Condo associations may be coming to an end

Anyone who defends condo associations are either debtors, or realtors, Condo ownership is an attempt at utopia. Expecting others to get along and agree is wishful thinking. Not to mention the delusional idea that no one will ever experience financial difficulties, and that housing prices only go up,

> marko wrote:
> Obviously He doesn't know what he's even talking about.
> It's a great way to pool capital and fully develop property.
> I shouldn't be surprised though that a public sector employee has such a weak grasp on basic common sense.

Evan McKenzie was an HOA lawyer before he was a professor.

But your knee-jerk comment about public sector employees, as though that discredits the professor's private-sector experience in the field in the question, was amusing.

I'm not surprised that someone with your ideological bent has as weak a grasp on the real-world consequences of his socio-economic theories as any campus communist.

1. Discourage owners
2. Disenfranchise owners
3. Marginalize owners
4. Do anything and everything else possible to make the owners give up hope and inerest
5. Blame the owners and their apathy for all the problems
6. ????
7. Profit!!!

It was an interesting piece, and I agree with his thesis that cooperatives are better due to greater control, oversight and financial options. However, he's using the worst examples overall and I disagree with him on a lot. I think, from his book, that a lot of what he is a against are HOA in single family developments.

1. Condo corporations are not municipalities. That fact is relied upon by the vendors. Homeowners are denied fundamental constitutional rights in condo corporations - and the vendors (management companies, condo attorneys, etc.) are the prime beneficiaries.

2. Condos are fundamentally disposable housing. First time and last time buyers are the primary owners. As noted by McKenzie, the buildings are often controlled by idiosyncratic entities with personal agendas. They are also often run by management companies and condo attorneys that have the sole goal of skimming as much money as possible from the owners as well as from the condo corporation itself. TO that end they will rationalize the most absurd "rules" possible that no one "agreed to" or should be held to. Remember that the management companies and condo attorneys profit from accusations of "violations" and provocation of a dispute. They also profit by creating financial hardship for residents in order to generate junk fees and collection fees for the management company. A prohibition against renting is a perfect example of the idiotic type of control that a condo board would be used to impose on an owner. You can't sell, you can't rent. Pretty soon you're easy pickin's for the condo vendors.

3. You don't have individual autonomy. The condo corporation board will eviscerate your use and enjoyment rights in the property. You will become disinterested in the property when you realize that you own nothing but a liability and you have no defensible space. You have nothing but unlimited liabilities because the condo corporation can heap them upon you without your consent.

4. Evan Iddiron: McKenzie didn't get it wrong. McKenzie was correct. Also if one of the "it"s you are referring to is the classification as a municipality, that is an error that the host made - an error easily explained when you consider that much of the false propaganda spewed by the HOA vendor industry makes the same false analogy.

I've been the President of two Condo Associations over 7 years in 12 and 6 unit self-managed buildings. I now own a single family home. I agree with the Professor on the mistakes many condo associations make... but many recent economic factors make his arguments convienent.

I guess we should turn our lives over to a landlord who is always benevolent and takes care of everyone's problems. The assumption glossed over in the interview (and basically stated outright) is the landlord or "name your alternative situation" is always better. Nope.

There are very real issues in condo associations and I agree with the professor there was many associations who made bad decisions from the beginning. What he fails to mention is a good number, if not the majority of disaster condo associations (in my experience as a Realtor), were formed (or never even formed because they lacked enough buyers in the building) during the boom and bust of the last 5-6 years. Most in traditionally lower income neighborhoods that would traditionally have more renters and less real estate speculation.

However, there are plenty of strong condo buildings... I'd like the shot at running and being in an association over being subject to the "benevolent" landlord who may also rent to anybody they want. fix things when they want, prevent any changes to the unit etc.... At least there is a greater barrier for entrance in many condo buildings I'd be interetsed in and ... like actually qualifying for a loan and investing real skin in a home.

Bad and loose lending to unqualified and over stretched buyers+the condo bubble in second tier neighborhoods have highlighted the collapse of mostly low demand areas and condo buildings.

You have many millions of indivdual owners ruined in single family homes and small multi-unit two and three flats... they were not part of a condo association but in the same financial boat due to the same combination of decision making I mention above. Bad and losse lending, bad and loose borrowing, bad economic collapse...gotcha!

Our Condo Association is represented by 3 of 4 unit members. Money is pooled to repair, improve and pay all necessary exterior and common area interiors with utility's.

We have had very good luck with respectful renters; aeliminating the possibility of a foreclosure by the owners' need to sell...but can't.

Condo associations are common living arrangements but everyone respects the rules, building and each other as one.

Very easy to rent your condo mmediately in a condo association building with a management company too!

Marko, correction: The condo model delineates ownership of the actual physical space between walls (a.k.a. the particular unit). You are referring to the coop model, which is set up as ownership of shares in the building (thus granting shareholders use but not ownership of a particular space). It is the coop model that pools capital, as there is one mortgage to pay off for the cost of the entire building and once it's paid, it's paid, with full group ownership and responsibility. No so with the condo model, which is always in financial flux with individual mortgages for particular spaces within the building. The condo model does not stipulate shared ownership, but it certainly creates a situation of shared responsibility.

Wow this guy is a professor? Obviously He doesn't know what he's even talking about. Its fractional ownership, like shares in a corporation or company. Theres common interests and private. It's a great way to pool capital and fully develop property. I shouldn't be surprised though that a public sector employee has such a weak grasp on basic common sense.

It is truly amazing that people believe that condo associations are "teeny tiny" municipalities. However, it might help to explain the 40% functional illiteracy rate in our city. Condo associations are corporations. And just as the corporation you work for can tell you how to dress and speak and behave the condo association can tell you how to take care of the outside of your condo and not let your dog pee, make noise, etc. This doesn't make a condo association a little government. And just as you can choose to not work for a corporation whose rules you don't like, you can choose to not live in a condo whose rules you don't like. And please don't complain that no one told you the rules; that is the buyers responsibility. The system isn't great, but neither are the Cubs. But at least the Cubs keep trying to make it better. It is so exhausting to have people like Prof. McKenzie get wrong time after time after time and continue to misinform everyone and continue the fear-mongering. It is even worse that our great public radio doesn't understand it either and promotes faulty information. Thanks.