Condos Can Equal Free Fuel for Electric Cars

Three years ago, when I was president of a 107 unit condominium, I suggested that we may have to take steps to regulate the electrical outlets in the underground parking. I was assuming that at some time an owner would buy an electric car and plug in at night. As electric charges for all common AND titled spaces were paid out of condominium fees (no individual meters) for that condominium, I wasn’t about to have someone freeload their “gas” off the rest of the owners.

I was scoffed and laughed at (awww, poor me!).

Well, Mike Nemat of South Keys condominium, Ottawa Ontario, was doing just that – slipping his power cord into a common property wall socket for his 2012 Chevrolet Volt. Now, once he got caught, he’s been offering to pay $50/month for the right to plug in (he estimates the actual electric bill is about $24/month).

The board is having nothing to do with it, and requires Mr. Nemat to install a $2000 meter to continue his siphoning ways. That’s not going well with Mr. Namat.

The board is within their power to demand a separate meter. Indeed, they’re well within their rights to deny Mr. Nemat access to any electricity served through the common property – and unless the condominium’s by-laws are really poorly written, they should back up the board on that fact.

While I am all for getting off the monkey’s tail of fossil fuels – older, and even newer condominiums – aren’t designed for electric car charging. All new construction moving forward though should have parking stalls that, at minimum, have the wiring and sufficient grid to power every car at once – even if they’re not activated or metered till sometime in the future. Retrofitting will be a pain.

Mr. Nemat should in all honesty have approached his condominium board first before buying his car. It’s much like new owners who buy a condo already possessing a vehicle that’s longer or taller than the by-laws allow, and then complain about the board preventing them from using their titled parking spot. Too bad.

Kudos for Cities That Get It: Ottawa and Condo Footprints

It’s always nice to drop kudos here and there (in between most of my posts which focus on the negative). In this case, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada has updated a tree-protection bylaw that was only two years old.

The by-law itself, in purpose and thought, rocks. Trees would need municipal approval before cutting: 10 centimeters or greater diameter on hectare and larger size land parcels; and 50 centimeter or greater diameter for any property. This should ensure those old and gorgeous trees remain rooted, and allow for younger trees the opportunity to grow into fantastic groves.

Condominiums are unlike either individual houses (protecting those gorgeous granddaddy trees – 50 cm. and greater diameter) or undeveloped green space (1 hectare or larger plots). Condos are kind of both – a group of individual residents on a large shared property.

Given that, Ottawa has updated the by-law to place condominiums under the 50 cm. and greater diameter part of the by-law, and made them not subject to the 1 hectare or larger plots section. It’s a nice, simple, and easily rolled out change to a rule that overlooked the large footprint of condominiums.

Kudos Ottawa for a small, but important law change that recognizes the nature of condominiums and removes inappropriate regulation.

Board Insanity Stories #98457892374 – Only Allowing Rentals to “Families”

I’m not sure I want to even start with guessing what the definition of a family is – blood relationships, marriage, are adopted children ok, how about a two person same sex union, or one lady and seventy-two cats?

Thankfully a condominium corporation has been able to figure that out for me! Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 24 of Ottawa, Ontario, has been able to clarify that challenging definition:

unit owners can only rent to single families, which includes parents and children, married couples or people in a ‘conjugal relationship,’ two or more persons intending to live together permanently, two or more persons who own the unit, or someone who is a caregiver for someone else.

Caregiver? Really – an assisted living support nurse can be family? The intention to live together permanently (really, how can that ever be challenged or proven) is a definition of family – so Felix and Oscar, or Bert and Ernie, those lovable non-gay roommates, would count?

What’s up is Carleton Condominiums attempting to remove student renters from their condos, whom occupy about 20% of the units. The board claims these student rentals are rooming houses renting by the room, with upwards of 8 people per unit. The condominium is close to transportation and popular with students.

I’m pretty sure this will be appealed to either a court or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

As to that definition of family, I love the idea of “conjugal relationship” – does that mean if each of the eight students commit to some sort of regular orgy that they classify as family? Right on – I knew university is supposed to be an awesome experience!