Joint Sovereignty or Private Club

Author, columnist, and condominium manager Marilyn Lincoln pointed out in one of her articles published a few years ago that “The word “condominium” actually means “joint sovereignty or ownership;” another interpretation means “together for a common benefit.” If there is to be joint ownership and sharing, there will also need to be a sense of a caring community, pride of ownership and a respect for fellow owners… Pride and commitment cannot be built and maintained if the community is constantly in a “we vs. them” scenario.”

 http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/12/08/condo-culture-communication-and-respect-should-be-a-two-way-corridor/

The “we vs. them” mentality is deeply rooted in a “Top Down” governing approach based on the principle of we, The Members of The Board of Directors, issue instructions and you, unit owners, follow obediently all the instructions. You do not challenge our authority since we rely on experts, such as The Senior Property Manager and an army of consultants who are so certain about the validity of their authoritative opinions that they do not submit written recommendations. All our experts are expected to be treated by unit owners as infallibles belonging to the category of “Semi Gods”.

Based on the authoritative opinion of our experts, we, The Board of Directors, believe that if we do not impose a 100% increase in maintenance fees we will have to slap unit owners with a “Special Assessment” that may reach a couple of thousands of Dollars. No owner should tell us why a “Special Assessment” is needed when you have approximately $1.4 million Dollars in the reserve fund of the corporation.

We, The members of The CMC, based on the authoritative opinion of a retired police officer, who became a self-declared “Safety & Traffic Expert” decided to adopt speed bumps as the most efficient measure to force cars into a full stop by the time they reach stop signs in the complex. When an owner threatened to sue us because the “Safety & Traffic Expert” failed to realize that bumps can damage the lower backs of people struggling with bone density related medical problems, we decided to spend thousands of dollars to convert speed bumps to speed humps because they have a safer impact on the human body. When we, The Members of The CMC realized that speed humps are destroying the asphalt and they have to be removed winter time to allow snow ploughs to clear the snow, we decided to invest more money on a project called “Permanent Speed Humps”. The implementation of the project is scheduled tentatively for June 14, 2017.

We, The Members of The CMC, take very seriously the safety of our community and we will spend thousands of Dollars to address the concerns of pedestrians/unit owners complaining that drivers are not making a full stop at stop signs. But when unit owners complain that too many illegal activities are taking place in The Gazebo area near the tennis court, from alcohol consumption, to smoking, to urinating on trees, to … we will not install a camera to monitor the area, even if experts tell us that it can act as a serious deterrent of illegal activities, simply because we the self-styled expert members of The CMC, believe that a camera monitoring the Gazebo area will undermine the sense of “Community” in the complex. It does not matter that we have more than 40 cameras monitoring common areas, but that one extra camera should not be installed. Owners in the complex may wonder why The CMC is so indifferent about illegal activities in The Gazebo area, “Why do they do this? Because they can!” “Why do they all get away with this? Because they can!” 

http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=1

Do The Gurus of The CMC have a legal obligation to eliminate illegal activities in the Gazebo Area. Absolutely based on the following sections of The Condominium Act:

Use of common elements by owners

116. An owner may make reasonable use of the common elements subject to this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules. 1998, c. 19, s. 116.

Dangerous activities

117. No person shall permit a condition to exist or carry on an activity in a unit or in the common elements if the condition or the activity is likely to damage the property or cause injury to an individual. 1998, c. 19, s. 117.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19/v10#BK142

The Gazebo area is not licensed for alcohol consumption, hookah smoking, and is not designated as a public washroom so all the previously mentioned activities, and a whole range of other illegal activities that we cannot list, do not constitute a reasonable use of the common elements. Why after years of uphill battle we do not have a camera? Because they don’t owe unit owners an explanation. They are the “Semi Gods” in charge of running the complex.

The Semi Gods expect us to engage in an act of idolatry by prostrating and bowing our heads in a state of awe before, Boards of Directors, Property managers, and lawyers who decide which unit owner should be destroyed financially or which unit owner should be spared the execution. This attitude of elevating something human (expertise) into the status of an infallible sacred object, is the new form of “Idolatry” the Captains of The Condominium industry want to impose on condo owners throughout the province.

This new form of idolatry expects unit owners to buy at face value the argument that Board Members and Property Managers are the “sole arbiters of their own vested interests”. Consistently, and multiple times in the past, unit owners were fed the argument that The Board does not have a legal obligation to follow the spirit of the law and the ethical values implicit in the law. Minimum compliance with the letter of the law, especially during AGM elections, is more than adequate for The Board and The Property Manager organizing the election on behalf of The Board. That is why also, during election speeches, Board supported members talk about personal academic credentials only. No one mentions anything if the academic degree will be mobilized for the ultimate vision of “serving the common good”. No one wants to listen to the opposition’s argument that academic degrees and employment credentials, if not employed for a higher purpose/cause will lead to an arrogance and a vanity that will force you to recreate God in your own image rather than acknowledging that we humans are made in the image of God, and our ultimate purpose in life should be to pursue the common good in a just and equitable fashion.

But then again let us accept the fact that decision makers made it very clear to us that Board elections are not “Public Office” elections, and no one should assign any significance to moral values. Years ago, captains of the condo industry advised condo owners that Board of Directors in condominiums are not The Fourth Level of Government in Canada, and Condominiums are regulated like “Private Clubs”.

 “Buying a condo unit is also like joining an investment club. You invest $100,000 to $1 million, or more, in "an investment pool" and elect five directors, who have anywhere from great to next to no management and financial skills, to look after your investment. If they manage the condo corporation well, your investment grows in value. If they manage poorly, you lose money. Like all other investments, there is a best time to buy and a best time to sell.” http://condomadness.info/intro-club.html

So instead of seeking a higher degree of compliance with ethical values and principles, it may well be the ideal time for condo owners to surrender and accept the fact, that we all joined a private club, and hopefully Divine Grace, prayer, and positive mental attitude will safeguard our investments from the corruptive influence of money and power, and by the time we are shipped to an “Old Age” residential unit we still have our initial investment in our bank account.

Admin “The 215 Forum” © 2017 

Do We Really Have Control?

Based on today’s market values, purchasing the smallest unit in our complex will cost a potential buyer approximately $300.000. For first time home buyers, the home ownership dream is the most expensive investment that will consume somewhere close to 50% of their annual income, though banks extending mortgages prefer to see a percentage closer to 35%.

One major question that many first time condominium owners confront is: “After investing so much money to purchase a condominium, how much freedom do we have in controlling the destiny of our biggest investment?” 

In our building the answer is plain and simple “ZERO CONTROL”. The Board of Directors, with the TOP/DOWN governance style, may precipitate in your mind the illusion of control by asking for your input or ideas about extremely trivial projects, but when the time comes to decide who gets what out of the $2.000.000 collected in maintenance fees, the owners have no say in it. Let me elaborate more with a concrete example. During the 2016 annual meeting The Board announced that approximately $1.2 million dollars was set aside to replace the carpets and the wall papers of the building. The amount is not open to any form of negotiation with unit owners. It was announced without any formal or informal contribution of suggestions and ideas from unit owner. However, The Board intends to form a committee of unit owners with the narrow mandate of helping The Board in the selection process of the most compatible color and carpet pattern with a good visual appeal.

Of course the previous example is not the only arena where unit owners can express their opinions. Back in June 2014, The Joint Management Council (JMC-not the real name of the council), distributed in the complex a survey, supposedly designed to help The Council plan new “Community Activities” and strengthen the “Sense of Community” by bringing together unit owners who share the same hobbies or social activities.

In July 2014, the newsletter of The Council published the results, and the figures were earth shattering. In a survey distributed to more than 570 unit owners, only 52 residents completed and returned their “Community Activities Survey”. Approximately 10% of unit owners showed an interest in the goal pursued by The Council. A very impressive percentage that indicates a clear apathy about the strong sense of community that exists in the complex, and how noble goals are exploited to shape the notion that decision makers are providing a large array of “CHOICES”, but unit owners are too reluctant to take advantage of what is being offered by the JMC.

It is true that the survey had a long list of potential activities (approximately 20) from dancing, to movie nights, to Yoga and Tai Chi classes, etc…The only problem is “there is a fee for an activity” to be paid by the unit owner, if it meets the most crucial condition of “a minimum of 10 participants per activity”. During the last 2 years, many activities were planned and scheduled only to be cancelled by the instructor simply because the number of participants was unacceptable from a “Business Model” point of view. One is forced to wonder why instructors, often unit owners in the same building, are insisting on a minimum of 10 participants, and cancelling classes simply because the criterion is not met, when the purpose of the activity is not to generate an extra income for the instructor (who is using the common elements of the building but not paying to The Board a single penny), but to strengthen through social activities the “Sense of Community”. If the activities are advertised out of the benevolence of a heart willing to serve the common good, why are instructors following a “Business Model”?

To understand the bizarre behavior of unit owners, their apathy in holding accountable decision makers, and surrendering the destiny of their biggest investment to “Experts” who promote the image of infallibility, one has to understand modern marketing techniques designed to manipulate people, influence them to invest mindlessly in products and services, and obey authority figures blindly by buying the argument that all decisions come from the benevolence of the heart to promote “The Common Good”.

A good source to understand the previous phenomenon is a book titled “The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less”. Researched and written by American psychologist Barry Schwartz who emphasizes throughout the book the cardinal importance of autonomy and freedom of choice in a modern democracy, and how the 2 factors (autonomy & choice) impact our psychological well being, positively if we can see how we are manipulated by clever techniques, and negatively if we allow others to victimize us by selling us the illusion that we have control over our day-to-day choices and ultimately our destinies. 

One practical example of clever marketing and manipulation techniques is the purchase of a cell phone. The service provider offers you a product that has more than 20 functions and applications, meanwhile on a day-to-day basis all you need is 3 or 4. You can have the product in 12 different colors, even more if you are willing to buy an extra casing that comes decorated with 25 different patterns. To operate the phone you have to study a fifty-page instruction manual. By the time you try to see which color is a close match to your purse and clothing, and which purse is more compatible with the size of the gizmo you plan to buy, you are so exhausted and mentally drained, that you cannot think about the most critical aspect of your purchase-a long-term contract that you have to honor for three years and a monthly payment where you have no say at all.

Of course it would be unfair to talk only in theories and blame The Board for imposing on us a Top/down method of governance, where unit owners can decide which ornament goes where on a Christmas tree, but we cannot participate in any serious endeavor about how the $2 million-dollar budget is spent. We are expected to follow blindly without any criticism and the most concrete evidence is the following letter reproduced in full with minor modification to prevent the identification of the Corporation:

===============================================================

Attn: Board of Directors,

MTCC No 000

Resident Services Office

August 15, 2016

Dear Members of The Board,

Year after year, during the Annual General Meeting of unit owners, The President in her annual report emphasizes the notion that “…Board members are volunteers who spend untold hours serving our condominium community…” It is safe to assume, based on assertions made by The Board in a variety of sources and circumstances, that a significant amount of time is invested by Board members into probing cost cutting measures while maintaining a high standard of living for owners and residents.

I am also convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no Board member is willing to claim for herself or himself the Divine attribute of being infallible. If The Board is not willing to challenge the previous statement, then one can safely argue that The Board had made mistakes in the past and adopted projects that neither improved the high standard of living in our building, nor made any meaningful contribution to the common good despite the thousands of Dollars invested and all the noble intentions associated with each project.

To avoid such mistakes, a group of unit owners in the building are willing to invest time and effort to help The Board assess the merits of projects $10.000 and up, do a background check (open sources) of contractors to avoid selecting companies such as Plenora Restorations Ltd. (PRL) boycotted by The City of Toronto “…to enhance the reputation of the City for ethical and fair business dealings.”  Plenora was selected by decision makers of the complex based on the strength of a recommendation made by an engineering firm, without any rudimentary check of the reputation of the company. Had any decision maker made a simple background check, substantial complications could have been avoided during the entrance and exit ramps repairs of the underground parking lot.

Please advise in writing if The Board is willing to support and coordinate projects review and analysis with  a committee composed of owners fully dedicated, like The Board, to cost cutting measures while maintaining a high standard of living for owners and residents. Needless to mention that the recommendations of the committee will be non-binding recommendations and The Board is free to adopt or reject the findings or the views expressed by the committee.

Looking forward to hearing from you, I remain

Yours truly

================================================================

In a letter dated Nov. 01, 2016 for a variety of reasons, ranging from ethical factors to privacy concerns, The Board clearly said NO. Even if within the ranks of unit owners we have architects and engineers who can contribute to the collective good, they cannot share power with The Board. And if mistakes are made and thousands of dollars are wasted on projects that do not contribute anything to the collective good, blame it on the experts who have access to the ears of The Board.

In conclusion your most valuable asset, your condominium’s destiny is well beyond your personal control.


 Admin “The 215 Forum” © 2017