Housing Battle Pits Seniors, Young Family : Generation gap: Couple with young children charges it is a victim of discrimination at a housing complex that claims it is restricted to seniors.

In their wildest dreams, Don and Leslie Scott never thought owning their first home would be anything like this.

Rather than relishing the pride of new ownership, the Encinitas couple say they face the daily cold shoulder from elderly neighbors who would rather cross the street than talk to them--like some cruel Candid Camera episode.

They feel sheepish about playing catch with their 5-year-old daughter in their own front yard--and have instead taken to nearby parks where they don’t feel the pressure of disapproving eyes.

And, since the first week after they moved into the Pacific Serena housing complex in 1989, they’ve winced while opening letters from the local homeowners’ association carrying the same no-nonsense message:

If you’re not 55 years or older, we don’t want you here.

“What they’ve done is take away my right to enjoy my home and property,” said Scott, a 30-year-old businessman who is co-owner of a San Diego camping supply store. “I mean, this was our first house. We both had such high expectations. We finally did it, we got into it. And now this.

“It’s like I made this terrible mistake by moving in there. And three years later I’m still dealing with it.”

In the fall of 1989, the couple filed a discrimination complaint with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, claiming they were victims of a requirement that each home in the community include at least one resident 55 years of age or older.

Recently, HUD investigators determined there was reasonable cause for the discrimination complaints filed against Pacific Serena by the Scotts and two others--including a real estate agent who has sold homes in the North County community, a collection of 382 single-story duplexes located east of Interstate 5 near the Quail Botanical Gardens.

The complaints alleged that Pacific Serena discriminated against couples and single parents with children.

Now HUD has informed the three complaining parties and the Pacific Serena homeowners’ association that, as early as next month, the cases could either be heard by an administrative law judge or decided in federal district court.

Federal housing officials say this kind of would-be discrimination case is on the rise in California and elsewhere--especially since 1988 when Congress amended the fair housing law to prohibit discrimination against families in all housing.

“These cases are very new, and there’s lot of them going on right now,” said Phillip Stone, a HUD lawyer in San Francisco. “Right now, as many as 45% of the things we handle are family status cases.”

The amendments to the federal Fair Housing Act, Stone said, included a protection for family status. “Because what people were saying was, ‘We don’t want you to live here, but it’s not because you’re black, it’s because you’ve got so many children.’

“But the new law protects such families,” he said, effectively closing another loophole to discrimination. Stone said several states, including California, are considering new statutes based on the federal law.

But Alan Burson, an Oceanside attorney who represents the Pacific Serena homeowners’ association as well as its architectural committee, which drew up and enforces the residency guidelines, said the community is a seniors’ development and therefore has a right to dictate who lives there and who doesn’t.

“The law says that senior communities may restrict residents,” he said. “The goal is to have a place with other seniors around to provide peer companionship, rather than young couples who work and leave for their jobs during the day.”

The issue, both sides say, is whether Pacific Serena qualifies as a seniors’ community.

E. Herman Wilson, HUD’s chief of enforcement for several Western states including California, said residency requirements can be imposed on state and federally sponsored housing designed for senior citizens.

But all other developments such as mobile home parks and single-family home communities must apply for an exemption to set such residency restrictions.

To receive such an exemption, they must adhere to a strict set of guidelines that include notifying residents beforehand of their interest to exclude those under 55 and provide significant services such as exercise facilities and a distinct clubhouse offering activities for senior citizens and wheelchair ramps, he said.

Burson said that Pacific Serena considers itself a seniors’ community even though for economic reasons it does not provide many of those services.

He also denied that the Scotts or anyone else had been harassed by the homeowners’ group on the basis of their age or family status.

“The group sends letters to anyone who doesn’t comply with the rules and regulations of the community, not just because of their age but maybe because their house was the wrong color.”

Asked why other young couples in the community had not received similar letters demanding compliance to the rules, as the Scotts and others have claimed, Burson replied:

“It’s just a matter of finances and when things happen as to why some people get letters and others don’t. Right now, we’re preparing a letter that’s to go out to all others who do not meet our age requirements.”

Julia Heers, an Encinitas real estate agent who owns two homes in Pacific Serena, said she filed a HUD complaint after sensing discrimination.

Several of her renters with children moved out of Pacific Serena after receiving letters from the homeowners’ association threatening a lawsuit. All of the people singled out by the community were people with children, she said.

“I got a letter myself, saying that, at 49, I was too young to be living there,” she said.

Heers also lost several prospective home buyers who changed their minds about purchasing after reading sections of the community’s regulations precluding residents under 55 from living at Pacific Serena.

“I feel sorry for those people there,” Heers said. “They’re trying so desperately to protect their lifestyle as seniors. But in the process they’re breaking the law.”

Don Scott received his first letter from the association in March, 1989--within two days after purchasing his house for $125,000.

“It was that fast,” he said. “Right off the bat we knew our neighbors didn’t want us there. It was hard because you didn’t know who your friends were, and those who weren’t your friends.

“And there we were, a young couple who had just moved into their first house, concerned with painting and getting things the way we wanted them, and we had to deal with that. It was a pain in the neck.”

Scott said he was aware of the problem involving young couples at the community, but said he was assured by his real estate agent that the association had no legal right to exclude a young family.

“So they let us know that all the copies of their letters were also sent to their lawyer,” he said. “They said we didn’t meet their age requirements, and they wanted us to rectify the problem. Soon, we started being mentioned by name in the newsletter.

“I guess I had two choices--either change the date on my birth certificate or move out real quick.”

The Scotts decided to stay. But they paid the price.

For the first time in his life, Don Scott said he was forced to swallow the bitter taste of what felt like discrimination. It was unfamiliar and painful.

The couple were afraid to mention the association’s letters and the looks from passing neighbors to their own friends, fearing that they might be ridiculed for not being able to feel comfortable in their own home, Scott said.

“I was afraid they would say, ‘Well, do you own your house or not?’ ”

Often, the tension at home was palatable. Leslie felt unwanted and thought they should leave. They began arguing.

On the street, they said there was constant gossip.

“The residents had contacted an attorney, so they knew enough not to say anything to us,” said Leslie, 29, who manages a local hair salon.

Added her husband: “It was all behind our back. Our immediate neighbors would tell us about what was being said, about how the architectural committee said they were going to put us out and keep us out.

“But it was frustrating because on the street nothing was said. Instead, people would turn their head, give you the cold shoulder, cross the street if they saw you coming.”

Soon, Don Scott felt uncomfortable about using his own front yard.

“I work hard all week, and I’m the kind of guy who would like to throw the ball about with my daughter in the street in front of my house,” he said. “But I didn’t do that because of what was going on. I didn’t even use my front yard. Instead, I went out to the back yard. Or I went to a nearby park where I knew we wouldn’t be the object of people’s stares.”

Scott said he is convinced that he was singled out by the association for one reason: his 5-year-old daughter, Jessica, and the family’s newest arrival--5-month-old daughter Madison.

“I think their idea was that they moved to get away from kids,” he said, “that they had already raised their own and didn’t want any more around. It got you angry after a while.”

At one point, Scott said, the couple received a letter from the homeowners’ association saying that if they didn’t believe the group, they should contact HUD and file a complaint--and even provided an address and telephone number.

And so the Scotts took their advice. They filed their complaint several weeks later. And, now they have consulted an attorney. Soon, they said, they would like to put the matter behind them.

For the first time, they do not feel like unwanted strangers in their own home.

“All along I’ve said that I’m not going to let them get to me,” Scott said. “We’ve worked hard for this house. We spent time and money refurbishing it. It’s ours. And we’re not going to start packing our bags to leave.

“We’re here for the long run, no matter what our neighbors say. Our family is staying put.”