Wheaton continues to improve

Link to City of Wheaton Website

One thing we do miss after selling our condo in December 2022 is the city of Wheaton.   There are a number of really nice western suburban cities and villages in DuPage County and Wheaton is one of them.  The City continues to invest wisely in the infrastructure and amenities. However, as far as we were concerned it is in the wrong state, and too close to dysfunctional Cook County and Chicago. 

At one time I lived in Chicago.  I left it because of the dysfunction, taxes and crappy public schools. Wheaton too has changed.  The severe problems in Chicago have come to Wheaton as Chicagoans leave that city.  That is another reason why we left Wheaton.  The Democrats destroyed Chicago, making it a divisive city with horrible public schools. It is a matter of time before Wheaton is destroyed, too.   For some idea of what this is like, just look to California.

We do visit the Midwest frequently.  My spouse did get to Wheaton in 2024, but I did not.  She was there on personal business.  I haven't visited for several years.  I am curious about how BLMH has changed.  The boards in place after our departure shut down the HOA website and it seems the only information available to the general public is via the realtors.   Attending a HOA meeting is limited to owners.  In other words, to find out about BLMH requires making a serious attempt to purchase.   When I first came to BLMH it seemed that problems were hidden from potential buyers. I attended many monthly HOA meetings and from time to time there were angry owners.  This reached a crescendo in 2007.  Some felt that they had been misled.  For example, regular financial data was provided to owners and there were short lists of reserve funds for capital projects.  What was not provided to owners were the projected costs of these capital projects.  Nor were there any reserve studies conducted by professional firms whose sole business was providing these services.  One board member ran on a simple plank: I'll keep fees as low as possible.  However, that's a subjective term and in fact, fees increased at rates of 5% or higher each and every year. 

When studies were made it became apparent there were some serious financial short-falls.  This was exacerbated by the fact that the HOA owned infrastructure including water mains, streets, curbs and street lighting.  At one time there was no budget allocation to deal with water main failures, etc.  

In 2010 things came to a head.  The streams were in disrepair and leaking expensive city water, causing damage on the property.  The streets were failing prematurely and water main failures were occurring with regularity.  There was a major roofing project barely begun.  It was a mess. 

It has been said that all things can be resolved in communication. That was one of the reasons I expanded the Newsletter. Copies were hand delivered to every on-site owner.  The others received a copy via US Mail. The newsletters were also posted on the HOA website.  This provided all owners and potential buyers with significant information about the association, its direction and future plans. Annual meetings included lots of slides and charts, etc.  Later boards phased out these types of open to the public communications, and the HOA website, too.  

When combined, the changes at BLMH, the loss of critical board members, the continuous board delays in turning the water system over to the city and the influx of Chicagoans with their very bad ideas prompted us to sell and move on. 

When we relocated we had the opportunity to purchase in a HOA and we said "No, thank you!"

Here's a link to a blog post containing older newsletters and other information.  When I left all updates ceased:

https://briarcliffelakes.blogspot.com/2021/09/blmh-newsletters.html

(c) 2025 N. Retzke

Response of Management to My Letter of February 14, 2007

From my archives. On February 14, 2007 I wrote a letter to management with separate copies mailed to each board member. That letter is the previous post. This is the mailed response by the Director of Management at our HOA management firm:

"March 12, 2007

Dear Mr. [My name]

On behalf of the Board of Directors and management, 1 would like to thank you for your correspondence pertaining lo the financial condition of the Briarcliffe Lakes Manor Homes Condominium Association. Since your correspondence arrived shortly after the February meeting of the Board of Directors, it was placed on the agenda of the March meeting. All of the members of the Board expressed their comments and certainly recognized the thoughtful approach that you have taken.

Your comments are and were echoed by the Board members. Sometimes it is a very close balance between structuring the assessment level while still providing the necessary funding to not only maintain the day-to-day operations of the Association; and, still be able to the fund the long-term needs of the Association for capital repairs. These decisions are always difficult. But you, like the Board of Directors, are concerned about maintaining the value of the properly. They would prefer paying a little more each month than being faced with the much more difficult financial task of paying for a special assessment.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful approach to your correspondence.

[Signed, The Director of Management, with copies to the manager and the board]"


Note:
In 2007 the board was clearly struggling with finances. I find this letter of response somewhat ironic. About 18 months later, when some owners arrived at HOA board meetings in 2008 and assailed the board and management, they said the board was not responsive, controlled communications and was unfair and uncaring.  The above letter is one of the reasons I challenged those owners and that 2008 replacement board.

Letter to Management and the Board, February 14, 2007

From my archives. Severn years ago, at the time this letter was written I had been an owner for 6 years. I had been monitoring finances since 2000, which was prior to purchase. About 18 months after this letter was written many of the board including the president were replaced. The problem seemed to be owners irritated by fee increases. Over the next two years the new board entrenched its position and attempted to replace management.

"Dear Mr. [manager with separate copy mailed to each board member]

Thanks to you for the work that is done. Thanks also to the board, as a former "volunteer" I understand what that means.

My spouse and I have had the opportunity to "digest" the info presented in the most recent annual meeting and also in subsequent "Manor Briefs". I have some observations to make. I also made a spread sheet and I thought I would share it. [Spreadsheet omitted for this post]

One of the items that is becoming a possible issue is the increases in the monthly assessments. The 2007 budget includes an assessment increase that is 6.0%. Now, that is larger than the CPl but I do understand the forthcoming electricity increases and the maintenance issues that the association faces. Frankly, it is my opinion that the people who lived here for the first 25 years got a bargain, as apparently there was minimal consideration to acquiring reserves for major repairs. Of course this also created a problem as the unit owners became used to the unusually low assessments. I can sympathize with the [owner] who wrote you before the annual meeting and was struggling with the increases and was attempting to find methods to move services from the association to the unit owners, and in so doing, reduce the monthly assessment.

[Paragraph removed for brevity and to preserve confidentiality].

When my spouse and I decided to purchase a unit in Briarcliffe Lakes in February 2001, we were concerned by the amount of the financial reserves. It seems our concerns were well founded, as roof repairs are on the horizon. I am hopeful the assessment increases will prove to be sufficient and special assessments will not be necessary. However, your statements and the statements of board members at the previous annual board meetings were not encouraging. I recall hearing a comment at a board meeting that a roof costs [dollar figure removed]. If so, that is greater than $1.6 million for the entire complex.

On reviewing the published budget, my spouse and I were wondering about the details as they apply to an individual unit owner; a $1 million dollar annual budget is a lot of money. So I made a spread sheet, copy attached. I applied the categories to my "Unit B" monthly assessment. As result I arrived at the following figures for the "Projected Year End 12/31/06":

Monthly assessment = $242.45, distributed as follows:
Monthly Utilities = $14.92
Monthly Maintenance and Repair = $10.56
Monthly Common area Maintenance = $51.42
Monthly Waterfall/Creek Maintenance = $0.63
Monthly Building Maintenance = $76.33
Monthly Administration Expense/Insurance = $42.17
Monthly General Reserves = $46.42

The spread sheet includes a column for annual assessment which is based on the data released in the December 2006 "Manor Briefs". To arrive at the distribution for the General Reserves I applied the unexpended funds on a percentage bases (pro rata) to the various reserve categories. This applies about $2,200 per building per year to the roofing reserves. At that rate, it would normally take 10 years to acquire the necessary funds. Of course, I don't know the amount accumulated to date in General Reserves for this program.

Sorry if this is getting a little long.

I also am aware of the issues concerning renters and parking. I think they are both sourced by changing demographics at Briarcliffe Lakes. My concerns are probably mainstream. As the population ages, there will be increased turnover. New owners seem to have more vehicles, typical of younger families, etc. In my building we have as many as three vehicles for a unit............ In 2001 there were 5 or 6 autos. If that is representative of a trend, then there are serious parking problems on the horizon.

I see a benefit in limiting renters in the complex. I also see problems if this does not come to pass. In my case, in the event of death of me and my spouse, the unit is willed to my sons. I have discussed this with them and I can foresee that in the event of my death, they would be more likely to choose to rent the unit rather than to sell. I wonder how many other, older unit owners (those over 60, like me) are in similar circumstances? This could have a profound impact on the makeup of Briarcliffe Lakes over the next 10 years.

Sincerely,

[My Name]"

Austerity Program - April 14 Email to the R&R Director

Sorry for the delay in responding; there is so much to do, and so little time.

I do need a response from board members to some emails; it may simply be a "yes" or a "no." For example, is an austerity program something this board is to pursue? Ditto for a "sales and marketing program."

Yes, I understand [our treasurer] will present a letter [during the April board meeting]. It will be the first of several to owners. The letter serves several purposes, including a "heads up" to owners who are in arrears.

I apologize if I seem harsh, at times. I am willing to be accountable for my actions, and the consequences, thereof. If you ever want to discuss my actions or have issues, feel free to call me at any time. Yes, I am busy, but I will either tell you a time at which I can talk at length, or handle your call immediately.

I feel a sense of urgency. We are three (actually four) years into a very serious economic decline. It is not over, yet. Some would like to pretend that it is. I am not one of those. I am concerned that as this economic malaise continues, it will further stress owners. Anyone who is living off of savings will eventually run out.

I am completely aware that there are retirees on SS who have had no COLA benefit for two years. Many other working people have not have a salary or hourly raise in that time. Many others are working at reduced hours. As a business owner, I am paid with what is left after bills and other salaries. There have been a significant number of years in which I earned less than my administrative assistant. That is not a complaint; it's a statement of fact.

Believe it or not, I am operating from the perspective that all board members are committed partners. However, as human beings, we don't always operate in accordance with those commitments. It is easy to revert to a position that "I" or my needs, are to come first. I am operating from the position that I am a fiduciary; in association matters, my commitment as a fiduciary comes first. I do have difficulty honoring that commitment, and simultaneously honoring the individual owner. I always ask myself "what is the appropriate action, consistent with the needs of the association."

I do have a vision for this association, which is only a possibility.

I coined an expression some years ago to sum up that reality: "God loves us, but the universe does not care." So things don't always go well, and good people sometimes experience difficulty.

By an "austerity program" I mean a formal approach to reducing fees. This may require a curtailment of specific services. In other words, owners may have to give up something, some of those perks they get, to achieve a fee stabilization (reduced increase in 2011) or a fee reduction. Some associations have accomplished this by turning maintenance over to owners. We have done so with "grass seed", on a trial basis. I'm sure you noted [an] owner's complaint in the information packet. They are correct; it's not their responsibility; we can ask owners to "take it on" and they can refuse.

Other associations simply turn over the maintenance of "Limited Common Elements" to owners. In my [Architecture & Maintenance] report, I address this approach; it's really a stealth fee increase.

I am, within reason, willing to consider any approach, as long as the board is fully informed of the consequences, and agrees, which is to say, "makes informed consent." I am unwilling to simply "wave the magic wand" and hope it all turns out. I am unwilling to take actions that will impose avoidable burdens on future boards or owners. Our fees, today, are what they are because boards in the period 1985-1999 made financial [decisions]. That costs me about [amount deleted] each month, and has restricted sales in this association.

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References

Note 1.  This post will be one of a series on recent issues facing this association and will expand on topics contained in the newsletter.  

Budgeting Part V - Making a "Good Decision" and Avoid Being Wrong

By now, everyone should have had the opportunity to read the letter of the proposed budget for 2011. I am sure the thought of a 7% fee increase is causing some concern. Passage of such a measure will impact owner finances in 2011.

I need your help.

I have been asked by owners where I stand in this matter. First, let me say this is not a "personal" recommendation on my part. It was arrived at by the entire board, during two long "budget workshops" held last month. However, I realize that you want my personal position in this matter. I have been told by non-board members that this is being discussed with owners by other members of the board.

One impatient person who I assume is an owner, sent me an anonymous message and said "What percentage do you think the monthly assessment should go up?"

I am hesitant to state a number for one reason and only one reason. During the workshop, there was a certain amount of compromise on the part of board members. I too compromised. There will be consequences to the association because of this budget, or the budget that is voted and passed.

What I personally want to achieve is the ability to  make a good decision. That's a decision that allows this association to properly function in 2011 and avoid the consequences of a bad decision. I don't want a repeat of 2010. Nor do I want a fee that places an unnecessary burden on unit owners. Whatever decision I ultimately make and whatever percentage this board votes and passes, this association will have to live with. Future boards will have to deal with the consequences of any funding shortfalls, just as this board is dealing with the financial consequences of decisions made last year and 20 years ago.

Making a good decision today, is more difficult because of the uncertainty in the economy, the consequences of foreclosures on the association, the financial stress experienced by some unit owners, and the ambitious and necessary roofing and driveway programs. It is all the more difficult because of the projections for the next 10 years, and our reserve study.

Last year, the board made what turned out to be a bad decision regarding fees. I think that occurred because the board, after receiving information, decided to use some of it and discard some. Ultimately, that information was used that was consistent with their personal beliefs. They authorized a reserve study, assuming to would prove we were well or fully funded. It didn't. I concluded in 2008 and again last year, that some members of the board are somewhat confused.  I see nothing that has caused me to change that opinion. Making a popular decision is not necessarily a good decision. The opposite is also true; an unpopular decision is not necessarily a bad one. However, while I am not alone in this thinking, I most certainly am outnumbered on this board. So it is entirely possible this board will again make a popular decision.

A bad decision is one which will result in a need for a special assessment, or will allow maintenance to fall behind to a degree that future owners cannot again "stand the pain" of making up these financial shortfalls, when it is necessary to raise fees. As I have stated repeatedly to my fellow owners last year: "If we can't raise fees this year, what makes us believe it will be easier next year?" What would make me believe that we'll be in better financial condition in 2012 than 2011? There's nothing to indicate that owners will receive a windfall of money from anywhere. Serious financial shortfalls can result in probable ruin to this association. Last year I suggested to anyone who would listen, and published here that owners should "Save that 2% in a cookie jar, because you will need it next year." If you did, you will not experience the full financial impact of whatever fee increase we do have in 2011. I wish last year's board had vigorously promoted that idea to all owners, but they didn't.

I think it's also very short sighted for an owner to assume that it is to their advantage to hold fees down for a year, two or three and then sell their unit, passing on the financial obligation to the "new" owners. This economy and real estate market isn't going to allow that.

At this point, I'm not certain, because of our financial situation and last year's decision, that anything I do will resolve this problem to anyone's satisfaction. We are, as they say, "in a pickle." I have already stated that I will not be the scapegoat for this year's decision. Some owners will say "How could this happen?" Even when everything is done properly, things can go wrong. Our proposed budget does not provide much financial leeway if anything does go wrong.

Before I continue, I want you to look at this chart of our fees and the possible one for 2011:

Here is what is significant in the chart. In 1981-1982 there was a severe recession in this country, with extreme unemployment exceeding 10%. Unemployment began rising in 1980 and did not fall below 7% and stay there, until November of 1986.  Another recession resulted in high unemployment from 1991 through 1993. These periods were similar to today's high unemployment due to the recent recession.

In the chart above, you will see the response of the boards at BLMH under the stress and pressure of owners, during those economic times. They lowered fee increases, but when there was insufficient cash to pay the bills, voted in large increases. Then they reverted to the popular low (3%) or 0% fee increase, again fell behind and ultimately spent every dollar collected, with little saving for replacement of roofs, etc. in the "far distant future" of 2005.

Those earlier boards, particularly from 1982 to 1998, continued on their merry way with generally popular decisions and average annual fee increases below 2.59%!

By the year 1999 our boards, based on the published numbers, found they had almost no reserves, because of the earlier decisions to keep fee increases low. Boards thereafter had no choice but to raise fees sufficiently to make up for the fees not collected or saved. Owners didn't like the change from less than 2.6% average increases to about 6% annual increases. There was talk of "repressive measures," and that board was replaced, ultimately resulting in the current board.

The board in 1999 with the advice of new management, made the difficult but unpopular decision to raise fees. They didn't do it because they wanted to. They did it because they had to. To be honest, we were on a path to very large special assessments. Until that time, most owners were satisfied with the fees at BLMH, I am told! In 2000 fees jumped and when I purchased here in 2001/2002, I was told by several owners that they were very unhappy with the "high fees." Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Today each owner at BLMH is paying a much higher monthly fee because those boards made popular decisions and kept fees unhealthily low. Here are the average fees for several periods. They demonstrate what I am saying:

• From 1982 through 1998 average = 2.59% annual fee increase.
• From 1999 to 2010 average = 6.61% annual fee increase (includes 0% in 2010).
• From 1982 to 2011 = 4.30% annual fee increase (includes proposed 7% in 2011).

There are consequences for the financial decisions of our boards. The history of the association shows that our boards have never been able to raise rates sufficient to make up for the fees that were never collected, when they were lower than the average 4.30%. It's because most boards find it difficult to collect money. The difference is staggering. If our boards had maintained a 4.30% fee increase each year, 1982 to 2011, we would now have a monthly assessment that is about $100 LESS than what it currently is.

However, our fees are where they are because we have been attempting to collect and save enough money in about 6-8 years to do our roofs, and other improvements. We should have been saving for 15 years.

Coincidentally, last year, the board, in similar economic times and under similar pressure from owners, made the decision of a 0% fee increase. That was the popular thing to do. The treasurer objected. I suspect that if this thinking continues, we'll simply stop funding roofs when we finish this project, to "keep fees low" and pass that financial problem and pain on to future unit owners.

So, what decision should I make? Why did the board decide on a 7% proposed increase? It's because, to their dismay, some costs such as energy and water, did increase last year. It's because they deferred paying for some of the landscaping completed in 2010 to 2011. It's because the reserve study, which they apparently expected would show we were excessively funded, did not show that. It's because of the failure of the water main on Gloucester; at the time of the workshops we did not know the full cost, but we did have rough budget numbers from past failures and the price of a driveway. It's because of the age of our roofs and driveways.  It's also because of the 0% fee increase last year.

My considerations now include this. I want to avoid making a bad decision and a mistake. Will the economy continue to sputter along? That seems to be the consensus of the "experts," with slow growth and high unemployment. Will inflation come back? Probably not yet, but as we have seen in 2010, there can be price spikes or other unforeseen events that will financially impact this association. Will ComEd get that proposed transmission fee increase? Will the price of roofs and driveways increase in 2011? Will any of our contracts go up or down in price in 2011? Can we reduce expenditures, or will irate owners attend meetings and complain about a lack of services "what do we get for all this money we pay," etc. and finally, will the board cave in to these owners. So as to be "popular?"

My primary concerns are:

1. How to avoid a special assessment or assessments, which will put owners under far more financial stress than they are at present?

2. Can we achieve a fee that will allow the association to meet it's current financial commitments? In doing so, we can then maintain the property for the owners, and promote both current living and possible sales.

3. Can we get sufficient time to complete the planning process of the reserve study? We will need a lot of time in 2011 to do that. Then we will have further information and can make a reasonable budget decision for 2012.

4. At the rate of funding proposed in the budget, most owners will have roofs that are an average of 17 years old when they are finally replaced. Can we hang on that long? According to a 2006 letter by management, our roofs can be expected to last 12 years. With the increased funding of the roofing reserves, at the fastest pace planned in making the proposed 2011 budget, and replacing the oldest roofs first, this will be the age of the remaining roofs as they are replaced at BLMH:

• 2 roofs 16 years old
• 14 roofs 17 years old
• 17 roofs 18 years old
• 4 roofs 19 years old
• 1 roof 20 years old

5. If anything goes wrong, how will we deal with it?  

Conclusion
If you, the reader, have any ideas, let me know. I suggest that we get someone on the board, if the opportunity presents itself, with some real financial acumen. A CPA would be ideal. I have spent about 60 hours doing the "number crunching" and that doesn't include the data from management and the time they spent in preparing it. There is a lot more to do in 2011.

However, before we again go down that path and plan on firing our maintenance company, I want you to consider that such a move will not solve the problem in 2011. I will be looking at various expenses here at BLMH in 2011 and thereafter. However, for the moment, I need to work with the hand I have been dealt. That means, improved planning and preparation on the part of the board. However, I am but one board member of seven. If we can't even manage the rules, then how are we to deal with real problems and a crisis, which I do consider this financial situation to be? Your board needs your support. This is your property we are attempting to maintain. These are your property values we are attempting to keep. We are required by statute, the Illinois Condominium Act, to do so.

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References
Note 1. On that roofing letter in 2006. The letter was requested of management by our former Architectural Director. He was replaced when some current board members refused to support or endorse him. I got a copy of the letter after asking management and former board members for information on the age of our roofs. I asked that because I was very concerned by our budget, the roofing schedule, and the condition of our roofs. I am sure our other board members also had access to that information. 


Note 2. As I stated in the title, I want to avoid being wrong. However, if I make a mistake, I'll admit it. At present, if I vote for a fee increase that is too high, I'll possibly stress some owners. If I vote for a fee increase that is too low, I'll lead to future financial problems. With spending for capital improvements at the projected levels and the age of our infrastructure, any mistake now will have serious consequences. Consider that last year was, perhaps a minor one. But we don't have the luxury of time to allow us to increase fees 1% per year. If we had 5 or 10 years, we could "ease in" fee increases. However, I have no confidence in the vocal minority of this association to allow that, either. The history of this association has shown that sufficient number of owners are far too willing to attempt to avoid financial responsibility and push the pain on to other, future owners. We've done it before and we'll do it again. 


Note 3. We'll see how the association meeting goes. I suggest that owners attend and be constructive to this process. Telling the board to cut expenses will not work this week. However, i am in favor of eliminating some contract work in 2011 as contracts come up, even should that mean passing the work on to owners. 


References:
Here are some earlier posts on finances and reserves for this association:


Association Finances and Reserves

My personal response to 0% fee increase

BLMH Election Meeting 2010

The election meeting was attended by about 20% of the ownership, I understand.

Each candidate was given one or two minutes to address their fellow unit owners and make a statement. I did not video the meeting. I wanted no diversions, I wanted to be fully and completely present to the owners; nor did I want to burden my spouse, who was also in attendance, with the requirement to run the technology.

I stated at the previous election, in my 60 seconds before the ownership, that I find this process somewhat deficient. For example, our rules prohibit the posting of political notices, statements or endorsements. So, in honoring the BLMH rules, I and several other candidates prepared and mailed a brief  letter to the unit owners on September 13th. The cost of postage was shared among us and by several concerned, and supportive unit owners. However, a board member prepared an endorsement statement for another candidate. This was taped by persons unknown on each mail box of each building on September 20, in violation of the BLMH rules, and apparently also of Post Office regulations.

I would have liked to have had about 10 minutes to address the group, and I had prepared a longer statement, from which I drew for my short time before the unit owners.


Owner Question and Answer Session prior to the Election


Immediately prior to the election, owners were given a few minutes to address the current board and management and ask questions. I was gratified to see that these questions were included:

1. What fee increase did management recommend?
2. How much are we spending on roofs and driveways?
3. What percentage of units are rentals?
4. How much are unit owners in arrears for fees? (See Note 1).
5. Will the association resume sealcoating the new driveways?

Short Statement Made to the Attending Unit Owners:

The candidates were give a minute or two to address the owners.  In my brief statement I attempted to make the following key points:

1.  Thank you for attending the annual meeting!
2.  I will use my short time to ask some questions, provide answers and make statements so you know where I am coming from and who I am.
3.  I care very much for this association and I do my best to keep the rules. I have attended most of the association meetings for the past 3 years and my spouse and I have been unit owners for 9 years. We live on the property.
4.  I’m 64, employed in my own business, and I am one of two partners who own a commercial office building.
5.  This is the worst recession since WWII. As far as I am concerned, we are all on “fixed incomes”. No Social Security COLA increase in 2010 and probably 2011. Working people can’t just ask for a raise to cover fee increases. So how are unit owners to pay for fee increases?
6. We need some urgency on the board. Money spent is gone forever. Time wasted can never be recovered. 
7. We are spending money we don’t have. Question: How to fund all of our projects in a timely manner, meet expenses AND slow or temporarily halt the fee increases?
8. We URGENTLY need an austerity program.
9. We need to promote sales and protect our property values.
10. Are rising fees contributing to foreclosures? About $450 billion in home mortgages will recast in 2010, 2011, 2012. Interest rates are low, but a subscription service I belong to sent me a notice of a foreclosure on Lakecliffe several weeks ago!
11. We need different and balanced viewpoints on the board.
12. We need more unit owner involvement. The association needs to effectively deal with owner Apathy and Resignation.

Election Results 
I was elected, as were two others. This was posted here on September 24th.

Response of a Unit Owners in Attendance

A unit owner and his spouse asked to make a statement. They took the opportunity to complain that they were very unhappy that renters were prohibited from attending association meetings. The president indicated this could be the topic in the future. I asked for and was granted the floor.

I addressed the couple. "Our bylaws state "Meetings of the Board shall be open to any Unit Owner...". The board cannot do what it is being asked to do. It does not have the power to change the bylaws and grant what you are asking. However, there are procedures to change the bylaws and you are free to organize the ownership to do so." One of the couple stated "what you are asking us to do is impossible" and his spouse argued that it was "unfair" to exclude renters.

The conversation ended at that point. I disagree this is an impossible task. The board arbitrarily and illegally changing the bylaws is not possible, or at the very least, it should be impossible. However, organizing unit owners to change the bylaws is legal and is certainly possible, but difficult.

Immediately after the meeting. I was congratulated by several unit owners and some members of the board. I was ignored by others. I was also accosted by one owner who made it a point of telling me "You are full of s**t." Another, who wanted renters to attend board meetings, made it a point of repeatedly insulting me.

General Observations
Frankly, I don't take this personally. True, I don't like the insults, but "it is what it is". I do understand that I am dealing with some very unhappy people here at BLMH. I view that as not of our, as in "this association's" making, but as a consequence of the social and economic forces that created this particular group of people. We are powerless to do what would be required to make these people happy.

We now have a few owners who intended to get on the "make money through real estate" bandwagon. They find that they purchased at, or near, the top of the market and cannot sell at what they feel is a reasonable price. Others purchased 25 or 30 years ago, and would love to sell and move to somewhere else in retirement. They too cannot sell at what they believe is a reasonable price. Others purchased what they perceived to be a reasonably priced piece of real estate and intend to "move up" to a house or something better in a few years. For them, BLMH is a stop along the way. And others purchased to have a place to live, have no immediate plans to move on, and are reasonably contented.

For those with no immediate plans, living at BLMH is probably a pleasant experience. For those who want to sell but cannot because they are asking a price that the market will not meet, this is an unpleasant experience. I suspect some feel trapped here. Those are the ones to be watchful of. They may be angry, spiteful and disruptive.

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References, Miscellaneous News
Note 1. In the original post, I omitted the question by a unit owner regarding the amount of money owed by unit owners to the association. the president answered the question and confirmed the statement made in our mailing to the unit owners. These fees are important because money uncollected is money that cannot be spent, because it is unavailable. Recent boards have not adjusted our budgets for this reality. With the combination of last year's 0 percent increase, it would seem they are spending money we don't have. The question I have is "How long can this continue?" I suspect it isn't very long at all, but perhaps long enough to make it through the next election!