When Considering a Condominium Purchase, Check How Long the President Has Ruled the Roost

If you are looking for a condominium that you’ll feel comfortable with, check how long the current board has been in power. If the board doesn’t turn over, it’s the same names year after year, then add additional caution when purchasing in the condominium or HOA.

I’ve read, and had some personal experience, about too many “lifer presidents” (an example here) that over time begin to treat the board as their exclusive play grounds. Where most elected bodies recognize the threat to good governance elected lifers create – even the President of the United States has term limits – no such measures exist for community associations.

The risk is, and it seems to come to fruition, that over a period of time the basic principles of the board get eroded.

Take for example the board of President Lorraine Walsh, who has held her title for over 20 years at the Deveonwood, Hercules California, condominium. According to one resident the board hasn’t held an election since 2005. Further, though there is a vacancy on the current board and an owner volunteered to fill it till next election – the current board voted down the appointment 4 to 0.

Other shenanigans appear to be happening there as well: holding in camera executive sessions in the middle of public meetings. That’s clearly a method to shut down the meetings.

Often long serving boards tend to use fining as a heavy handed method to enforce compliance, or threaten owners financially if they raise trouble. For the Deveonwood, first time violations carry $350 fines and have been handed out for improper window coverings and poor garden pot locations.

Sometimes I wonder if the property management firms hired by these long term boards are somewhat responsible for the condominium’s or HOA’s decline. If there really hasn’t been an election since 2005 the property management company should resign or make public notice that the board is failing to abide by all rule and regulations. The problem is management companies can fear failing to comply with the board will result in a non-renewed contract. It’s hard to protest the board that pays you. For the Deveonwood, one owner appears to have asked for the record of past elections to confirm when and how the last elections were held, and the management company denied to fill the request.

Condominiums are great places to live, but like any organization they benefit deeply from a regular turnover of the board, and a rotation of the roles. There is nothing scared or amazingly difficult about being on a board, and normally a management company will ensure all the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed. I have yet to see a new board, with none of the old guard remaining, mess up a community.

When the Condominium Board Demands Your Facebook Page

There are many owners in condominiums and HOAs that, for one reason or another, have started Facebook pages for their community. I am all for supporting owners that want better communication with their neighbours – and it doesn’t matter in what venue: monthly klatches, book groups, or social websites.

What does get my hackles up is the boards of these condominiums or HOAs threatening, or taking, legal action to shut down these social media groups or sue for control of the social media.

The Maplewood Homeowner’s Association, Nashville Tennessee, has issued a letter to Susan Rowe that her failure to remove the name of the subdivision (Maplewood) from her 2 year old Facebook page would cause the association to sue her. The intent of the letter is not only to have her change the name of the site, but to turn the Facebook group over to the board.

Her Facebook group – “Residents of Maplewood” (changed from “Maplewood Subdivision”) is a private, invite only, group which posts about lost cats and neighbour requests to borrow lawn equipment. This isn’t even a case of “we hate our association postings”.

The use of Facebook for neighbors to communicate without authorization from the board is something that is legal, justified, and fully supportable. As well, identifying the group as related to a particular local or building – but indicating that it’s not the “official site” is also well and good. There can be no limitation on a group of activist residents using the name of the association within the group title. Otherwise it’s a lot like saying the Nashville Singers couldn’t use the word Nashville in their name. Just plain silly.

HOAs don’t have a right to control owner conversation – and really that’s the crux of most of these conflicts. It’s overbearing, control-freak, boards that see any ability for owners to organize as a threat to their position. To them I say good luck with that. Spend your time on building community – not destroying other people’s successful endeavours

PS. If the association wants is the word Maplewood removed – maybe the association should first go after all those other associations that show up on a Google search for Maplewood. It’s all so confusing as to which one is the real Maplewood, when they all stand up shouting “No, I’m Maplewood!“

Owner to Owner Intimidation Must Be Responded To Immediately By a Board

Painting “Gay a*****e” on a person’s door is downright rude. But in a condominium community it’s significantly wrong. Publicly attacking a person in this manner stabs at the roots of trying to create an inclusive, functional, community.

It not only acts as an attempt to intimidate the owner, it’s a public statement that directly influences others owners to perform the same action, or become supportive of it. Seriously.

Setting aside all the work on advertising and the use of messaging, there’s a pretty famous test called the Milgram experiment which shows that people who see someone perform an action, even if they find that action harmful to another human being, would perform the same action (in Milgram’s case it was applying powerful electric shocks to another person) more often than a person who has no example of the action. In essence, people are way more willing to do things they are personally uncomfortable with (even harmful) if they have first had experience of the act.

So by publically painting the slogan on, in this case James Burns’ door, the painter not only attempts to intimidate James, but hopes to receive community support to repeat or increase the severity attack on James. Even implicit support (nobody objecting) creates the feedback needed by the painter.

Thankfully at least one other member of the condominium community objects to the vandalism. Mr. Burns received a poster that was hung on the door with statements including “We advocate zero-tolerance for hate crimes” and “heart, caring, helpful, kind.”

That’s freaking awesome. It’s the “backfire” that’s required to nip owner on owner persecution before it grows. With only 66 units in the “upscale” complex (Zillow shows unit prices at about 440k at the moment), the management and board should immediately follow up with letters to all the owners, postings in the building, and a letter to Mr. Burns that state any attack on an owner is fully condemned by the condominium corporation. The communication should not only include positive statements that people of all walks and cultures are welcome at the Copley Court condominiums, Braircliff Manor NY, but person or persons found responsible for the act will be sanctioned to the maximum allowance of the bylaws.

A home, is a home, is a home. And the corporation is always in the role to ensure that all people can enjoy and feel comfortable within their residence, and by extension the common property.

Sadly – at the time of this article neither the board nor property manager has contacted Mr. Burns about this.  Time for the board to step up to the plate ensure a positive community. The longer the board waits to respond, the more implicit support they give the evil doer.

Twin Lakes HOA: Killing for Skittles

HOA Retreat at Twin Lakes, Florida, is about to be owned. And by owned, I mean sued and found responsible for the killing of 17 year old Trayvon Martin. Every owner in the Retreat at Twin Lakes HOA should get ready to open their pocketbook.

Briefly, for those not familiar with the case – HOA Block Watch captain George Zimmerman shot to death Trayvon while the boy was returning to his residence after purchasing Skittles and an ice tea. George Zimmerman claims self defense, even though he chased the boy after the police told him not to, and the deadliest thing Trayvon had on him was 2.17oz of tasty rainbow.

Here’s why the HOA is about to pay out a whole lot of cash:

1. Mr. Zimmerman was performing an activity authorized and backed by the HOA– performing the duties of Block Watch within the neighbourhood. An HOA newsletter confirms this role in the community.
2. The HOA, in backing Mr. Zimmerman as a Captain, authenticates a person who had been charged in 2005 for battery of a police offer, and had previously a restraining order filed against him.
3. Mr. Zimmerman failed to conform to any of the neighbourhood watch mandated training. Block watch clearly indicates that watch members are there to observe only, and never confront suspicious persons. They are “eyes and ears only”.
4. Mr. Zimmerman was recorded actively chasing Trayvon while on the phone with 911 (audio of call). The 911 operator also indicated that this action was unnecessary. This was definitely an act to confront Trayvon.
5. While carrying a gun is not illegal in this situation, neighbourhood watch members are not permitted to carry firearms.
6. Mr. Zimmerman made 46 calls to 911 since the beginning of 2011 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Not only is it reported that he was out on his rounds for the watch, it is reasonable to assume as this encounter also started with a 911 to report a suspicious person, he was operating as a neighbourhood watch member as he was the 46 other times.

It’s a pretty simple line to draw the HOA as responsible for failing to maintain the required screening and standards required of their volunteers. Unlike a criminal prosecution, a civil case needs significantly less burden of proof or certainty. It is well documented that a person found innocent of a crime may still face significant monetary loss in a civil court. In this case it won’t be a person found liable in civil court, but the HOA.

I have said before that the Block Watch program is a phenomenal program, and every condominium and HOA that faces a crime issue should operate one. The Block Watch program has operated for over 50 years with astounding success. I still stand by the success.

The issue is an HOA must take the steps required. A formal relationship must be made between the community and local law enforcement. All members of the neighborhood watch must attend training – both at the beginning and ongoing. The HOA needs to create, back, and act on the mission statement: “eyes and ears only” – and repeat that message to the volunteers and the community constantly.

Importantly, the HOA needs to have a firm, written, commitment from each volunteer that they will abide by all the recommendations and requirements of both the national neighborhood watch program and local police authority.

And seriously, if this event makes you afraid to have a neighborhood watch – don’t be. Just stick to the program and enforce a role of observation only. That approach works most awesomely. A neighborhood watch that observes only, and doesn’t carry weapons, is both safe to themselves, safe to the community, and safe to 17 year olds coming home with a bit of ice tea and candy.

Condominium Board Fines Resident $4500+ for Flowers

I don’t know if Kimberly Bois, of the Portsmouth’s Atlantic Pointe condominiums, New Hampshire, is the nefarious evil doer her condominium board makes her out to be. I mean, if the board doesn’t stop her green thumb, perennial planting, capers – who knows what seeds of chaos and tendrils of civil unrest she may cause to root in her neighbourhood.

Seriously though, the specific perennials that she’s planted (daisies, irises, lavender, hydrangeas and tulips) may be counter to the by-laws and she may very well have to dig them up. I indicate specific perennials, because this sales video shows numerous colourful swaths of flowers when tooling through the condominium complex. There definitely are flowers there.

What I very much object to, and I think Kimberly has a leg to stand on, is the overbearing and unreasonable process of fining that is going on. On 24 October 2011 the board started fining $25/day, and has since increased it to $50/day.

That is completely unreasonable, and a great example of a condominium board – being judge, jury and executioner – attempting to financially bludgeon an owner into cowed submission. I very much think that Ms. Bois should be legally refuting all demands from the board, and use that in front of every judge as a means to be excluded from any judgement against her.

Boards have a duty and a responsibility to act reasonable, especially given the fact they act as the sole body to enforce and punish for condominium by-law infractions. A board failing to respect the powers they have been granted (and that’s not the power to cudgel owners) needs to be rapped on the wrist, turned around, and sent on their merry way.

It’s especially important, as many boards are filled with “regular joes” who, though have the best intentions, fail to act outside of personal emotion and vendetta. There are significantly too many complaints about the mismanagement of board power. Colorado Division of Real Estate recently found:

What we discovered was that the complaints we received primarily involved the board of director’s failure to follow corporate governance rules and procedures of the HOA; the transparency of the board of directors, particularly as it related to the finances of the HOA; and harassment and bullying of homeowners by the board of directors and management company by arbitrary fining, preclusion from providing input into the associations’ affairs, and verbal harassment.

Ahh, that last point is specifically applicable to this situation. The inordinate and unreasonableness of the fine Ms. Bios has received shows it.

The board needs to get their feelings and their actions pruned.

Crime Not Related To Living In Condominiums

When doing research for this blog, and on condominium in general, I often come across news stories linking violence and condominiums:  Inside a condominium unit they found a dead man, breaking into a unit at Arbor Woods Condominium Homes … He fatally shot his father-in-law, and The victim … was found in the charred remains of his condominium.

Almost daily, news feeds I subscribe to have at least one (the above three were taken from a single day’s feed) violent condominium story. Over time it makes me wonder if there is a higher or significant level of crime related to multi-unit housing compared to detached or low density.

Statistics on crime rates in/related to condominiums are next to non-existent. Instead I’ve relied upon some studies that look at crime and population density, along with other factors. Indeed, it’s hard to isolate the concept of crime in condominium because high-density can be, and exists, in almost every strata of society, and every location.

Starting with a Texas study by Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater – using land mapping tools they were able to demonstrate that:

areas dominated with single-family housing are not all associated with lower crime rates … Multifamily buildings are concentrated in the west and north of the city, but crime rates in those areas are relatively lower

the reason for these findings were

highest crime rates were those with the highest percentage of households in poverty and the highest percentage of population who did not have a high school diploma. The two neighborhoods also had the highest percentage of large-size households. In addition, male unemployment rates in the two neighborhoods were greater than 6.6% — topping the index in other beats. In comparison, the areas with lower poverty and unemployment rates, such as those areas in the north, generally have lower crime rates.

The recognition that crime isn’t based on housing density (but on demographic and socio-economic traits) is reinforced by research from Statistics Canada. Their findings indicate:

The population of high-crime neighborhoods has a larger proportion of single people, people living alone, young males aged 15 to 24, Aboriginals, people who moved in the year preceding the census and lone-parent families.

Interesting, Statistics Canada indicates that the statistics don’t indicate that these types of people are more prone to perform crime, but:

The analyses presented here do not establish causal links between these residents and the crime level in their neighbourhood. However, many studies have found links between these demographic characteristics and higher rates of victimization

This says that crime exists where people who tend to be more easily victimized reside. Significantly, they also indicate that levels of neighbourhood wealth are a primary indicators of crime:

A larger proportion of the population of high-crime neighbourhoods spend more than 30% of their income on shelter, and a smaller number of owners occupy their dwelling, regardless of whether these neighbourhoods are located near city centres or are on the periphery of the municipality

Finally, backing up the idea that crime isn’t related to density, the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings released a paper that indicates the gap between city (where I assume higher housing density) and suburban violent crime rates declined in nearly 2/3 of metro areas, and that city and suburban crime rates rose or fell together.

All this leads me to realize that it’s not the nature of condominium or high-density housing to promote or encourage crime. It’s the characteristics of the citizens – education, wealth, and ease of victimization – that births higher crime rates.

Indeed, if there was a single rule of thumb about condominiums and crime, the more expensive the housing in comparison to other homes in the municipality, the safer you will generally be. Single detached housing or condominium.

HOA vs. Kangaroo – HOA Avoids Bad Press and Possible Suit

The Estates of Legends Ranch, Texas, HOA has jumped back from their decision to oust a kangaroo from the association. The six month old kangaroo named Mike resides with Jeni and Nick Dreis, and their daughter Kayla.

When the HOA found out the kangaroo resided with the family, they issued a demand letter for the animal’s removal. Kangaroos, it seems, are not deemed household animals. As such, they’re not allowed in the HOA.

The HOA relented though, and has allowed the animal to exist at the Dreis residence till the Texas Downs, a special needs education and enrichment facility utilizing a wildlife park and organic farm, is completed (estimated mid 2012).

Honestly, the HOA didn’t have much of a choice. The Texas Downs is founded by the Dreis, and Kayla has Down syndrome. The kangaroo is expected to be transferred to the wildlife park when it becomes habitable for the creature, and in the meantime acts as a companion pet for Kayla.

A simple search on “HOA Kangaroo Dreis” will return 149,000 results – and you can read the massive amount of attention this issue has received. The utter cuteness overload of Kayla and the kangaroo would have been a public relations nightmare if the HOA insisted on enforcing the bylaws (stating the kangaroo isn’t a household pet). The Dreis could have also filed a civil rights suit, as the kangaroo may fit under the Americans with Disabilities Act – which defines a service animal as (and the underline is theirs):

The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.

I’m personally ecstatic that the HOA has relented on its booting of the kangaroo, and has accepted its bouncy lifestyle until it transfers to the wildlife park. Beyond the public relations issue, it’s OK (really, more than OK) for HOAs to realize that the concept of community is important in an association. That home is more than a house people huddle in, away from their neighbours. It’s a place to form relationships, friendships, and show some decent basic humanity to your fellow neighbours.

The Estates of Legends Ranch has put a great foot forward with their support of the kangaroo. They are to be commended.

Scary Centralized Power of a Board President

I have often said that mixing the role of board President and manager is a dangerous practice. This co-mingling of roles and powers has led to corrupt and illegal acts. It just becomes too easy, and seemingly too tempting, to keep one’s hands out of the cookie jars.

So reading this article, I immediately see many of the bad practices that I warn of all wrapped up in one package. While there is no indication that Sigrid Ingold has, or will ever, do anything immoral or illegal, her operation of the condominium highlights all sorts of actions which raise my “condominium spidey sense.”

Ms. Ingold has been president of her condominium association, the Thorndale Beach North of Chicago,  for 19 years, and for the past 5 as property manager as well (paid $43,000/year for a part-time job).

There are two things here which I become concerned about. First, the role of president should never remain in the hands of a single person for more than a few years. I like American Statesman Richard Henry Lee’s description that an office without term limits creates a:

most highly and dangerously oligarchic

and I particularly enjoy historian Mercy Otis Warren warning of missing US Congressional term limits:

[without] provision for rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done….

I feel such warnings are also appropriate to consider for condominium boards.

Second, by being president, she has significant influence on the awarding of condominium contracts. In this case, the board – with her as president – awarded a well-paying part-time management job to her for the last 5 years. And much like the separation of congress, the judiciary, and the president being a great idea to reduce abuse and corruption in US politics – the separation of board and management company is something I find serves a like role in condominiums. If not in operation, then transparency, the separation of roles creates checks and balances on the use of condominium funds.

Speaking of which, even the board of this condominium is being denied the review of bank statements and invoices. Further, the condominium has had one audit in its 44 years history, and that was 15 years ago.

I would like to point out that the Illinois Condominium Property Act 18.5.d.1.ii shall maintain the following records for examination to any unit owner in the condominium:

 Detailed and accurate records in chronological order of the receipts and expenditures affecting the common areas, specifying and itemizing the maintenance and repair expenses of the common areas and any other expenses incurred, and copies of all contracts, leases, or other agreements entered into by the master association, shall be maintained.

The fact that the board is being denied review of the bank statements appears to be in direct contradiction to the state act. Given that legislation, refusal of sharing financial documents – with duly elected board members – raises significant and real concern over the operation of the condominium in a proper manner. This isn’t a concern for just the Thorndale Beach North condominium – but any condominium which refuses to share fiscal details.

Combined, the length of Ms. Ingold’s presidency, her role as manager, and the lack of fiscal disclosure, makes for significant concern over the financial operation and wellbeing of the condominium. It appears that all knowledge of the finances is held, and has been held for a long time, by one single person, with no public audit or disclosure on the funds.

As indicated by Robin Morgan:

Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility.

I personally would never buy into the Thorndale Beach North condominium corporation because of the significant concern I have over such centralization of power in a single person.

I highly encourage reading the original article. There is also a dissident owner blog site with tasty details here. Combined, there are lots of other concerns that I haven’t touched on here, and the article and blog makes great, if not scary, reading about a condominium ruled by a single individual.

HOA Uses Community Consultation for Peacock Resolution

Just five days ago I chastised Larry Evans and the Fairfield Plantation for unilaterally slaughtering an established beaver colony, and then posting dead beaver mug-shots on their website.

In comparison, I give a tip of the hat and kudos to the Boynton Beach Florida HOA Fox Follow Housing Association. Dealing with issues of a 400 strong peacock flock, the HOA set out a survey to their members soliciting feedback how the HOA should deal with the birds.

With community feedback, which the video indicates 52% of the residents were in favor of some version of keeping them, the HOA has created a great plan moving forward.

Working with residents and almost a score of humane groups – including the Humane Society – they will relocate about 150 of the peacocks. The reduced flock should (1) retain the value in the community for having the birds and (2) reduce the impact – noise, droppings, and other related nuisances – that 400 (!!!) of the birds bring with them.

No mass slaughter, the residents are participating in both the decision and in the resolution of the issue, and an HOA which can proudly move forward saying that the Fox Follow Housing Association – unlike other associations – is focused on building a proud, inclusive, and participatory community. And that would be for owners and wildlife alike. Nicely done!

Colorado Looks to Legislate HOA and Condominium Transparency

Imagine living in a jurisdiction where the HOA or condominium corporation can deny your document requests with impunity. If you live in Colorado, that is exactly what can, and does, happen. State legislation indicates the association can deny providing documents unless there is “proper purpose” for the request.

There is absolutely no way to determine proper purpose, and owners are being forced to hire lawyers in order to get the documents they need. That is totally ridiculous.

Thankfully it looks like HOA regulations in Colorado are going to get a huge overhaul. In 2011 the state started tracking complaints voiced against HOAs – and the information is amazing. Complaints are not focused on pets, parking, and paint – which most people have always assumed. The complaints are about board and associations being closed for review, tightly controlled, and abusive in the use of their power.

From the 2011 Annual Report of the HOA Information and Resource Centre:

An additional and perhaps one of the more troubling complaint types the Office heard was that
the HOA board or manager was harassing, discriminating or retaliating against homeowners.
Many homeowners felt that their boards had singled them out and were arbitrarily fining them
for violations, when they were not in violation; engaging in selective enforcement of covenants;
and precluding them from participating in meetings.

The 2011 Report is a great read – and truly eye opening about the nature of a person’s relationship with their HOA. It’s a well suggested read for anyone involved in condominium and HOA work.

Anyways, it’s always nice to write a blog post about how a group or organization “gets HOAs and Condominiums” and a big, positive, tip of the hat to the Colorado State Legislature in drafting new legislation to address some well needed change.