Half Floor Residential Units Designed To Withstand Floods, Electromagnetic Pulses, and Indirect Nuclear Strikes For $2 Million and Up

For those that have that inside knowledge that the world will end in nuclear strife, people are building the perfect home for you. In the prairie fields of the US Midwest there are many missile silos now being converted into the most hardened condo you could ever live in.

20th Century Castles, LLC, Vivos Group, Survival Condo Project, Hardened Structures all are vying for your hard earned dollars to build you reinforced structures.

See this article for a highly comprehensive look at all the options available, and a great run down on the history of old silo conversions.

HOA President Has Bomb Set Off In Mailbox

I often start a course for new board members with “it’s often a thankless job to be on a board, but it can be very rewarding”.

One of those rewards is not, not, a bomb.

Gerard Esposito – the Pinellas County, Tampa Bay Florida, Home Owner Association President had his mailbox filled with a bomb and exploded. Thankfully nobody was hurt. The cause is assumed to be related to a program by the HOA to bring illegal mailboxes into compliance.

Video can be found here.

Bats Protected From Condominium Evection

Now, just like there are senior’s condominiums, storage condominiums, and business condominiums – there are definitely bat condominiums. These are wood structures specifically designed with all the amenities that those cute little mammals could want. If I’m not mistaken, they come with no condominium or HOA fees as well!

What’s not necessarily expected is when bats take residence in the walls of condominiums designated for humans.  Indeed, if I found a bat hanging upside down from my bathroom door frame (which Miles Nures and Jennifer Plomt experienced), I would – with bylaws in hand – visit my condo board and have them remove those uninvited tenants too-sweet!

Now, many US states and Canadian provinces have grated bats protected status. This usually means that bats, once they have claimed a nest, cannot killed, exterminated, nor disturbed during the raising of newborns – usually from early summer through early fall.

That means, though unwanted as tenants, the Condominium cannot evict those winged bug eating stomachs (bats eat LOTS of bugs). They have the right to reside!

Now, the moment they leave, it is clearly the condominiums duty to repair and fill in all holes in the roof and siding so that their return can never, ever, happen again. Indeed, the fact that bats could reside in a condominium’s walls is a strong indication that the board is failing to perform their duties and maintain the common property correctly.

County Bans Smoking in All Multi-Unit Residences

Sonoma County, North California, banned all smoking in multi-unit residences. This includes not only common property (hallways, parkades, grounds, common rooms and laundries, and more) but private units as well.

It will be phased in over 16 months – with common areas falling under the smoking ban in 180 days, new units a bit later, and then already built private units on 12 January 2013.

I’m a committed non-smoker, but I still find this kind of blanket smoking ban on private residences heavy handed and intrusive. I’ve commented before (here and here) that this is something that should be done at the condominium or HOA level, but not at the municipal level. And even then I’ve been hesitant to support this at all.

It’s rhetorical and silly but I add “should they look at banning ethnic food or outdoor bbqs” – specifically where bbq smoke has been identified as carcinogenetic, and I’ve been well known to whip up a whole kick-ass cloud of that fatty black soot for my neighbours to inhale.

The ruling is good news for the 85% of non-smokers (according to Sonoma County), but I can not wonder if this action is too much an intrusion, and if exemptions can be granted for medial smoking (which is not indicated in the motion).

Banning People with Criminal Records from Condominium Residence

I recently wrote that US Home Owner Associations wield an inordinate and improper amount of ability to pry into the private life of purchasers. Potential purchasers providing inch think stacks of documents to boards, just for the right to purchase a property, seems to becoming (sadly) the norm.

There is a wedge issue would that, if supported, allow Canadian condominium boards the same sort of access to purchaser (and ongoing access to owners) personal information – that condominiums can ban residency and board participation based on a criminal record. Being able to ban on a criminal record would allow boards to start intruding on personal privacy in order to enforce the ban.

Denise Lash of Heenan Blaikie closes in a recent article that –

It is time for condominium corporations to look at taking more extreme measures to ensure that the safety and security of residents is not compromised and put into place restrictions in condominium documentation.  Of course, the documentation will have to be carefully drafted to avoid any potential argument as to its enforceability.

This is a direct call to bring rights of intrusion to privacy into the hands of a board. We all have stories of our boards  with the  powers they currently have abusing privacy, position and status already. Adding additional fodder – and more significantly – responsibilities that are more prone to court challenges and civil suits is a recipe for disaster.

Most importantly, Ms. Lash takes singles out condominiums to go after because they offer an additional level of legislation and rules – the corporation bylaws – as a wedge to invade privacy. At a condominium’s heart is that it is housing. We wouldn’t be able to argue that a community association (single detached housing) could deny the right to residence in their community based on a criminal record – but we do for condominium only because there are additional levels of rules around the management of the shared or common property.

That’s what “extreme” and “carefully drafted to avoid any potential argument as to its enforceability” is all about – it’s the caution that what she suggests is a strong warping of the intention and scope of condominium legislation. I would say she suggests a perversion of condominium legislation and pushes in into a realm of social engineering.

Condominium Fires – Is it Safer Living in Single Detatched Housing

As I prepare for each blog posting, I inevitably come across stories of “man dies in condo fire” and “One dead in Tampa condominium fire.” It seems that every evening I’m learning of more fire related deaths in condominiums.

The US Fire Administration has some amazing numbers, and they provide good news and bad news in a recent report.

Multifamily residential dwellings (apartments, townhouse, row houses, condominiums and other tenement properties) are generally safer than one and two family dwellings when it comes to fire – with only 3.0 deaths/1000 fires compared to single/two family dwellings with 6.5 deaths/1000 fires.

The downside is, if the fire spreads (isn’t confirmed to its point of origin) multifamily deaths reach 9.6/1000 fires, with injuries reaching 82.0/1000 fires. That’s about 1.5 times as many deaths, and 3 times as many injuries.

It’s a complex report (please read it) – and it appears that multifamily dwellings are more prone to fires (being 27% of the reported fires), but this might be due to higher reporting. In multifamily dwellings there is generally a more active and monitored smoke and fire response system, often tied into the city fire system. The stove top fire (57.5 of all multifamily fires) may be reported more often because of neighbours experiencing smoke.  This reporting likely happens less frequently with single family dwellings.

The big issue to me is regarding non-confined fires. As soon as that fire leave the stove, the garbage room, the mechanical item breaking down, death per 1000 fires jumps from 0 (seriously, zero deaths with confined multifamily dwelling fires) to 9.6. It means if a fire gets going, it gets going bad.

For large multifamily dwellings it might seem inconvenient to run fire testing every year – gaining access to all units, running that annoying bell over and over for a day or two. But it’s really important to ensure rapid response of the fire department, and the evacuation of the residents, if that fire ever spreads from the kitchen, or the bbq, or wherever the originating source is.

Condo Pools and Hot Tubs Can Be Difficult To Maintain

One of the condominiums I have lived in (I was renting at the time) included an amazing pool that was underutilized. It always felt clean, maintained, and well kept.

After reading an article from the Toronto Sun about a condominium hot tub with 75 infractions in two years, and reading that it can sometimes take weeks for cryptosporidium to make one sick (a parasite that can survive in poorly treated pool water), I kind of go ugggh.

I do believe that a well maintained pool adds significant value to a condominium – not only in price of the units, but more importantly lifestyle and easy access to a great physical activity. If a pool is indoors, it is even better for inland and Prairie Provinces with harsher climates and little access to public beaches.

Especially for seniors housing, access to an onsite pool can do absolute wonders in maintaining and bettering the health of the owners – if the pool is used. While city run pools may be plentiful, transportation and mobility issues for seniors may make an at-home pool truly valuable to them.

Thankfully for pool and hot tub maintenance, most indoor facilities only exist in condominiums that can also afford a full time maintenance or janitorial person.  Having a person who’s dedicated to the building will allow easy, regular scheduling of water and pool equipment testing. It also allows for dedicated training or education programs to ensure your maintenance person is qualified to maintain the facilities.

If you live in a condominium with a pool, always feel free to request the most recent inspection report from the board. Don’t take any refusal to share the report for an answer. Your condominium fees go to support the pool, and you should always feel good about any issues that could impact your health.

Strata Fines Resident $25 for Smoking Creating “activities causing nuisance or hazard to others”

The only organization that should be fined for “causing nuisance … to others” should be the board of the Chelsea Gardens Strata Corporation for such a cowardly use of the by-laws.

The Chelsea Gardens Strata Corporation has been dealing with a series of complaints from a unit owner against their neighbour for smoking. It’s implied that the complaints arise mostly when the smoker is on their own patio, and the second-hand smoke drifts into the complainant’s unit. The complaints have been expressed to the corporation in 2009 and 2010, and recently they have been filed with the BC Human Rights Tribunal. It is scheduled for mediation in November 2011.

What I find interesting is the board’s response, at one point, to attempt to address the situation by fining the smoker $25 for breaking the by-laws though “activities causing nuisance or hazard to others.” The role of the board is in part to help the community live together in harmony and mediate the interaction of residents.

I can see how the board may have felt constrained – smoking is not an illegal activity, but they have a serious of complaints from an owner indicating that their health is being impaired by another resident. A $25 fine though seems ineffectual, token, and something that would cause more harm. It’s an action that seems to say to the complainant that the board is sympathetic to the complaint, but the amount of the fine indicates the response is toothless and meaningless. $25 will not pose a fiscal threat that encourages change in behaviour.

I would think that the board actually puts themselves in a more vulnerable role, especially given that smoking isn’t illegal, and they are regulating that activity. It’s a similar situation to those fatty carcinogenic plumes of bbq beef carcass smoke that fill my unit, issuing from several neighbours balconies and patios this summer.

When I buy into a condominium that allows pets, I assume that at least some of my neighbours will have pets and I will bump into them, sometimes on a daily basis. If I buy into a condominium that doesn’t outline in the by-laws a non-smoking policy on exclusive use common property (including balconies and patios), then I assume that some of my neighbours have the right to smoke there – and will take that right up.

For those that think that this comes from a smoker, I am a dedicated non-smoker. Euuugh – smoker breath.

The Problem with Conversion Neighbourhoods and New Residents

When we bought our first condo, the building came with an unofficial escort service on one of the corners of the building. If I’m being a little vague, what I mean to say, the building was at the corner of a popular hooker stroll.

We bought knowing what the situation is. The exiting companionship business (ok, less colloquialisms) was there before we bought into the condominium. The neighbourhood was on the cusp of redevelopment with 5 new high-rise condominiums going in within 2 blocks of our new home. We also benefited from the prostitutes – it was a very affordable unit near the downtown core and multiple public transit stops. It was a great buy for our first condo.

In Montreal, a similar neighbourhood is drawing attention. Known as the Gay Village, an onset of condominium buyers and young families is bringing forward a clash with the local homelessness and beggars established in the community.

I’m bugged by people who move into an existing neighbourhood and then demand changes for their lifestyle. They moved into an area with a known homeless situation, and now want them all deported from their new home. Relax. Take it easy for a couple years. There are two stories I want to tell you.

First off – there was a burglary in one of the commercial units in our condominium. The entered through the residence, made their way though the service hallway and raided a store. While making their escape they passed by several of the working ladies and departed. When the police showed up to investigate, the ladies provided details and descriptions of the culprits and their manner of escape. They proved to be a reliable set of witnesses to the crime.

Second – give the city a few years. With new development, especially higher density, new tax revenue will come through to the city. After giving the pre-existing inhabitants of the community time to realize that the community is changing (and they will, street revitalization with new shops and other revitalization events always follow high density redevelopment), you can approach city hall with a strong tax case for enhanced community initiative (including police) that will push out the pre-existing community. You just have to give it a few years, and don’t come into an existing community just to push your weight around.

Our first condo is now hooker free (not by far, they popular streets only migrated a few blocks), but they have moved. It happened relatively naturally and without the need for new residents to build conflict with the old.

Maryland Condominiums Have Right To Force Homeowners to Carry Insurance

I am humbled that there is a US state that has given the power to condominium boards to make carrying a homeowner insurance policy mandatory. For a country that often talks about the absolute right of the individual to make their own decisions (any anything, forbid, otherwise is some strange form of socialism, communism, or other ism), a collective has been given the power to require an owner to purchase specific insurance.

With condominiums, may people think that the insurance policy purchased by the condominium covers their units, when in fact this is normally not the case (there are exceptions).  Normally the insurance policy held by the condominium only covers damages and repairs to the common elements – the building envelope and grounds. It does not cover inside the owner’s unit.

For example, if you owned a unit in a condo that burnt down, and the condo is repaired, the corporation policy would rebuild the structure, but not the interior of your unit – the “betterments and improvements.” What’s a betterment or improvement – anything inside your unit. That would include the toilet (yup – the piping would come in, but the actual porcelain toilet is a betterment). It likely wouldn’t include your cabinets, your flooring, your paint, your sinks, and all sorts of stuff. You would have a shell, to fill as you would.

Additional insurance, bought properly, would cover those betterments and improvements (seriously, we don’t see the toilet as an improvement – we think it’s part of the unit, but it is). And because of the danger of fire or water or other loss, I always encourage people to buy the additional insurance.

It’s nice then, having been in the industry long enough to see several major losses, that Maryland will allow the boards to make this additional insurance required to be purchased by their owners. I’m not sure how they will enforce it (it seems a little toothless – what are you going to do, evict the owner?) – but it is good intention.

Some may wonder how few people actually pass on buying insurance – I have a great example. In Calgary, March of 2010, a massive condominium fire in the Millrise left hundreds homeless. Less than half, half, of the owners had additional insurance. That meant more than 100 people would have been left with just a shell of a unit when they were rebuilt, and would have had to pay the additional living expenses of shelter during the months and months to rebuild. Fortunately, the board had made a decision to carry the additional insurance for everyone – which allowed all the units to be rebuilt completely, and the homeless have their expenses covered during the rebuild.

Maryland’s insurance requirement is slightly different than what I described, as it’s a requirement to carry insurance against a deductible (of the common property insurance) for damages originating from their unit. But in general it is the same idea – forcing insurance and reducing the risk of catastrophic loss.