On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:02:11 GMT, Norminn
wrote:

Turning off the water is a goofy solution. It is taking action against
a renter for actions of the owner.

Only one of the seven involves a tenant at this time, but they have
this crackpot notion that what they do in one situation they have to
do in all others. So even if they were otherwise willing, which
they're not, they wouldn't believe that they can have a different rule
for the rented one from the others. This attitude of theirs shows in
a lot of situations. I would guess it is an effort to simplify a
complicated world.

I believe it would be illegal where
I live, as rental units are required to have water, sewage and
electricity.

I hadn't thought of that. That duty might only pertain to the
landlord, but the reasons would be just as valid wrt anyone.

I hadn't though of that, but I did urge them to start small, with only
a smaller number, so that if they were making a mistake, they wouldn't
make it too many times. So that they could refine their methods and
do a better job the next time. Mostly it's the president and the
comparitively new management company rep. They both have the desire
to be in control, and I think to push people around. In most cases,
much of the board is like sheep, and in this case they are even more
supportive because they want the money.

IMO, it would be better to take owner to small claims,
and/or file a lien on his unit(s). If it is a chronic issue, the board
could vote for a special assessment to cover legal costs - recoverable,
at worst, when he sells the unit.

We've taken a substantial number to court in the past, and gotten
liens. The lawyer will do it for free iirc getting all hs money and
ours when the bill is paid. I wasn't at the meetings for a few years,
and didn't read the newsletters for that matter (if they said
anything) but I'm going to try to find out why this method isn't
sufficient. Specifically I'm going to try to find out if there were
any houses for which we didn't get our money, and what went wrong in
those cases.

I've put up with pretty awful behavior by board members and owners in
our condo, and it is owner's complacency that causes a lot of
trouble..they don't want to be bothered to make sure the association is
run properly. It is a business! $3,500/year in a HOA of 110 units is
small change; if the board votes for penalties (if allowed by law), it

I don't think much in the way of penalties are allowed by laws.

The quarterly bill per house is about 115 dollars, of which 80 dollars
goes to the HOA and 35 goes to the water company. A few months ago I
mentioned the strange circumstances that makes our water bill so low.

The 80 dollars should be raised, but it's hard to get enough votes to
do that. STill, it's almost enough because these are not condos and
the homeowner is responsible for his entire house and his yard. The
HOA is only repsonisible for repairing the sidewalkes that don't go
to the doors of the house and repairing the road and parking lot
occasionally, and lawnmowing and bushes and flowers of the commmon
areas which are pretty small.

would have a better effect that taking action that harms someone other
than the owner and likely gets the HOA sued!

The lawyer says we're safe, but I forgot to mention that I don't trust
the lawyer's competence.

It's the same lawyer who says we can't tell the tenant who also says
we can turn off the water.

Have to be careful about handling financial deficiencies or rules
violations - in Fl., I believe it is illegal in condos to refer to the
owner or violator by name in meetings - supposed to address them only by
unit number.

That's the kind of rule they're referring to. I gues that sort of
answers, or at least relates to, Larry's and my question.

Are you allowed to refer to them by name outside of meetings? Like in
the chit chat afterwards.

I have a friend who visits his mother who lives in a condo in Fl. He
visits for 3 or 4 months every winter. I'll ask him how florida
works.

You referred to owners who only voiced their opposition after a
meeting..typical! It is politics, and a right course of action should
be pressed before meetings so meetings don't turn into open warfare, and
owners understand that the vote will have a positive effect for them.

It was only tonight that I found out that the tenant wasn't going to
be notified. That one guy who raised the issue last fall did so
before I had even thought of it. I heard about it for the first time
at that same meeting last fall. I told him what a good idea he had.
Yet tonight, he was the one who made the motion to cut off the water,
saying nothing about sending a notice to the tenant.

The woman who didn't say anthying until after the meeting was under
the impression that no landlords were delinquent, and it's true that
most ll's pay on time and there is only one in this group.

I've gone days without water and it barely bothers me at all, so it's
surprising in a way that I'm so concerned about this family. I think
what really bothers me is to again see how callous, self-centered, and
compassionless are so many of my neighbors. And this makes me think
that maybe I have overestimated the whole country and the whole world.
And that is really depressing. Screwing over your neighbor is only
one step from screwing over your neighbor when you are looking at him,
and that's only one step from screwing over a friend, which is only
one step from screwing over a family member. (Sometimes it's even
worse.)

And I think a bunch of them, maybe even the two worst, the pres and
the property management rep make a moderate display at times of being
religious and, one would think that meant, attempting to be
compassionate. They don't answer the phone "God bless you" or
anything quite so overt, and I've never been to the rep's home, but I
think I've seen religious things of some sort on the walls or
refrigerator of the others.

We have a small association, and at one point three owners could block
any action, including votes for needed maintenance. One of them was
owner of three units, chronically delinquent in monthly assessment, but
owner of $1,000,000 sailboat and second home in Bahamas! A real
parasite whose behavior forced other owners to do work themselves if
they wanted the place taken care of.

Wow. I haven't met any of these deadbeats or any of the ones from
previous years, afaik.


This just in: Dean of Admissions of MIT had often cautioned people
not to pad their resume. After 30 years, she has resigned for having
padded hers. Claimed degrees she didn't have. May not have even
graduated college anywhere.