Educating a child should not be a welfare payment. If you make the decision to have a child, then you need to provide the funds for properly raising that child, including medical care, food, housing, and yes, education.
You breed 'em, you feed 'em.
Jon
Translation: Love your grandkids, but bitch about contributing to their education. Be sure to also bitch when a young cashier is pitifully dumb.
Logical? No. Normal? Sure.
What a terrible idea. Despite what some people think, other people's lives do not have to revolve around children. Thankfully, the law allows citizens of a certain age the option to live in age-restricted communities, for their own comfort and safety. 99% of communities in the US allow children. There's no need to make it 100%.
If anything, we need to start designating more public spaces as adults-only. Kind of like non-smoking sections, but make them adults-only sections. Let the parents listen to the kiddies scream in the general seating while adults without children have a peaceful meal/movie/plane flight in the adults section, surrounded only by other adults. We need to make becoming adult something kids once again aspire to, and that won't happen unless we reinstate the notion of adult privileges. That creates something for children to want to achieve. A rite of passage, so to speak.
Dumb cashiers are the least of your worries. Try and find a Doctor to save your life that hasn't had an education. Try and find any business that can survive without an educated workforce. Try and find enough people who can earn enough money to pay taxes that haven't first been educated. Jon Danniken wants all the benefits without having to participate. He's a freeloader and a drag on society. Put him on an island somewhere with all the other antisocial misfits. One thing is common to the poorest places on earth: very little public education.
You're right, your "translation" was not logical.
I think it is obvious that you are the one lacking in an education.
Jon
Kinda helps explain why the mother has been a junkie for six years, in spite of her kid being in danger of going into foster care system.
Six years ago they could have sold their home for a bundle and moved to where there were no age restrictions.
Are you saying it's the grandparents' fault that their daughter has a drug problem?
At what point in the six year period did they begin trying to sell the home?
OK. What did you mean?
I must've missed that in the news story. Where in the story did it indicate WHEN IN THE SIX YEAR PERIOD they began trying to sell the house?
No conjecture about it. They were in a no-child area, took the child, and knew they were in the wrong from then on. The rest may be conjecture, but is also beside the point. No kids=no kids.
I think my statement stands on it's own, but perhaps it lacks clarity. What part, specifically, are you having trouble understanding?
Jon
No. It's important. When in the six year period did they begin trying to sell the home?
According to the article at the link below, the grandparents took in their granddaughter in 2004. They made no attempt to sell their home until sometime in 2006. They didn't make a serious attempt, either, offering only a 5% discount off the appraised value. Not only is a 5% discount a joke (10% is the absolute minimum if a quick sale is desired), they hadn't paid for the home in the first place. They'd inherited it, so they could've afforded an even more substantial discount - but, like I said, they were greedy.
The HOA tried to work with them for three years, and they stubbornly refused to cooperate. In another article, the grandmother admits that in April 2005, she reached an agreement with the HOA that she would abide by the association's rules by October 1st, 2006. In other words, the HOA bent over backwards giving this family time to settle their affairs and move out. The grandparents then broke the agreement. The HOA sued them in 2007.
So yes, the grandparent's asshattery has been ongoing for years.
HeyBub wrote the following:
Florida is a human's Elephant graveyard
I stand corrected.
Even so, the judge would be a fool to order them to put the child in foster care.
He doesn't have to. He can order the lot of them evicted for being in violation of the guidelines. At that point the grandparents have their own decision to make: leave with their granddaughter and find another place where they all can live - or stay, and place their granddaughter in foster care.
Judging from their self-centered history in this dispute, I'm betting they'll give up their granddaughter before they'll give up their house. They seem to be that kind of people.
Knowing the rules of the HOA I would have put my house up for sale and moved to a community that accepted youths. I would not have spit in the face of the HOA and all the other homeowners who paid a fee not to have children thrust in their face. Six years. Six years she violated the rules. The HOA could have had her thrown out years ago. How much tolerance should they have? The grandparents said to the HOA and the homeowners "F- - K You, I'll do what I want".
It should have been at most 30 days after the child moved in. Actually, if they knew they were keeping the child they should have started selling immediately (especially 6 years ago the houses were bringing big money). The intentionally violated the rules and I have no pity on them. I'm sorry for the 6 year old that her mother is a junkie but that doesn't excuse the fact the grandparents were 1000 percent wrong.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.