Community Living and Communal Gardening; The "98 Percent"

I've lived at BLMH for about 12 years; during that time I've made many observations, attended 4-5 years of board meetings, watched the College of DuPage turn the field off Glouchester into a dumping ground, and interviewed owners and various board members of BLMH and other communities. I have concluded that community living associations are somewhat like communal gardens, with COD as the weed field next door.

What does it take for an association to work, as in "to be functional?" I've come to the conclusion that at the very least it takes good management, owners who pay their fees, follow the official Rules and Regulations, and an effective board. Of course, there may be dysfunctional, external influences to deal with.

When the real estate bubble popped and the recession was in full force, it seemed that every weekend there was a new article in the newspaper about the "trials and tribulations" of condominium living. Of course, there were also articles about the newly rediscovered possibilities of cooking at home and riding a bicycle!

I'm still waiting for the series of front-page newspaper articles about the wonders of responsible finances and the benefits of paying one's bills on time. I suspect I'll never see those articles, because they aren't sufficiently popular.


What's So About Condominium Living?
I'd guess it depends upon one's financial perspective. This post will be a perspective that's applicable to larger condominium associations. Why the "98 percent" in the title? I drew that from the fact that this large association in which I live and which includes about 40 acres, has at most 7 board members and 336 unit owners. At present we have 6 board members. So if there are 336 owners, and 6 on the board, a little arithmetic yields 330/336 = 0.98214, or 98.2% who are on the sidelines. They are the "98%."

This "sitting on the sidelines" was emphasized by the recent actions of the adjacent College of DuPage. Some owners asked the board "What are you doing about this?"


A Look at the "98 Percent"
Some of the "98%" are distant owners, but of course the majority are residents. Most of the 98% pay their fees in a timely manner, but "delinquencies" are a matter of fact in our society. My recent post on "Personal Finances" quoted a Harris poll which indicated that 33% of American's don't pay their bills on time. It would be incredulous if all of our owners paid their fees diligently, given these statistics and financial realities. The fact is, our owners are responsible, and do better than the statistics. We have a diligent treasurer and management, so we do know precisely where we stand as an association. We also have a program to deal with delinquencies. Does your association and do you?

We do not have precise statistics about rules and rules violations. An earlier board decided that enforcement of rules was "repressive."  Rules were not diligently enforced. Nor were there any statistics; to get statistics one must track rules violations. There are times when statistics, data and arithmetic are "boring." and I guess that was one of those times. That legacy continues to this day, but I do admit, it's no longer "free reign" for rules violators. It remains to be seen what the next "popularity contest" will yield at BLMH. What contest is that, you might ask? Why, it's our annual "election."

The fact is, most owners keep the rules. Many of these are "common sense" rules which include paying one's monthly fees, adhering to speed limits, being careful with trash, keeping pets leashed, picking up doggy doo and  no playing in the waterfalls, ponds and lakes. However, in many other respects, our owners are bystanders. That is a large percentage to be sitting on the sidelines, but that's the way large condominium associations operate.

There is a parallel and I was struck recently by the problems faced by communal gardens in the U.S. I listened to an article about this on NPR. I realized that these gardens are facing problems similar to condominium associations.

Communal Gardening and Our Association
In a communal garden, people sign up to join and each is expected to pitch in to do the work, be that the tilling, planting, fertilizing, weeding, watering and so on. In such gardens, the rewards are shared "equally" among the participants. According to the piece on NPR, there has been a problem in some communal gardens where people simply "show up" and do little or nothing, and then expect a full share of the "fruits of the labors." Other gardens face a lack of participation. Some of these gardens have shut down because of the problems on non-participatory "owners. " A few such gardens have decided to deal with the issue with work schedules and rules with "teeth;" e.g., rewards are based upon participation.

I think something could be learned from this. Of course, there is tension in these gardens and sometimes the members who provide nothing and are the "bystanders" attempt to run the garden and dictate to the other members how they should perform the work. In other words, there are sometimes too many "bosses" and not enough workers. In some gardens, "members" don't show up except when it's time to collect the vegetables. Upon listening to NPR I thought, "Wow, this does sound familiar!"

Before the reader draws any conclusions, the gardens I am describing are truly communal. All produce is shared equally by all members. That is distinct from some "community gardens" where the city or village provides an area and residents of the community are invited to take a plot (which is roped off, into sections) and use it to plant vegetables, etc. for the exclusive use of each "member." The "member" benefits directly from their labors and their success. If they don't do the work, there are no vegetables to collect. Of course, in such "community gardens" there is sometimes pilferage. I suppose this is to be expected in a society which seems to run on the slogans "I'm entitled" and "Just do it!"


In HOAs and Condominium Associations "We are all equals"
A condominium association doesn't work like those gardens. All members of a condo association are "equals." Buying a unit is all that is required for membership, and a few years ago, with "free money" offered by banks, one could buy a condo with someone else's money. At present, an owner can avoid paying fees for a time, and is still a member of the association. However, it is legal to revoke certain privileges such as pool passes, and I understand some associations have taken such steps to "encourage" owners to pay their fees.

Stories such as these don't help to sell condominiums. However, I would encourage the reader to consider the financial standing of the association and to realize that at most associations, the vast majority of fees are collected. In Illinois, the association has been given the power to press owners to pay their fees. You might ask "Ok, so how much does the association collect each year?" That's a reasonable question. If you want a detailed answer, check the association financials. However, let me point out that the question to ask is:: "Is the association collecting enough to meet it's Operations & Maintenance budget and fund it's reserves?"

I alluded to that in the previous post.

Is Living in a Communal Garden a Wonderful Thing?
In the spring when the weather is mild and everyone is enthusiastic about getting outdoors, it's fun and people show up to help at the "garden." As the summer goes by the novelty wears off. People then discover other fun things to do, and with the hot July sun beating down, it's no longer interesting to crawl on one's hands and knees to do the weeding. I understand that many communal gardens find themselves tended by only a few stalwarts. There will be lots of neighbors with opinions, and some will think it's a wonderful idea. But when it's time to do the gardening, only a few will show up and do the work, and some of those won't want to get their hands dirty. So there will also be some "picking and choosing" of duties and assignments. Nonetheless, if all of the chores aren't completed, if watering days are skipped, etc., the garden will probably not thrive.

Your condo association is like a communal garden. Each owner has "signed up" and is supposed to participate, but as with the garden, only a few actually do the tending. Of course, there is no stipulation in the
"bylaws" that people actually participate. That was, like voting, something that was taken for granted and expected. Perhaps that was and is a grievous oversight.

So, when things don't quite turn out at the association, do your fellow owners come to the association meeting and point fingers at the board, or do they come to the meeting and ask "What can we do?" Or, more specifically, do they say "What can we, as owners, do to assist the board to accomplish what needs to be accomplished? We, as owners are fully committed to the result and will do what it takes to get there!"


The Stalwarts and the Price of Entry into the Association
The board in an association is somewhat similar to the stalwarts of a communal garden. The board is comprised of people who declared their willingness to tend the garden. That's but step number one and now we are standing in the garden and the work begins. Whatever is to be accomplished is to be done by those who show up and do the work. In an association that falls with certainty to the board, while the other 98% of the owners participate to a limited degree. When it is all said and done, whatever the board accomplishes is the result of the activities and actions of the entire team, with or without the active support of the "98 percent." Of course, the board doesn't do this alone and it is in an active partnership with management and the various contractors. The board however, is held to a higher standard than the other owners and is accountable to see that the association is run in accordance with the Illinois Condominium Act (ICA).

That is sometimes a source of confusion for an owner. There is no promise that things will turn out a certain way, and certainly no promise that the owner-bystanders will be "happy." This is not a popularity contest, and it is counter-productive and questionable for a board of fiduciaries to cater to or look to a small group (a sub-group) of owners for approval. The ICA states this to be improper.

The owners are the members of the communal garden, but they are not fiduciaries. They do have official duties; that includes to read and understand the governing documents including the Bylaws and the Rules and Regulations. However, most owners don't actively participate. Their actions and inaction does have consequences. Anyone who thinks that 2% can man the oars of the boat while the other 98% sit back, well, all I can say to those people is "you've never been in a row boat."

Here is another way to look at the situation in a condominium association. If the owners do the minimum and I am of the opinion that paying their fees on time is the absolute minimum, then they should expect the minimum.

On joining BLMH, which is to say, at the time of the real estate closing, each owner agreed to the governing documents. It doesn't matter if the owner read these documents or not. Nor does it matter if they read them 35 years ago and have since forgotten everything. Nor does it matter if the rules are inconvenient. Each owner agreed to pay their fees and keep the rules; that is the price of admission. That is the minimum standard.

However, while all owners may be the members of the communal society called BLMH, many assume that all that is required is the timely payment of those fees. After all, they are "paying" for all of these amenities and services, aren't they? Some owners don't read the rules, or declarations, or simply pretend the rules don't exist or apply to them. Sorry, that's not an excuse. The rules apply to everyone, and we each do make a difference.


The Shifting Role of Owners
I'm of the opinion that at some time in the past, the role of the owners has shifted from constructive involvement to bystander. Some obviously decided they are simply inhabitants, or remote, uninvolved owners. For the remote owner, some may think it's like purchasing shares in a REIT; pay the monthly fees and the semi-annual real estate taxes, and then sit back and collect the rent. No, it isn't that easy.  A remote owner does not pass his or her communal obligations to the rest of the owners, the board or to management. With ownership and rentals comes obligations. I'll say it again, because over the years I have concluded that some on site and off site owners don't get it; BLMH is a community living association. It's not a REIT and it's not an apartment complex

If I were to buy shares in a REIT and there are no declarations to deal with, no governing documents, no fees or rules and regulations. That's not the way it is; all owner-shareholders at BLMH are responsible for their real estate taxes and remote owners are responsible for managing their tenants and staying in communications with the other "neighbors" on the property and in particular, those who share the entrance.

Why the shift in roles? There are many reasons for this, and I have my suspicions. It may be a gradual shift in which residential real estate changed from a dwelling, a principal long-term place to live, to a short-term financial expedient and one in which we expected to make "flip" and make a financial killing. In practice, there is no doubt a lot of people in the U.S. expected to get rich with real estate. They expected to be able to buy and sell at any time into a "sellers market" in which there were always ample buyers. People also expected that their values would go "up and up and up." That all changed in 2006-2007. But habits and falxe expectations die hard, and some still think they can get rich on real estate. Perhaps some can, but even the much touted Donald Trump of real estate fame has twice had ventures with his name go bankrupt. I think that's worth thinking about!

This association has been here for 35 years; that's a long time. During that time there have been several "boom and bust" cycles. That 35 years has certainly been long enough to forget why some of us purchased here. We are acquiring a new batch of owners, and for new owners, BLMH might appear to offer apartment style living with "gardens and walks," and all sorts of nearby amenities, including lots of green space, a park directly across the street, tons of shopping and a community college!

Yes, there is a lot going for this property.

I cannot precisely say why there is apathy among some of the owners. In the psychological stew of condo ownership, perhaps it's simply the unreasonable expectations of the owners for community living, and an unwillingness to be of service. Over the years and after attending many board meetings and having had a lot of chats with my friends and associates who live in other HOAs (we trade stories), it's become clear that there is some ignorance about the duties and responsibilities inherent in community living. At an extreme, some owners view their responsibilities as completely fulfilled on the day they sign that monthly check to pay the current fee. Some have decided that since things don't work for them, they simply don't have to pay, period!

The current financial situation in the country prompted the professionals at a recent CAI event to say to the audience "Don't people normally pay their bills?" Apparently, not always.

For some owners, rules are superfluous. Some owners not only expect service, they demand it. Some owners also decided that because they have paid their fees, it's entirely up to those other owners who are "volunteers" on the board to make it all work. It's like a communal garden in which the owner body pays for the soil, seed and fertilizer and then walks away, expecting a nice harvest. Thereafter the board is expected to do the work, tend the garden and produce wonderful vegetables and then after harvesting these, the board is expected to deliver fine produce to the door of each owner.

Some responsibly for this rests with the various boards of the HOAs. They are sometimes complicit in this and at times have operated as stewards in a social club. However, the various boards I have observed have also had a lot of serious work to do. So what comes first? Keeping the owners "happy?" How should one best go about that? I've heard a lot of opinions from the audience. Sometimes it is "the board should be doing more" for us!

For Profit and Being of Service; For Whom?
In social or volunteer organizations, duties and responsibilities are not assigned. Members pick and choose what works for them. Some duties aren't fulfilled because there is no one who wants to do them, or such duties are unpopular with the owners. That's the best reason to justify non-enforcement of rules; it's simply unpopular to do so. It's very difficult to argue with that. After all, the board is comprised of "volunteers" who pay the same fees as every other owner. Those volunteers have to deal with the neighbors, and that rule violator may live across the hall. So a board member must ask the question "why spend the time and get involved in the hassles?" I think any rational board member has to ask the question "Is the owner body going to back me?" But as a fiduciary, it doesn't matter. The board is supposed to do the "right thing." Is it any wonder people would rather sit back and watch? As a strategy some may argue it's better to keep people happy for a couple of years and then move on, letting future boards deal with the consequences. It's amazing how the "distant future" eventually becomes "now" and we get to deal with the results or lack of results.

It can be argued that it is downright stupid in this society to ever donate one's time to a money making organization. What, you say your HOA is a not-for-profit? Yes, it is in the eyes of the IRS, but let's look a little deeper and be honest. The other owners expect to sell their units for a good price. They expect to make a tidy profit at some point in the future. In other words, owners expect to profit from the successful operation of the association. So as far as the owners are concerned, your HOA is to operate as a "for profit" organization for them. If you disagree, then why, since 2008, all the bile about lousy prices, a "buyers" market and any issues about fees? Owners may take the view that every dollar they give to the association is a dollar they cannot spend elsewhere. Is the thinking "Let someone else deal with the future, I hope to be long gone?"

In our culture and in society in general, the very concept of "being of service" to others has been corrupted beyond all recognition. Our government leaders, who should be fiduciaries, routinely betray the public trust. It is no accident the State of Illinois has two former governors currently in prison. I think every board is paying a price for the shenanigans of these miscreants. That is another headwind the board of your HOA has to work against. There may be a perception that being a volunteer on the board means getting one's hands dirty in more ways than one, so it would be better to stand well away from the stench. Thank you, former governors Blagojevitch and Ryan for providing people with one more excuse!


Lack of Awareness and Board Collusion
The truth is, most owners are completely unawares of many of the activities and real problems that occur in an association. Why is that? At BLMH, the owners seldom come to association meetings. Even if they do, some issues such as rules violations and legal disputes are discussed by the board behind closed doors in "executive session." It is perfectly appropriate for any owner to ask "How may rules violations were there last month, and what type were they?" or "Is the association involved in legal disputes and if so, what are they about?" Yet, I've seldom observed such a request.

Frankly, as an owner, I'd like this association to publish summaries of these issues and problems and provide them to all of the owners; I don't need to know who is involved in these issues, but I've always been interested in the health of my investment and this association. These problems are a measure of health and a means to see what the board is accomplishing and how they go about it.

Since the association doesn't provide this information, as an owner I've always been in the dark. I am of the opinion this allows some to be irresponsible and to run their agendas out of the sight of the owners. In that situation, who wins and who loses? I chuckle when I have observed the occasional owner at an association meeting who grumbles about "transparency," or I've gotten an anonymous post here about "transparency."  About once a year someone says they want more "transparency." To my knowledge, no one has ever come to the association meeting and asked for more facts and figures and if there were any allusion to improper behavior, it's always been that it must be on the part of "the board."  Owners and tenants are all angels! In fact, I've heard former board members complain about the reams of data.  I have heard it argued that there is "too much" information and that people really don't want to know this stuff. Really? When it comes to association information, I don't think censure-ship is a fiduciaries responsibility with the exception of certain details of items which, according to the Illinois Condominium Act, are to be revealed only in "executive session."

When some owners have made their speech about their desire for "transparency," the character portrayed by the actor Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men" comes to mind. In a scene from that movie he was being forcefully grilled about a serious problem and his response was "You can't handle the truth!" Nevertheless, it isn't the board's duty to decide what people can or cannot handle. The board does need to be responsible about disseminating information. So what should be provided? I guess the question would be answered "Provide that which people need to know to make good decisions about living their lives in the HOA." That includes financial and issues of well-being, safety, and vendors. I say, provide the information in a readable form and let the owners decide.

Over the years, board members have told me "I don't read your blog." That's their choice; I've always wondered what else it is that they didn't read?


Filtering Information - The "Good News" Association
I've asked this question of other boards at other associations: "Do some of your owners want only "filtered" information with the impurities removed?"   I appreciate the quandary faced by boards in these matters. But owners are adults and signed legal documents to get here. I will always respect that and treat people who act accordingly as "owners."

All associations have problems; we live in an imperfect world. Do owners ever ask their neighbor "Are you behind in your association fees? or, "Have you been cited recently for rules violations?" I don't think so. That would be so, so unfriendly. So that begs the question "If no one is behind in their association fees, how is it that a certain percentage of our owners are behind in their fees?" I suppose the answer is, it must be the people living "over there."

A problem at all associations is owners who really don't want to know. I suppose there is an argument for putting one's head in the sand with the belief that if we pretend everything is fine, that will enhance unit sales; this because potential buyers won't do their homework? Some might argue that owners don't want to know about delinquencies, or foreclosures or financial issues; all of those "messy details." "Just give me the good news and don't bother me with the details or bad news." Some owners may prefer their preconceived notions and a board that supports their personal fictions. I'm of the opinion that such owners would be happier living in an apartment. But this is American, and if one has the money one can buy residential real estate. Imagine what happens if a board begins catering to such a sub-group?

Of course, what board wants to be the bearer of bad tidings? This is perhaps a significant concern if winning elections and being popular is really important. I have my own opinion; I think owners should be treated responsibly which means, with ownership comes some responsibility and accountability. That includes an ability to listen to the facts and bear the problems. In other words, I'm of the opinion that owners should expect to be told the facts, and when so told, they shouldn't argue about it with the fiduciaries.

Any board that has the courage to give the owners the unlaundered facts, particularly when the news is unpleasant, can expect to be asked "How could that happen?" At that point, it is inevitable that someone will say "It's because the association is poorly run." In other words, some people expect the board to make it all work. No bumps in the road, low fees, perfect maintenance, etc. Since the "panic of 2008" I've been inclined to ask such people  "How would YOU have people in the association comply with their financial responsibilities?" That would mean enforcement of rules, wouldn't it? But some would prefer to believe "If our fees were lower, all owners would pay them!" So how low should the association go to achieve this? Perhaps we should ask the owners and go with the lowest number they provide; I'm willing to bet someone would suggest "zero" fees. A few years ago, I suggested that some owners would only be happy if they were paid to live here!

It's Not Nice to Run a Club as a Business
In a communal garden club, making demands for the payment of fees isn't nice. In a communal garden club, making demands that members adhere to the rules, isn't nice. In a communal garden club, making demands that people do actual work, have accountabilities and share equally in responsibilities is considered "unsocial." If this were a club, then collecting fees, making rules, setting boundaries and demanding equal work from each of the members can be a wonderful way to lose membership. "What! You expect me to pay fees AND do work?" So there is a real incentive to keep social clubs as what they are; otherwise few would show up. In some associations and on some boards, it's exactly the same; it's most important that everyone get along and show up. Getting the gardening done is secondary, and if it doesn't happen, oh well, but we did have fun, didn't we? It will be up to future boards and future owners to "pay the piper."

As for the owners who prefer to be bystanders, they are those who watch the communal gardeners tending their chores. Of course, the bystanders could help in the gardening. Very, very few people in an HOA are incapable of doing anything at all.

In the end, the quality of the garden will be determined by those who show up at the garden, do the actual work, and hire help to deal with some of the larger chores. It will also be determined by the road blocks that some bystanders throw in the path of the stalwarts. I listen to the bystanders, but I am under absolutely no obligation to act in accordance to their comments or demands.

Why is that? The duty of the board member is to the association, or in this example, to the garden. The members of the board have accountabilities; the bystanders have opinions. Individual owners can have their opinions and I do think a board of fiduciaries should listen to the owner-shareholders. However, a board is not in place to be dumped on, or a scapegoat for the economy or any owner's decisions both good and bad.

Successful Gardening
If these garden tenders or stalwarts, which is to say the association "board" does a good job, the garden will succeed; the association will be maintained, the bills will be paid, fees will be collected. If the board does an outstanding job, it will thrive. However, circumstances will always intervene. There may be a drought, somewhat like a severe recession. If there is a lack of funding, there will be some things that cannot be done. I always think of the association as having limits and limited funding. Many owners really forget that the association is spending their money and demands may require higher fees. Any association that is responsible is walking a financial tight rope.

In the association as in the garden, there may be insufficient members to do the work properly and with fewer active board members, some chores will be "dropped out."

Some owners may deliberately sabotage the efforts. After all, in a society in which "I" am "Number one" and my personal success and looking good is the most important thing in life, throwing an association "under the bus" is a small price to pay to keep one's image and self esteem, isn't it? I don't think that's an appropriate way to be, but that is another piece of the "bad news" that owners are unawares of. If 60% of the associations are involved in some sort of legal dispute as has been stated by experts, then who are these people? How can an owner pretend that this doesn't go on? It's like pretending that there aren't garden pests and that a fence and insecticide or other preventative measures are not required in a garden.

When things do go wrong, some bystanders will accuse the board. If the yield is small, then some will insist that the gardeners were "fraudulent" implying that the seed money was spent elsewhere, or produce was taken. Some will simply complain "Is that all I get for my money?"

Success requires integrity and perseverance. It also requires being skillful and avoiding pitfalls. The greatest pitfall of all is the "gravity well" of self-serving owners who demand the attention of the board. I suggest boards avoid being trapped in these personal agendas. They should develop long term plans, publish them, keep statistics and monitor performance and do what is necessary to accomplish the goals of the association. Have a mission statement and educate oneself and the owners.


Three Ways to Play the Game
Most owners and other residents operate as spectators, when in fact, we are all on the field. That's what communal living and communal gardening is about.

In the game of life, which also applies to our time here at BLMH, there are three ways to play:

1. Be on the field, making the decisions, doing the work and making things happen.
2. Be in the stands and as a spectator, simply watch and opine or complain.
3. Be a reporter, and provide formal opinions and observations about the game unfolding on the field.

Notes:

1. The Association I live in has 336 units and 6 active board members. That's 330 who are not on the board, or 98.2%. That's the "98 Percent" in the title of this post.
2. Most of the owners of the association I live in are "willing." They pay their fees, and keep the rules, or are open to correction when problems do occur. There is a small percentage that doesn't do these things. We have a few chronic complainers, whose main purpose in life seems to be to enroll others in their personal position and causes. Most of our owners remain invisible, which means they live here, but I have no real evidence of that! Is that so bad? No, I suppose it isn't. However, I am sometimes perturbed by the complete lack of involvement. If one is to be aloof and completely involved in one's personal life, that with that comes trust in others who are involved, and the potential for disappointment. After all, with at most 7 volunteer board members, one for each 48 owners, it's unlikely that every whim and desire of the owners is going to be realized. There certainly is not sufficient funds for all complaints or whims. No clubhouse on the horizon, unless we can win a casino license and put one on the lake. Or perhaps a new board will divert funds to that!
3. Currently, the board on this association is understaffed. I take that to mean that most owners are completely satisfied with current events. Or they are simply unwilling to do the necessary work and are therefor willing to accept things the way they are. 
4. In the scheme of things, I am not sorry that I purchased here about 12 years ago. I have had the opportunity to check other associations and they are no better than this, many have finances that are worse, and most have fewer amenities that are of interest to me. A few have really serious problems. This association has not had a special assessment in the years I have been here, nor is there one on the horizon. How many associations can say that? 
5. I'm of the opinion that core issues for owners are the result of some factors that are beyond the control of the association. I tend to generalize these as "unrealistic expectations." We're not a retirement community and we don't have the amenities that such communities offer. Owners who do complain seem at times to be unawares of what it takes to maintain a 40 acre PUD. There are expectations that there is to be someone to chat with and discuss my personal issues 24 hours a day, there is the expectation that landscaping will be perfect, the paint and so on of 42 buildings will be flawless, that we have unlimited people to deal with problems, and that while some complain about "high fees" there is sometimes a demand to deal with any and all personal agendas, wants needs or desires. Over the years, some people have fed these conversations, or as they say "thrown gasoline on the fire," and it's easy to believe the politicians among us. Me? I'm too busy for politicking and I take my duties as a fiduciary seriously. There is to be no politicking for a fiduciary, nor is this a popularity contest. One thing I have learned in life is everyone loves a wide receiver. There are a lot of people who want to quarterback, and there are a lot of people who make promises. In the end, there is no limit of work available for those who will dig in and can get results.