Homeowners Association Harasses Foster Family

Dear Editor,   07/03/2025

I am writing to respectfully request your attention and assistance regarding a serious matter affecting my family’s housing rights and well-being at our residence in Hualalai Village in Kona. We have exhausted other methods available and am hoping our local news may be able to shine a spotlight on our situation. On Tuesday July 1st, we were contacted by Mayor Kimo Alameda, who shared that our situation has come to his attention, among others. The mayor kindly shared that, as a father of seven, he understands firsthand the unique challenges faced by larger families and expressed his support for our continued efforts and asked that we keep him updated.

Our family consists of two married adults and five adopted foster children, all of whom are recognized as disabled under both state and federal guidelines. We are the legal owners of a three-bedroom, 1,214 square-foot condominium. Despite meeting all applicable local, state, and federal occupancy standards, we have been informed by our Homeowners Association (HOA) that our family exceeds the HOA's internal occupancy rules, which limit residency to two persons per bedroom—without reference to square footage, safety concerns, building code, or fire regulations.

This restriction is not supported by any legal or safety standards. To our knowledge, there is no lawful basis for a private HOA to impose occupancy limits more restrictive than those permitted under county code or state and federal fair housing laws. We believe this rule—and its selective enforcement—constitutes a violation of our family's housing rights.

Pattern of Discriminatory Treatment

There is a troubling and documented history of familial discrimination within this community. Since our arrival, our family has been singled out and penalized under this occupancy rule, even though other households—whose circumstances changed through childbirth or extended family residence—have not faced the same enforcement.

We have faced escalating consequences for simply trying to live together as a family, including:

• Being forced to rent additional temporary housing,
• Living out of a vehicle in the parking lot for periods of time to remain in compliance, and
• Receiving repeated threats of enforcement action by the HOA.

While other families are allowed to remain intact under similar or greater occupancy conditions, our family has been targeted and separated. We were explicitly told—verbally and in writing—that our children, especially those with special needs, are “undesirable” and “disruptive” to what the Board describes as a “retirement community environment.” However, this property is not age-restricted, nor legally designated as a senior housing community.

Direct Quotes and Disparate Treatment

At a March 13, 2025 board meeting, a member of the HOA Board stated to us:

“There is little tolerance for small children, and especially a large number of them with special needs.”

This statement followed the Board's refusal to hear or vote on our petition requesting a variance or amendment to allow our family to live together. We were further told that no direct communication would be allowed going forward and that we must retain legal counsel to continue any discussion.

Similarly, on February 24, 2025, the site manager—hired by the HOA and acting on their behalf—communicated the same discriminatory message. He relayed that “residents do not desire children, and especially not [your] children,” and suggested that we remove our children from the property during waking hours to “keep things quiet.” It is worth noting that this same site manager is familiar with other families on the property that exceeds the stated occupancy limit, yet no enforcement has been directed at them.

Attempts at Resolution

We have made every effort to resolve this matter peacefully and in good faith:

1. The previous owners attempted to secure a variance for our anticipated occupancy.
2. We worked directly with the HOA President to draft a variance request, which was later disregarded.
3. We participated in multiple HOA meetings and presented our concerns publicly.
4. We organized multiple petitions with significant community support, signed by over 25% of the community, only to have them ignored or invalidated.
5. We have engaged in good-faith conversations with individual board members, neighboring residents, and the managing association.

Despite these efforts, we continue to face what we believe is systemic and targeted discrimination based on family status and disability.

Sincerely,

Raymond Siebring

Kailua-Kona, Hawaii