An Unpopular and Difficult Chore
I've been in this association for over 10 years I've observed that maintaining and enforcing the rules in a large association is one of those unpopular chores. Enforcement of the rules has been an obvious issue to anyone attending association meetings. Several years go it was usually reported at the meetings that there were no rules violations. At the time, another unit owner remarked "In an association with 336 units that's difficult to believe!" Some Rules & Regulation Directors (R&R) or boards apparently preferred only to act if there were a violation reported by an owner. I guess that rules enforcement was considered police work. It apparently didn't fit in with an agenda for a "kinder and gentler" community, and anarchy was preferred!
As it is with all things here at BLMH, there are differing points of view on rules enforcement. Some expect the rules to be vigorously enforced, and others do not. Some see it as unnecessary and an infringement upon their personal rights. Some owners are for it, if it is the board that does the dirty work. For example, if they purportedly see a violation they may call a board member and complain "You should do something about it" or, after the fact, they may come to an association meeting and complain "Why didn't you do something about it?" What they won't do is report it using the required procedure which is a "Written Initial Complaint by a Resident, Association Board or Association Management." You'll note that "Resident" is first on that list.
Should owners expect another owner or the board to do the "dirty work" that they are unwilling to do? Should owners expect the board to insert themselves between some of their differences? We're not mediators or policemen. We will do what we can to keep the peace but we're not here to arbitrate disputes. However, if an owner won't even fill out the basic paper work and expects a board member to do this, I suggest it becomes unreasonable.
We've experienced R&R enforcement which was lax simply because the director didn't do it. It's difficult to say why this occurs. I concluded that the reasons might be the fact its unpopular with some at BLMH. One doesn't enforce the rules with their "friends" does one? Why not?
Time is another problem. Monitoring our extensive property can be time consuming. Simply walking from address to address on the property can take 45 minutes. Add another walk along the patios and it can take hours. Then let's walk along Briarcliffe Blvd to 1825-1827 and around the lake. I've spent the better part of a half-day doing the walk I describe, and so I know.
In an association management will take its cues from the board. There is a lot to do in an association this large and I can appreciate a position that doing a task that alienates one to the board is not a good use of time. The board will also take it's cue from the president and the R&R director. If the director simply doesn't do the job, then what? Should another board member take on double duty and perform that duty? Why? Board members are equals. Work on the board is supposed to be more or less equally distributed. Board members have specific duties and responsibilities.
Taking up the challenge is a good way for a board member to become a target of the 5%.
A Growth Opportunity
Serving on the board is a growth opportunity. Taking away one's duties and responsibilities is not a good approach with a recalcitrant board member. However, it remains that the board does have serious work to do and some how it must get done. If not, then stagnation and serious problems can occur. There is no "auto pilot" in our association.
In society the "do bees" might be penalized and given more and more to do. The "don't bees" may succeed by simply dragging their feet and allowing the "do bees" to get the job done. If this were a row boat and one side were manning the oars and the other coasting, we'd be going in circles. So too with boards and organizations.
This can lead to animosity on boards, and I'm sure directors walk off from time to time. Last year, an owner addressed me at a meeting and told me "You are not the board." I said "You are absolutely correct, and there is an empty seat here for any owner who wants to take on the empty position." They didn't take me up on that offer.
Rules enforcement, like all other tasks in the association fall to board and the R&R director is the leader in that task.
Practicing Good Citizenship
Keeping the rules is inconvenient and at one time or another, we'll each step over that line. It may be excessive trash in the garage, or a failure to pick up doggy do, or not moving our car during a snowstorm so the plows can complete the street, or leaving it unattended on the property for two weeks while we're on vacation. However, keeping the rules is not to be a burden; I'd suggest it is an opportunity to make an expression about what type of association we want and what part we fulfill in it.
Keeping the rules is another aspect of maintaining our unit and our personal property. When we understand and follow the rules, we're practicing good citizenship. We're maintaining our relationship in this community association and we're putting it into action.
If we do break a rule, we should expect a letter of correction. If we fail to comply we can expect a fine. That fine has been looked upon from time to time as "board repression." It isn't. Owners are given an opportunity to comply and if they fail to do so, then a fine is used as a means to encourage compliance. Our association does not "make money" levying fines. I'm sure management and the board have much better things to do than this. But it is a part of the duties and it is necessary to take steps to assure compliance. Or would owners prefer anarchy?
In some situations compliance may not be easy. Most boards are not comfortable with discussions about circumstance as a criteria for rules enforcement. In other words "For some individuals and under certain circumstances rules violations are acceptable." That's creating distinctions and different classes of owners. A definite no-no under the Illinois Condominium Act. All owners are equals and all owners have the same responsibilities in the association. Of course, we don't all behave identically. We have different perspectives and different views on what is important and what is not. The rules assist us in establishing community priorities we can live with.
Living and working in a community is not a social club. We do need guidance from time to time about what is appropriate behavior and what is not. It's not a popularity contest.
Rules and Fees
Looking into this more deeply, one can't discuss the rules without looking at fees. Paying fees in a timely manner is one of the rules. In fact, paying the fines is one of the rules! So, some observations about fees will be included in this post.
I walk the property frequently in the warmer months. This is to do various condition inspections and look for maintenance problems. Of course, this also picks up various rules violations, which are reported. I usually include a photo which is date stamped and with location etc. on the face. This is accompanied by a brief description and I frequently copy the specific rule text and provide the necessary references. Of course, the camera is mine, etc. With management, I've done thorough garage interior and patio surveys and inspections.
With the arrival of spring, I'll again be doing specific surveys and inspections.
When doing past surveys, we have determined that a large majority of owners do not have apparent and visible rules violations. The most frequent violations include patios or decks with things on railings or other than outdoor furniture. Another is lawn chairs, feeders and barbecues in the common areas. We have found some rules violations in garages. These are usually inoperative vehicles or storage of boxes and bags. Large oil stains sometimes occur. This might not be considered a violation, but it is true that the owners of these vehicles can expect a fee for extra effort spend to clean up those stains by our cleaning crews.
One re-occurring problem is residents who set things on second floor patio railings. This is dangerous. One resident stained the new railings with run-off of plant watering; those plants were on set on the railing. Of course, this also flowed onto the patio below. That might be the source of the problem. Residents may be setting the plants there so the run off doesn't fall through the deck and onto the belongings of their neighbor below. However, nothing is to be set on the railings.
There are occasional complaints about satellite antennas and that includes wandering cables.
In some buildings there is a complaint about mice. We caution owners about storing anything edible in non-metallic containers in the patio and garage storage closets. Some owners do feed the animals in violation of the rules and others do use grass seed as allowed by past boards. Unfortunately, these seeds not only attract birds but also mice and squirrels, who can be very prolific. I suspect some of the issues in specific areas of the association are caused by such feeding. Reoccurring mouse complaints is an indicator of some sort of food source.
Before continuing, I want to emphasize that rules violations aren't an epidemic at BLMH. However, I also think many residents are not aware of the rules. That includes renters who see this as an apartment and have no interest or involvement in this association; so too for some of our remote owners. However, ignorance is not a valid excuse. If it was, the best defense for any problem would be "I don't open my mail or answer the telephone." I guess we could call that the "ignorance is bliss defense." That's why this association has found that it is necessary to inform owners that "Failure to receive a monthly invoice is no excuse for not paying your monthly fee."
The Board and Residents - Apparent Aloofness or Ambivalence
Our association has one Rules & Regulations Director and what seems to be an aloof or ambivalent population. So he is outnumbered! Yes, the owners do generally agree that "We want and expect the rules to be enforced." However, that is not always true if it interferes with a personal perspective, results in inconvenience, or interferes with personal activities.
Rules enforcement is a hot button for a few owners and may be an embarrassment for some violators. It shouldn't be. Rules have nothing to do with being a "good" neighbor or a "bad" neighbor. Nor have they anything to do with convenience. In other words, we all make mistakes and while we may have the opinion some rules are "good" and should be enforced, it is also true that what I may consider a "bad" rule does not allow me the choice to violate it. I think some of our owners have been given very poor coaching by self styled "experts" in the association. The rules are the rules!
If a rules violation is reported using the proper procedures (when, where and by whom) a letter is issued and the resident is given a reasonable amount of time to correct the situation. Most of us have done a violation at one time or another. So how to react on receipt of that letter? Fix the problem, ignore it, or stonewall the board? Of course, there is a procedure for formally contesting a violation letter. However, saying "The rule is stupid or unfair" is not a defense. The question is "Did I violate a specific rule?" If the answer is "Yes" then it's best to consider correcting the problem. The resident can then take all the time in the world to attempt to change the "stupid" rule. And some have. Others say "I won't and you can't make me!" That approach will result in multiple letters and a fine or fines. It may be a way for some owners to get attention and divert the board from more important matters.
When owners take a position that the rules are "stupid" or "I don't like it" I am of the opinion that they are making a personal statement about the association. The board does review the relevance of the rules, and not just on occasion. We're aware that the rules are a part of the social fabric that binds us all. Believe me, I don't like or agree with all of the rules. That however, is not the issue, nor is it an opportunity to avoid keeping a rule or enforcing it. Board members are required to uphold the rules, just as they are required to collect fees and do their best to maintain the property. Owners too are required to keep the rules and pay their fees and do what they can to be "good neighbors." All residents are expected to keep the rules and be good neighbors.
As is true for all things in an association, this is not a popularity contest.
However, if a resident insists upon the "stupid rule" tack, then I am inclined to say "You are entitled to your opinion. However, if you really don't like it here, then consider living somewhere else." It's a fact that most of these rules have been in place for decades. These documents are provided to all owners before purchase and are to be provided by owners to their tenants as part of any lease agreement. Discovering that we don't allow 2 or more dogs and cats in a unit after purchasing is not an acceptable excuse. You can't just have a garage sale, park your RV or 6-wheeler, have a lawn party for your church, or whatever. That grassy expanse is not "your" lawn, or mine. It is shared by all and is for no one's exclusive use.
That is the center of this issue. We are not really "owners" of the association. We are shareholders, and we share everything. Selfish or antisocial people have great difficulty adjusting to living in an HOA. If you think you are the center of the universe, then I guarantee that you will make life miserable for your neighbors and be a disruption to the board.
The vast majority of our association rules were made decades ago and have a sole purpose and that is to promote harmony in the association. The most recent changes were made to accommodate advances in technology and to recognize the change in the value of the dollar because of inflation over the past 35 years.
I am of the opinion that a few may actively practice rules violations. Some residents see rules enforcement as repression or an infringement on personal rights. Some are antisocial and see any form of exterior control as a challenge to their personal domain. Others say what they are doing as not harmful and so it's okay!
I've been here for over a decade. I've watched owners attend association meetings and denigrate the board about rules and rules enforcement. Some play both sides, arguing that the rules are unfair and also arguing that they aren't properly enforced. A few years ago we entered a time of a "kinder, gentler" board accompanied by minimal rules enforcement. Is it a coincidence that delinquencies doubled during the next 18 months or was that solely the result of a weak economy? The fact is, what we each do as individuals does make a difference.
Is there a Purpose to These Rules?
Our rules have several purposes. These include keeping things civil and harmonious, assuring that everyone pays their fees, and assuring that the association is operated with only one class of owners. I suspect these are the principal motivators for rules in most well run associations.
Most of the rules are common sense and many are obviously designed to assure a harmonious society.
Yet, some owners and other residents attempt to skirt the rules. Informing management "after the fact" doesn't make it right. It does, of course, make it difficult for the board to enforce the rules, and that may be the purpose of residents who skirt the rules.
When these things occur, other owners will sometimes join in the sport. Common complaints to the board and to management include "How could you allow this to happen?", "Why aren't you doing your job?" And "Someone should do something about this!"
Sometimes violations occur unbeknownst to the board. The fact we didn't know this was going on is no excuse!
Apparently, even our legion of walkers is unawares or oblivious. They walk and talk but ignore rules violations. It seems that maintenance issues such as peeling paint is occasionally reported, but for example dilapidated, rusting air conditioners are ignored. I suppose the thinking is these will have no negative impact on property values! (The rules state that these are to be painted a neutral color). Pots or other objects teetering on balconies, barbecues and chairs or benches on the lawns, these too are generally ignored. Yes, there is collusion among the owners. It might be "quid pro quo" where some owners assume that if they ignore rules violations that this "courtesy" will be extended to them. I suggest the ultimate motivation to look the other way is simply "It isn't my duty or responsibility." If so, then some of our owners think they are living in an apartment complex.
Because of a lack of resident involvement, enforcing the rules has devolved into a game which is the title of this post.
How Extensive are These Rules?
We have rules about the use of the common elements. Our grounds can't be used beyond walking with friends and family, or your pet. If you walk your pet it is to be on a short leash and you are supposed to pick up that doggy-doo. That's a requirement of Wheaton Municipal code. We have several trash receptacles on the property for deposit of these little bags. Some use them. At times, we see a proliferation of small bags accumulating adjacent to some of the buildings. How are we to determine who owns these?
All owners are required to complete an annual census form and to have Condominium Owners Insurance. They are required to provide proof of that insurance. The reasons for such insurance would be obvious. However, if an owner doesn't comply and doesn't produce these documents, exactly how is the association to enforce this and make them get insurance? I have yet to get an enforceable answer from anyone to this question. Yes, there are fines, but some owners apparently prefer to pay those fines than produce the necessary documents. Go figure!
Satellite antennas are allowed, in accordance with FCC rulings but we do stipulate where they can be installed. That stipulation is an attempt to achieve a trouble free installation for both the association and the owners of these antennas. The buildings were designed long before individual satellite antennas were popular. The association uses owner paid fees to maintain the exterior of the buildings; exterior repairs caused by antennas and the interaction with the elements come out of general maintenance because we don't have a specific fund for antenna related repairs and damage, holes, etc. Why should we? The association does not own these antennas and the majority of owners don't have one. Similarly, we don't have a fund to maintain the cable TV system and repair is by the owner and their vendor. That antenna is the property of the respective owner or resident and all maintenance of it is their sole responsibility. Owners are required to get a variance form and fill one out before the installation. They are then given an approval letter via the management office. But it seems some don't follow the procedures and simply install that antenna whenever and wherever they wish. When a wind storm occurs and that antenna is ripped off of the building with a part of the fascia it was fastened to, management will get a call to "Fix the building NOW so my TV works!" Some will argue that the fee to remount or re-aim the antenna should be paid by the association. In other words, from the fees of the other owners.
Patios and decks are "limited common elements" and are maintained by the association. We replace and repair decking materials, repair concrete patios and recently completed the replacement of all railings. Owners are permitted lawn (outdoor) furniture on their patios and decks, but that spare couch can't be moved from the living room to the patio. Indoor-outdoor carpeting (green or brown) on the patio or deck is permitted. The lawns are not part of an owner's living room. So while first floor owners may walk onto the lawns from their patios, that's onto property owned and maintained by the fees of all owners, including those living on the second floor.
We also have stipulations about dumpsters on the property, storage in the garages and on patios and decks. There are rules about what can be parked on our privately maintained streets. Automobiles must be in working condition and cannot be stored on the streets. There are restrictions to the use of the driveways and streets. Motorcycles need a protective plate under support skids to protect the asphalt; these are readily available. Approved dumpsters must be for a very short duration and on timber or plywood to protect the asphalt driveways. And so on.
Do the Rules Interfere with a Good Time?
Some want to party on the property. They see all of these grounds and say "That's ideal for a party." True, and we could have games and sports of all sorts, too. But ideal doesn't mean that's a proper use.
Yes, we all like to use these grounds, and some would like more extensive use. Some also want private gardens off of their patio. Others would like more outdoor activities and some would like extensive barbecues and evening lawn parties for family, friends and acquaintances. But we are limited under the rules.
There have been really lengthy discussions about this over the past 5 years. In fact, it seems owners would rather discuss this than discuss foreclosures and delinquencies. Yet most owners would also like to see lower fees, if that were possible. I find that interesting. I suppose one could say it is a matter of priorities.
When owners have approached the board to discuss this rule and to promote a rule change, or contested the rule about such activities, they have also declared they won't get the additional insurance to indemnify the association for damage or if someone is injured on the common elements. The argument has been "That isn't necessary. No one will get hurt, and there will be no damage" When told during such discussions that alcohol cannot be a part of the proposed festivities unless specifically allowed by the insurance rider of the owners, and that under age drinking is illegal they will say "No one will be drinking." Perhaps, but if things do go wrong, who will pay the consequences? If someone is injured or there is property damage, then what of the insurance and future premium increases levied on the association? The cost of those fees and any judgments will be distributed to the other owners.
Owners have different opinions about what might be acceptable activities during lawn parties. One person's nuisance might be another's entertainment. Some think it should be a quiet and dignified affair. Others see an opportunity for lawn bowling and games for children and adults. Some would certainly enjoy soccer, volleyball and horseshoes or other lawn games. There has been no consensus brought forward that I am aware.
Wheaton has a lovely park with pavilion immediately across the street. We encourage residents to use it for their large parties, sports activities and so on. If that park lawn is damaged, if there is trash left behind or if there is an injury, the consequences won't be paid by the fees of the rest of our owners. Yet that has been argued as "inconvenient."
The fact is, the owner body pays a lot of money each year for insurance, to maintain the 15 acres of turf, the lake shorelines and the hundreds of trees and shrubs on our property. So too for the park benches, streams, waterfalls and central decks. None of us has an exclusive right to these facilities and this association does not have an army of janitors to clean up behind anyone, or extra money in the budget to restore lawns or take care of any damage. Most of our owners would say they would prefer no fee increase this year, or the next.
Inconvenient Fees
One of our rules involves the timely payment of fees. Our fees have been described as a major inconvenience. Some owners will state that they are "too high." I'm sure we all have some other use for that money each month. But we also expect our roofs to be replaced in a timely manner, the exterior of the buildings to be properly maintained, and that includes the driveways, patios and decks. Ditto for the shorelines of the lakes and oh, those 800 or so trees, the streets, water mains and sewers. Let's not forget about the hallway and garage lighting, the street lighting and so on. Snow plowing is not an option and neither is association insurance. Accounting is done and reserves are a necessity.
I have been told that there was a time this 40 acre association, a PUD, had fees of about $35 a month. Think about that! Some of our old timers will probably say that things were wonderful back them. I'm sure they were. Extraordinarily low fees, few reserves and no apparent plan for adequate reserve accumulation. Yes, those were the good old days. Ask them and they will also tell you that the hat was passed on more than one occasion to collect enough to pay the association bills.
How many owners today could deal with a special assessment?
I suspect that 20 years ago owners were probably delighted. Things looked wonderful. True, there were financial issues, but those were mere "details." Some of the shrewder ones probably expected to move on before the rest of the owners woke up to the reality and the special assessments arrived. I have been told that many owners argued to maintain fees at a low level.
But something changed. New management about 15 years ago pointed out that fees were not adequate for an association of this breadth and depth. The fees increased. But this association had some catching up to do. Owners continued to argue that "fees are too high."
Today, after two paid reserve studies, we seem to be on a sustainable track. But each of our owners certainly would prefer to keep that money and spend it on their personal wants and needs. That is understandable.
The board has put three studies to very good use; one was internally prepared. These studies have been an important source of the recent decision to make a fee decrease for reserves. Yes, you read that correctly. This association was able to
reduce the fees collected for reserves in 2013! The board instead put funds into a contingency for infrastructure breakdowns such as water mains, fire hydrants and so on. How many associations can say that?
Do Those Opposed to Rules have a Point?
Interestingly the same people who make arguments against many of these rules sometimes come to association meetings over the years to complain. The theme for these owners is "I don't like this and the board should change it to satisfy me."
To be honest, I do understand where people are coming from with respect to inconvenient rules and fees. What's a reasonable annual increase? What's an expected annual increase? This association not only had one, but several
negative annual fee increases, back in the "good old days." You've read this correctly. This association, with minimal reserves, actually reduced fees back in the "good old days." So some owners have come to expect a fee decrease if we have money in the bank. I say that because the buzz about 5 years ago was "We have enough money; a fee increase is not required."
That was only true if one ignored the state of the roofs and driveways, and the costs necessary to complete the programs in progress.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s some owners made their financial decisions based upon the monthly fees. Before purchasing here I discussed this association with owners. Some owners told me that the fees were too high! I gave the financial documents to my accountant and asked his candid and unbiased opinion. His first remark was a concern about the reserves. He didn't know this association was a PUD, which actually puts more financial pressure on it.
Unfortunately, a lot of owners apparently didn't do their "due diligence" or didn't run the numbers. I also suspect they didn't have an appreciation for "the miracle of compounding." It worked in their favor for a while, and they saw a $50,000 condo rise to the stellar heights of $190,000 after 15 years of annual property value increases. Unfortunately, the same is true for budget shortfalls. That's why this country has a multi-trillion dollar debt and is running huge annual deficits. You don't have to look that far. We all know the financial condition of the State of Illinois, don't we? We didn't get to that place in one year or five. Borrowing and spending more than is collected is a good way to build a large financial hole. Illinois made the same mistake some individuals and associations have made; they didn't save for the future, preferring to spend today and defer planning to tomorrow.
What is true for our government is also true for individuals. If an association underfunds reserves for a few years, it creates a financial hole and it is very difficult to catch up. An association and the owners should expect to replace roofs every 18-20 years, repair or replace driveways, and so on. It should also expect that costs will rise over time. If the owners don't accept this and refuse to plan accordingly, then those bills will be paid by future owners. That's what apparently occurred in the 1980s.
Fees weren't comfortable then and they aren't comfortable now. Owners will always prefer to spend any money sent to the association as fees for their personal satisfaction or needs. It's just like taxes. However, in our association we can see how the money is spent. Yes, there are cycles in which funds are accumulated. At those times when the association is building reserves for these very expensive capital projects it's not obvious that there will be new roofs in 5, 10, or 15 years. I suppose that is when some owners are prompted to say "What do we get for our money?"
What Other Rules Do We Have?
Household pets are allowed, and these are defined in the R&R documents. If we didn't do that, I suppose a chimpanzee or panther would be expected to be normal on the grounds. Owners can have one cat or dog. Not two or three, and while four 5-pound dogs may weigh the same as one 20 pound dog, our rules aren't based on weight.
There are stipulations about the hours permitted for certain types of noisy activities and "construction" in the units. While "hardwood" floors are permitted, there are specification about the quality of noise abatement and professional installation is required, with proof of that.
Owners can't cut holes in the exterior walls, modify the structural elements and supports of the buildings, extend into the common areas including wall spaces, garages or attics. (What! I can't have a sky light or an attic penthouse?). They are not to use extension cords cut and wire-nutted to install their ceiling mounted "can" lighting and such lighting must be suitable for direct contact with insulation. They are to adhere to City of Wheaton codes and ordinances.
Installing kitchen ventilators which discharge in the walls or attic is not permitted; they must vent into the kitchen space. Apparently this may be difficult to comprehend because we have had owner(s) vent their kitchen exhausts into the attic and even the space between units. Wood saturated with grease is not a good thing. This creates a fire hazard!
Owners are required to fill out architectural and maintenance variation forms and get letters with specific permission from management for many modifications. That includes exterior window replacement and patio doors. They are to keep these in a permanent file so they can be produced if there is an issue or a complaint in the future. Of course, turning these over to a new owner at the sale would be helpful. We're all good neighbors, I have been told.
This association allows rentals. Tenants are surrogates for the remote owners; this is not a rental community. There is no superintendent. All residents are expected to pitch in with the application of snow melt on the driveway and entrance walk. They should help with brushing snow from the entrance. Yet how many remote owners have such a conversation with their tenants and provide a shovel and broom for that use? Owners are required to fully inform their tenants of all rules and regulations and are required to provide them with a copy of these rules. Owners are also to get a one year lease and provide a copy to management. How many actually do these things, and how many don't? And some owners wonder why there is tension from time to time between renters and onsite owners?
Feeding of the wildlife is not permitted. Yes, we have residents who persist in doing this. Walking the property will sometimes reveal bird feeders, or seed thrown around patios. This attracts many of the birds who live in and around the property, and will provide a nice show. It also attracts mice and adds to the diet of the many squirrels on the property. We have some buildings from which we receive complaints of mice. In some cases, we've discovered that someone in the building is feeding the animals. We can't always determine who the culprit is.
We have a lot of shady areas. That makes growing grass difficult. Some owners have complained and so the association allows them to plant additional grass seed in the common areas adjoining their patios. We also allow lawn sprinkling to grow that seed. This is a compromise. One must wonder how many mice are feeding on that grass seed? However, owners may not extend into the common areas. They don't own that lawn! Staking out an area to allow grass to grow is understandable. But if it becomes a area that fences in a lawn adjacent to a patio and limits general access, some may wonder what is going on. Access to that area should be available to all owners. We can walk anywhere we wish on the property. It is also true that walking immediately adjacent to patios and window may not be courteous. Of course, the management and our landscaping director may prefer we adhere to the walks so the ground is not compressed and the grass not flattened.
We've discovered other "bootleg" plantings from time to time. Some owners have argued these are desirable. Some really aren't. Last year, our arborist spotted a shrub which he identified as a pest harborer. Where did that shrub come from? He suggested we remove it because that specific plant harbors a species of mites that attacks our pines. We did remove it. After all, we have hundreds of trees and spend thousands of dollars each year maintaining and spraying them.
There was a move afoot a few years ago to create "gardens" on the property. In particular, to allow special plantings by owners off of patios. In other words, to allow first floor owners to extend their exclusive area beyond the patios and into the lawns. As was pointed out, that might seem fine to a few, but who pays for trimming those special bushes and shrubs? Our landscapers are not gardeners. If you walk the grounds you will see the occasional plant that deviates from the planting scheme. How did that get there, if not by an owner or tenant? Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Shrubs, turf, groundcover and trees are generally agreed to be acceptable. However, some of our flowering trees drop fruit and that has been objectionable to some owners, and some of these trees have been removed.
One of the rules is the timely payment of monthly dues (maintenance fees). If these fees are late, the association sends a letter and for this and other violations there is an additional "fee" schedule. Rules violations get a letter first; continued non-compliance will result in a fee. This too has been considered "repression" by a very few in the association. In fact, this is to assure compliance. One of the things owners may not be aware of is the expense born by this association chasing owners who are delinquent. It takes letters and in some cases, an attorney. All of this takes the time of management. There is a finite amount of that and as we say, "time is money." So why should owners who are timely, pay their bills with alacrity and keep the rules, have a portion of their fees diverted to dealing with those who don't? That question is the flip side of the "fairness" argument that some used to stonewall board activities to maintain a healthy associations. I think there are some really distorted viewpoints about "neighborliness" and "fairness."
Garages are shared. Each owner has a stall and a place to store their trash and recycling receptacles. All vehicles must the operable and we don't allow engine, automobile or motorcycle repair in the garages and on the driveways. Ditto for boats, etc. Bicycles are permitted, but must be stored in such a way as not to obstruct walkways, etc. General storage in the garages is not permitted. Each owner has a closed and locked closet in the garage for their exclusive use. Additional lockers, shelving and cardboard containers are rules violations. The association maintains the interiors of the garages with the exception of the overhead doors which are owner property. We've replaced ceilings, floors and repaired walls. Owners may paint the walls a neutral color, but they must obtain a letter from management. For all such activities we require an insured company so in the event of a mishap the other owners don't pay for someone else's mistakes or accidents.
Yet, some owners attempt to turn the garages into an extension of their storage lockers. Well, if these weren't shared facilities and if all interior maintenance costs were paid by that owner, it might be acceptable. But it isn't.
Conclusion
The game will continue because of the mistaken beliefs of some owners about what they are entitled to do and how they expect "their" fees to be used in the association. This will continue because of an unawareness of the current Rules & Regulations, the apathy of other owners, and some antisocial tendencies in society.
There is also a history to contend with. When a board decides to get lax about the rules, this is quickly telegraphed to the other owners. Once precedent is set, it may be difficult to get owners and other residents back on track. A board may find itself with the difficult task of rehabilitating the association.
It's an interesting observation to make, but if asked, many owner will say they are in favor of vigorous rules enforcement. But it seems that's not true when they receive that rules violation letter.
As I said, most of this is common sense. Some is designed to protect us from each other. Some is to assist in the maintenance of the property and avoid spending fees unnecessarily.
Its been argued that for some violations it is difficult to see the harm in some of the infractions. I'm skeptical of that defense. Most have a simple basis. Keep owners in their units and from infringing on their neighbors. Keep activities safe and prevent damage to the property. Set boundaries so we each know where our "unit" stops and the jointly owned property begins. Have enforcement for fee collection so owners honor their financial obligations to the association.
Some of this isn't going to be popular. Some of it will put owners in a position where they have to make financial choices. Let's see, would I rather have a nice vacation, a new iPhone or automobile, or pay that onerous fee each month?
The board is required to enforce the rules. We are required to do so equally and fairly. In other words, it's not possible to look the other way for some owners and enforce the rules for others because the Illinois Condominium Act prohibits the creation of separate groups or classes of owners. A board that deliberately refuses to enforce the Rules & Regulations may be creating such classes. Of course, some rules may be difficult to enforce. Lack of cooperation by owners and outright collusion may make it impossible to enforce all rules.
Electing board members who refuse to enforce the rules is one covert example of collusion among owners. How many owners would vote for a board if it was made known that "We won't enforce specific rules?" How many such boards would be willing to put that a position into writing? Very few I expect, because we all do really know what is required.
Another way of bending the rules is to pretend "There is enough money" because of a perceived balance in the check book. Ignoring future obligations including reserve requirements when making such statements is deceitful. This may also occur if a group of owners decided to elect a board to keep fees low and in so doing, avoid costly maintenance or the collection of fees to accumulate necessary reserves. This could be a popular approach for owners who hope to sell their units before such an association collapses into disrepair. Of course, the other owners will be left 'holding the bag.'
However, owners have a right to expect that the property will be maintained, that the association will do proper studies and collect the necessary reserves, that the fees will be levied to do so, and that the board will do its fiduciary duty.
Of course, the owners may decided that they don't like the rules. There is a way to deal with this with integrity. Make a list of specific changes, provide them in writing to all owners, and get agreement from the ownership as required in the bylaws. Another method is to get a board in place who will either not enforce the rules or will selectively enforce the rules.
Why Does it Take So Long?
Sometimes owners wonder why it is that things don't get done, or it takes so, so long. The answer to that question can be complicated, and includes the fact that a board convenes once a month in open meetings. Month 1 = hold a discussion and decide how to proceed. Month 2 = review the bids or whatever transpired in month 2 as a consequence of the decisions of the previous month. Month 3 = the contractor, or whomever was awarded the work has an opportunity to put the work on the schedule. Month 4 = the work is done if all materials arrive and workers are available. A similar scenario occurs for many tasks in an association.
Of course, the Monday morning quarterbacks only see that "their" wants, needs and desires are the most important. The board should deal with that water main break, or that felled tree, or that blizzard "in their spare time" and after you take care of ME!
Owners get the boards they elect, and the boards they deserve.
That's the bottom line, and it is why each and every association is what it is. Some have more and larger problems, and some fewer. It's completely the result of the owners.
