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.

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.

More Fallout to Toronto’s Falling Glass: $20 Million Lawsuit

In 2010 and 2011 two recently built condominium – the Murano Towers (731 units) and Festival Tower (378 units) literally rained down glass on the ground below. 13 panes of glass balcony railing released and fell.

Since then the glass from all those balcony units (somewhere short of 1000 units) has been removed and the owners forbidden from utilizing the space.

Yesterday the owners launched a $20 million dollar class action lawsuit. That’s about $18,000 per unit – to cover loss of use and to have the issue fixed in a timely manner.

Catastrophic Condo Failure Is Not Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware

The Bellavera Green Condo, Leduc Alberta, has suffered a massive, catastrophic, failure requiring all 150 of the residents (85 units) to vacate the premises. The reasons: code-failing fire alarm system, missing or damaged firewalls, condemned exterior staircase, non-sustained heat and electric, a second phase abandoned – unsafe and unsecured, and inability for emergency vehicles to access the building.

It is unclear who has title to the units (it’s not clear if the developer handed over title to occupied units), who to go after for costs, and the developer – Kevyn Frederick – has conveniently disappeared. As with catastrophic failures of this type, residents who have mortgages will remain responsible for their payments even if they can never return to their units, or have other costs until such time they could reside again at the Bellavera Green.

In all, 150 people (and those that rely upon them) have suffered grievous fiscal harm due to the mismanagement and greed of yet another developer. And I lay the blame clearly and solely at the foot of the developer and none others. Developers have full and final control over the building and plans. It is their choice to follow legislation, or to cut corners and ignore building codes. The rest of the infrastructure – including building inspectors – is just there to try to catch errors. But these errors are not there because they haven’t been caught; they are there at the failure of the developer. Trying to pass responsibility off on inspectors is a lot like saying “you didn’t catch me, so I’m innocent.”

That’s why fools who imply that the Bellavera Green owners who put down money and purchased mortgages have a responsibility to the failure of the condominium because of “Caveat Emptor” – or “if you were stupid enough to buy into this building then too bad for you” are pathetic and dim-witted.

The whole issue of Caveat Emptor, for a situation like this, was thrown out with Supreme Court of Canada judgement of Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co [1995] 1 S.V.R. 85, January 26 1995 (further discussion here):

First, it is reasonably foreseeable to contractors that, if they design or construct a building negligently and if that building contains latent defects as a result of that negligence, [purchasers] of the building may suffer personal injury or damage to other property when those defects manifest themselves.

In this case, the act of negligence: that it fails to meet code, and there is a real and true concern over devastating fire; so that personal injury or damage: the effects of such fire, that –

The reasonable likelihood that a defect in a building will cause injury to its inhabitants is also sufficient to ground a contractor’s duty in tort to subsequent purchasers of the building for the cost of repairing the defect if that defect is discovered prior to any injury and if it poses a real and substantial danger to the inhabitants of the building.

And the ruling seems to support my thought that the sole responsibility for catastrophic failures like this lay solely in the hands of the developer:

Apart from the logical force of holding contractors liable for the cost of repair of dangerous defects, a strong underlying policy justification also exists for imposing liability in these cases.  Maintaining a bar against recoverability for the cost of repair of dangerous defects provides no incentive for plaintiffs to mitigate potential losses and tends to encourage economically inefficient behaviour.  Allowing recovery against contractors in tort for the cost of repair of dangerous defects thus serves an important preventative function by encouraging socially responsible behaviour.

In the end, the owners are in for a long term amount of lost monies and (more importantly) time that will be required in moving forward with their lives. It’s a sad thing, and the province needs to put better protection in place to help stave off this type of abuse by developers in the future.

Do You Have Subway Collision Coverage in Your Insurance Condominium Rider?

Not being an insurance expert, I’m not certain what type of coverage your condominium could use to help protect it against wild and untamed subways rampaging across the crowed city skyline. As seen below, this Lo Ovalle, Santiago, Chilean condominium, and 4 cars, was not exempt from these savage attacks.

Apparently this was a high-speed test of the line after the rails had undergone some repair. As such, the train had only the driver on it – who escaped with only minor injury.

Condominium Has Radioactive Foundation

The fallout (ah, hum) from the crippling of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant continues in interesting ways. The foundation of a newly constructed 12 unit condominium in Nihonmatsu City, Fukushima Prefecture, was completed using rock from a quarry that was placed under the expanded evacuation zone, April 22. The rock has turned out to be radioactive and the entire foundation is now contaminated and leaking into the first two floors.

The kicker – most of the residents there are displaced peoples from the evacuation zone. They don’t seem to be able to get a break.

I guess the next time I hear about a broken pipe or badly installed roofing I should be a little thankful that the in-floor heating is water piping – and not a nice little radioactive pile.

Rats! You Dirty Stinking Rat!

Living in one of the few rat free places in the world, I never fully understand the devastation rats can have on a building or a lifestyle. These little beasties can chew through sheet metal and enjoy swimming through sewer lines and popping up through your toilet!

Now, I’m more concerned over those Norwegian rats (which the Norse must curse the name, as they did not actually originate from Norway), not those small mouse sized rats which have their own condominium developments.

In New York popular lore says there are 4 rats for every human inhabitant. This myth may become something more than true since the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene cut 57 of 84 full-time pest control positions in 2010.

Most condominium and HOA bylaws specifically forbid the ownership or breeding of rats. In this case, I’m fully behind this rule. I’m normally very open for owners to have pets of all types, but rats do pose a significant infestation risk in the case where they may escape. Sorry, I have a strong bias against rats. I highly suggest rat proofing.

I have the greatest sympathy for owners in developing nations. India and Bangladesh both have significant waste and garbage infrastructure deficits. A previous blog post highlighted a condominium corporation in India that initialized its own recycling program to cut down on local unlicensed dumping.

For Suhaila Majid of Titiwangsa Sentral Condominium in Jalan Cemur, Kuala Lumpur, their back lot parking has become a community dumping ground for garbage. This has led to excessive rats invading the grounds.

Singapore residents near a nature reserve have extra visitors every day for their first floor units. The infestation has been going on since 2003, and includes home invasions as the beast go for the food.

For North American condominiums and HOAs, I would think that any long term infestation should show up on an Estoppel, and all exceptional infestations should show up on board minutes.

Criminals Treat Condo as Giant Living Piggybank, Owners Attempting To Respond

The Estates at Westbury, Bluffton, South Carolina has a couple of issues. The first is crime, and the second appears to be a failure of the management company to respond.

The 300 unit complex is riddled with crime and negligent owners and tenants. And I get the feeling that criminals are treating the site as a giant piggy bank. Two (news, news) units have recently been home invaded by armed group of men – both times forcing the owners to lay face down while they rifle through the home for valuables.

Less heinous, one resident describes the building on goings as:

the Estate could be a beautiful and serene place to live, there are a number of facts that make this a less than desirable home. With a number of armed robberies, muggings, residents who are permitted to move in and hold drunken parties until the middle of the night, fist fights breaking out at said drunken parties, carloads of people coming in to the community who do not belong here, people driving at undesirable speeds through the community that are a threat to the children playing here, drug dealings going on that are known to both the Association Manager and to the maintenance team, and music so loud that it shakes entire buildings – the lifestyle and feeling of “home” at the Estate is in sharp decline

It is so bad that one elderly couple fear even their walk to collect mail.

Ouch. That means it’s time for the management to step up.

To their credit, it appears the management is improving lighting and putting in brontosaurus in size speed bumps to limit vehicle speed. Where they fall down is communicating with the owners, and supporting their actions.

Most importantly, when it comes to supporting a proven method to reduce crime in an area – creating a neighborhood watch – the management has been resistant to at each step. The residents put up over 500 flyers to communicate with the community, the management tore them all down. Owners and tenants try to engage the Association Manager; she has banned tenants from her office because they are not owners. Tenant Jennie Krogulski has gathered about 30 tenants and owners volunteers to start a watch; and the final message from the manager – the residents are not allowed to set up a Neighbourhood Watch.

I  would counter with the following: if serious injury occurs to any member of the community – which a reasonable person would deem a neighbourhood watch would have helped prevent – I would go after the resident manager. I would hold her responsible.

Neighbourhood Watch programs have existed for a long time and are supported by the police department. Volunteers receive training and support. Issues of liability have all been resolved over the 50 years the program has been in place. USAonWatch even has a copy of the Neighbourhood Watch Manual free for download.

A Neighbourhood Watch program for a complex with these issues is reasonable, accessible, and empowering for the residents. It is a great and awesome program to support, and should be seen as a progressive action to combat the real and tangible threat of harm and danger these residents have.

For up to date information, the active residents have a Facebook page for the complex that can be seen here.

Dog Poo Bad, Flipping the Bird Totally Cool

I’m a big fan of ensuring that residents can communicate with each other, even if what they want to communicate is that they hate the board. Condominium Boards tend to be very sensitive, baby-soft-skin sensitive. I’m not sure what it is, but the moment they get on the board they won’t stand for any negative comments. Part of what drives this SOS (Sudden Onset Sensitivity) comes from board members access both to money (condo fees) and a lawyer (most corporations have a lawyer on call for foreclosures, advice, and general council).

So when Steven Preu was found by a judge to be well within his First Amendment Rights to flip the bird to the board, security cameras and the condominium manager; it seems reasonable to me. Flipping the bird is an expression of aggravation and completely impolite, and while society works better when everyone is polite, I myself have flipped the bird at times (to drivers mostly, not yet in a condo related space myself).

The judge also confirmed his right to write “insulting messages” within the memo section of his checks to the corporation, and his upheld Mr. Preu’s right to post messages in the trash room, and on a neighbour’s door.

Seems pretty good so far, but Mr. Preu’s actions at free speech weren’t completely ok, and even I knew – when reading the case – when he went too far.

He additionally blocked open fire doors that are required to be closed, and closed and obstructed fire doors required to be open. That is just plain dangerous. Fire doors must always be treated with respect.

Finally, he twice decorated common areas of the condominium with bags of dog poo, labeling the condo president’s name on the bags. Placing the name of the president is a non-issue to me (but likely does a fine job piercing the president’s skin), it’s the act of littering that become enforceable.

I’m just glad that the bags of poo weren’t flaming bags of dog poo – a fatal mixture with fire doors that were interfered with.