for everybody but thats remains a point of debate.

Here are our pool rules that I found on-line:

Observe posted rules. Pool hours: 9 am to Dusk
Use Restricted to Residents and Guests Only
Pool Rules
1. State Law requires a cleansing shower before entering
pool.
2. No Food, Glass, or Pets in pool area
3. Persons having open cuts, sores, rashes or communicable
disease are not permitted in pool.
4. Children must be toilet trained, and if under 12 must be supervised
by a responsible adult.
5. Adult (age 18 or over) hour is 3 pm-4 pm.
6. Reserving of pool furniture is not allowed. Do not remove
furniture from pool deck.
7. Deposit all trash in containers provided.
8. No swinging or diving from lifeline or ladders.
9. Only Coast Guard Approved personal flotation devices
allowed, No swim fins, tanks, coins, floats or toys in pool
area.
10. No horseplay, running, jumping or screaming.
11. No radios or stereos (except with headphones)
12. Use Pool at Your Own Risk
13. No Diving

So, as you can see -- the rules are fairly strict allready. For instance, children in swim diapers are not allowed, no baby floats, or even arm floats are allowed. Not even "noodles" that people use for swim exercise are allowed.

Rules 9, 10, 11 and 13 pretty much cover anything naughty that a child might do.

As far as lap swimming, to be honest I don't see a lot of elderly people doing it. It really is a leisure pool, not a lap pool like you would find at the YMCA. I would not be opposed to lap swimming hour but I think it should be early in the day (say 10:00am) when most people exercise.

redcurls: think it's also important to mention that at least in Florida, HOA and CONDOMINIUMS are under DIFFERENT statutes.

True, but the federal FHA applies to almost all housing communities.

BTW, I have no interest in sueing anyone over this. I think the legality of the rule is fair to ask about though.

For instance, children in swim diapers are not allowed

I'm guessing there is a health code that requires children to be potty trained. I'm kinda surprised there isn't an additional "no diapers" rule. This would cover the very young and very old.

no baby floats, or even arm floats are allowed. Not even "noodles" that people use for swim exercise are allowed.

But they aren't allowed for all, correct?

No Diving

Probably an insurance restriction.

One thing that seems peculiar to me in the court cases cited do not allow restricting children without an adult present. Some have speculated this rule is in place due to the possiblity that the children are not strong swimmers, but it may be because of insurance liabilities with unsupervised children. In some states a child drowning in a pool, even if the kid climbs the fence, gets the ladder and crawls into the pool without homeowner consent leaves the home owner liable for damages. How can the HOA not have the same liability issues?

9. Only Coast Guard Approved personal flotation devices
allowed, No swim fins, tanks, coins, floats or toys in pool
area.

I can't imagine anyone being such a butthead that they'd actually enforce this rule. What? You gonna take away a kid's swim fins, arm floaties or plastic blow-up duck? Sheesh.

Xamsx: The HUD materials and cases I looked at allow an association to restrict the use of recreational facilities as long as they can establish that the restriction is based on health and safety. For example, an HOA could argue successfully that allowing free use of an exercise room to children under the age of 16 poses a health risk to the children unable to operate equipment is a safe manner and restrict admittance. Allowing young children to use the pool without adult supervision poses an obvious safety threat so it would be perfectly legit (and responsible) to restrict pool admittance. The FHA allows room for health and safety.

There was a time when we never thought about our children being "discriminated against" and when there was a rule, it was to be followed, because it was a rule, period.

So much rhetoric over spoiled children and wimpie parents.

I suspect that number 9 in livvysmom's list has to do with insurance issues. When I was a kid back in the dark ages, that was the rule at the pool we went to.

Just briefly glancing on the postings, there is a good healthy dicussion on rules and regs etc. My thought on any public pool is certain hours should be allowed for adults only or build two pools. Because I do not swim, I really don't care, but at many RV parks we traveled to, they did have 1 hour in the afternoon and 1 hour at night for adults only. And it was respected. Adults respect rules, children will learn by observing responsible adults.

livvysmom:
As far as lap swimming, to be honest I don't see a lot of elderly people doing it. It really is a leisure pool, not a lap pool like you would find at the YMCA. I would not be opposed to lap swimming hour but I think it should be early in the day (say 10:00am) when most people exercise.

Most people exercise at 10 AM? Umm no. Those who work exercise in the early AM, lunch or evening. Those who don't have more freedom, but that doesn't mean specifically at 10 AM.

My point isn't to nitpick the time you chose, but the fact that the time you chose seemed to try to make the hours more favourable for YOUR family. Quite frankly, the ideal time for an adult swim would either be early AM or early evening once they get home from work.

Thanks for posting the rules. Can you tell me, and please be honest, do most parents follow those rules? Is there no horseplay? No running? No screaming?

I have to wonder if the HOA implemented this rule for adult time only given the rules you posted above are very clearcut and strict, that the pool rules were not being respected by those with kids.

Just one data point here. Most of the rules Livvysmom listed are at my neighborhood pool as well.

2. No Food, Glass, or Pets in pool area
We have the same. People break the No Food part but the No Glass and No Pets are pretty strictly enforced for obvious reasons.

3. Persons having open cuts, sores, rashes or communicable disease are not permitted in pool.
I don't think we have quite this rule because the kids always get cuts and the life guards put bandaids on them and send them back into the pool.

4. Children must be toilet trained, and if under 12 must be supervised by a responsible adult.
Usually this has to be with health regulations for toilet training and insurance for the under 12. Our pool just changed the age to 12 (from 10) due to insurance.

Swim diapers don't contain fecal matter so I'd rather children wearing swim diapers be banned than allowed. This is the first year my four year old son is allowed in the "big" pool because he did not toilet train until after he was three.

5. Adult (age 18 or over) hour is 3 pm-4 pm.

9. Only Coast Guard Approved personal flotation devices
allowed, No swim fins, tanks, coins, floats or toys in pool
area.

The pool allows coins and toys (e.g., pool balls to toss around) but no fins, tanks (!), or flotation devices (waterwings and such). If a child needs a flotation device then the parent has to be with that child at all times. This is actually a safety issue so that parents don't get "lazy" about supervising a child who can't swim.

People used to gripe about the flotation device rule until a 6yo child at another nearby pool drowned. He was wearing a flotation device of some sort, went to the restroom, took off the device and did not put it back on. Jumped into the pool. Drowned. The parent or adult in charge was not with the child at any point during this time. It's easy to blame the parent but I think putting a child in a flotation device gives a false sense of security for lots of people.

10. No horseplay, running, jumping or screaming.
The extent of horseplay and screaming and jumping is usually up to the discretion of the life guards. Some are strict and some let the children (teens) play if they are the only ones in the pool area.

13. No Diving
Obvious safety issues and insurance. We have a diving well. One member brought up the point that if the diving boards (low and high) were removed, the pool insurance would be alot less. The dive team parents objected to this notion.

I lived in a large subdivision that had 3 pools.

One was tiny and was only for babies/toddlers.

The largest pool was the family pool - anyone allowed.

The third pool was for adults only.....until a few parents started stirring up issues of discrimination. They wanted the kids to be able to use the adult pool if they wanted (The pools were about 50 feet apart.). I moved out before there was any resolution.

My comment: I used to use the adult pool area because I would read near the pool. Because there were no kids jumping and splashing, my book would not get soaking wet.

So realize that just because the adults might not be IN the pool during that 1 hour Adult period - that there might be some adults that are just outside the pool that are enjoying a kid free pool for awhile.

Haven't seen so much reaction on a single topic in a while ! There is a suburb of Chicago on Lake Michigan that has reserved a portion of their beach for adults only that is generating the same interest! They have reserved a small section of a mile long beach!

Ironically enough, kids and parents with kids are often drawn to the adult pools because there are no kids there.

"Ironically enough, kids and parents with kids are often drawn to the adult pools because there are no kids there."

Kids go to the adult pool because there are no kids there?That sounds a little like the old Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

What a shame that the kids aren't taught a respect for their elders.

One was tiny and was only for babies/toddlers.

The largest pool was the family pool - anyone allowed.

The third pool was for adults only.....until a few parents started stirring up issues of discrimination. They wanted the kids to be able to use the adult pool if they wanted (The pools were about 50 feet apart.). I moved out before there was any resolution.

sweet tea - very interesting about this complex. There is a pool specifically for babies and toddlers and people complained that the adult only pool discriminated? What if an adult wanted to sit and soak in the baby pool? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Someone mentioned the beach in Chicago. It is posted on a board I frequent and it is as heated as this topic here. People who applaud the 1/4 allocated as adult only are labelling those in favour of it as child haters and of course, the discrimination card has come up many times. Geeez, it's 1/4 of a beach where the other 3/4 is for everyone.

Then, the topic of playgrounds came up where some municipalities ban adults from being at a playground in publicly owned areas if they don't have children. One woman was having a picnic near the playground, minding her own business, eating lunch and reading a book. The parents at the playground sent a policeman over to boot her out and he threatened her with arrest if she didn't leave!

All this is under the guise of the chance a child can be molested or stalked by a predator. Way to presume someone guilty. So, it's ok for parents to deem a playground to be their own place, but a 1/4 beach cannot.

There are many times when I feel that since I'm not a parent or a child I might as well just set myself on fire in the middle of street to see if anyone cares. Maybe I ought to move to Florida.

There are many times when I feel that since I'm not a parent or a child I might as well just set myself on fire in the middle of street to see if anyone cares.

In the DC Metro area, it would depend on which street and how much traffic congestion your burning would cause. Oh! You meant about YOU, a person? Nah...