There is an interesting article in the 3 May 08 Real Estate section of The Washington Post. It considers many of the issues that have arisen in our meetings regarding amending the leasing bylaw of Market Street at Town Center Condomium. You can read the article by clicking on the following link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050201722.html
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Lease Amendment Voting Results
Through 9 April 2008, the date of the special lease amendment unit owners meeting, 44.54% of us unit owners voted on the amendment. The votes in favor of the amendment represented 28.55% of the ownership (with 66.67% needed to pass the amendment). The votes opposed to the amendment represented 15.99% of the ownership (with 33.34% needed to defeat the amendment). The Board of Directors probably won’t end the voting until we unit owners either pass or defeat the amendment.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Why We Are Voting FOR the Leasing Amendment
Today an article appeared in The Washington Post that tipped the balance for Brenda and me to vote in favor of the leasing amendment on which we Market Street at Town Center Condominium unit owners are currently voting.
You can see the amendment we are voting on by clicking on this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsLeasing.pdf
You can see the newspaper article by clicking on this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041801495.html
That article made clear to me that 30% is the appropriate maximum percentage of rented units we should permit in our building.
We are voting FOR the amendment in spite of the “defects” I have identified in previous posts on this blog. Since we would probably never rent out our unit, and don’t foresee selling our unit even after many years into the future, most of the “defects” wouldn’t directly affect us any time soon. And we do think it is a good thing to get the number of units rented down to the 30% level. (As mentioned in my “Amendment Defects” post of March 1 on this blog, we wish the amendment gave the Board of Directors authority to eventually reduce the number of units rented to significantly less than 30%.)
If the amendment we are currently voting on doesn’t pass, I hope the “defects” I’ve identified (as well as some other problems with the amendment I haven’t addressed on this blog) will be corrected in any revised amendment proposal we unit owners might be asked to vote on in the future.
If you have any comments or questions regarding this or any post on this blog, please post them on http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/ or http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/v45index.cgi?
You can see the amendment we are voting on by clicking on this link: http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsLeasing.pdf
You can see the newspaper article by clicking on this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041801495.html
That article made clear to me that 30% is the appropriate maximum percentage of rented units we should permit in our building.
We are voting FOR the amendment in spite of the “defects” I have identified in previous posts on this blog. Since we would probably never rent out our unit, and don’t foresee selling our unit even after many years into the future, most of the “defects” wouldn’t directly affect us any time soon. And we do think it is a good thing to get the number of units rented down to the 30% level. (As mentioned in my “Amendment Defects” post of March 1 on this blog, we wish the amendment gave the Board of Directors authority to eventually reduce the number of units rented to significantly less than 30%.)
If the amendment we are currently voting on doesn’t pass, I hope the “defects” I’ve identified (as well as some other problems with the amendment I haven’t addressed on this blog) will be corrected in any revised amendment proposal we unit owners might be asked to vote on in the future.
If you have any comments or questions regarding this or any post on this blog, please post them on http://marketstreet.proboards83.com/ or http://mstcuoa.proboards59.com/v45index.cgi?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Flexibility for Boards of Directors
In the post just before this one, the forth “defect” I identified in the leasing bylaw amendment was the insufficient authority the leasing amendment gives to our Board of Directors. Way back on 17 August 2007, I sent the chairman of the leasing committee an email that began with essentially the following paragraph.
I believe we unit owners should make only the minimum changes to our leasing bylaw as are necessary to give our Board of Directors the authority it needs to fill out the rest of the leasing policy with resolutions and motions. Bylaws are extremely difficult to amend to adapt to possible changed circumstances in the future, but the Board of Directors can easily supersede past resolutions and motions if changed circumstances in the future make that appropriate. I believe that if we unit owners select our Directors wisely, Boards of Directors--both present and future--will do what is in the best long-term interests of us unit owners. (Our bylaws even provide the means to remove and replace Directors before the end of their terms if as few as about 13% of us unit owners want one or more of the Directors replaced.) I believe we shouldn't needlessly tie the hands of present and future Boards of Directors by putting specifics in the bylaws that don't need to be in the bylaws to enable the Board of Directors to do what it needs to do.
I still believe what I said in that paragraph. The leasing amendment now being voted on may pass, in which case this post is mostly irrelevant. But if the necessary two thirds of the unit owners don’t approve it, I hope an amendment along the lines of what I have been pushing since August 2007 (See my early posts on this blog.) can be used as the starting point for a new leasing amendment proposal.
I believe we unit owners should make only the minimum changes to our leasing bylaw as are necessary to give our Board of Directors the authority it needs to fill out the rest of the leasing policy with resolutions and motions. Bylaws are extremely difficult to amend to adapt to possible changed circumstances in the future, but the Board of Directors can easily supersede past resolutions and motions if changed circumstances in the future make that appropriate. I believe that if we unit owners select our Directors wisely, Boards of Directors--both present and future--will do what is in the best long-term interests of us unit owners. (Our bylaws even provide the means to remove and replace Directors before the end of their terms if as few as about 13% of us unit owners want one or more of the Directors replaced.) I believe we shouldn't needlessly tie the hands of present and future Boards of Directors by putting specifics in the bylaws that don't need to be in the bylaws to enable the Board of Directors to do what it needs to do.
I still believe what I said in that paragraph. The leasing amendment now being voted on may pass, in which case this post is mostly irrelevant. But if the necessary two thirds of the unit owners don’t approve it, I hope an amendment along the lines of what I have been pushing since August 2007 (See my early posts on this blog.) can be used as the starting point for a new leasing amendment proposal.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Amendment Defects
About 26 Feb 08, our Association Manager mailed to us the actual leasing bylaw amendment we unit owners are asked to approve. In my opinion, it has three specific defects and one general defect. We unit owners must decide if we should vote in favor of it even if we think it has some defects. Here are the defects I see.
First, paragraph (ii) sets the minimum rental period at 12 months. In my post on this blog 3 October 2007 (http://msa-towncenter.blogspot.com/2007/10/12-month-versus-6-month-minimum-rental.html), I provided examples of situations where it would be appropriate for the Board of Directors to have the authority to approve a lease term as short as six months, but this amendment doesn’t provide that authority to the Board.
Second, the second bullet of paragraph (iv) requires that future unit owners NOT convey their “Unit to a person who does not intend to occupy the Unit, unless the number of leased Residential Units is below the thirty percent (30%) cap….” How would the seller of a unit be expected know the buyer’s true intentions? Would our Association seek legal recourse against the seller of the unit if the buyer leases the unit? Won’t this provision discourage potential buyers from buying a unit in our Condominium for fear of legal problems if they should want to sell their unit in the future? My 10 November 2007 post on this blog mentioned this problem.
Third, the last sentence of paragraph (v) makes it highly unlikely that the percentage of leased units in our Condominium can ever be reduced much below 30% unless a follow-on amendment is approved in the future. I see nothing in the amendment that gives Boards of Directors any authority to prohibit leases for the purpose of reducing the percentage of leased units to less than 30%. The two posts on this blog immediately preceding this post both addressed this problem.
Forth, and finally, the amendment as a whole seems to give little authority to future Boards of Directors to apply judgments regarding what rental policies might be in the best interests of future unit owners. The amendment seems to try to decide everything for future rentals now, and relegates the Board to some enforcement responsibility, but even tries to put some of that on the seller. I still believe language like I proposed in some of my early posts on this blog is much more consistent with the role our bylaws seem to envision for our Boards of Directors, and would be much more in the best interests of us unit owners. But the choice we unit owners have before us now is whether or not to vote in favor of the amendment that was mailed to us.
First, paragraph (ii) sets the minimum rental period at 12 months. In my post on this blog 3 October 2007 (http://msa-towncenter.blogspot.com/2007/10/12-month-versus-6-month-minimum-rental.html), I provided examples of situations where it would be appropriate for the Board of Directors to have the authority to approve a lease term as short as six months, but this amendment doesn’t provide that authority to the Board.
Second, the second bullet of paragraph (iv) requires that future unit owners NOT convey their “Unit to a person who does not intend to occupy the Unit, unless the number of leased Residential Units is below the thirty percent (30%) cap….” How would the seller of a unit be expected know the buyer’s true intentions? Would our Association seek legal recourse against the seller of the unit if the buyer leases the unit? Won’t this provision discourage potential buyers from buying a unit in our Condominium for fear of legal problems if they should want to sell their unit in the future? My 10 November 2007 post on this blog mentioned this problem.
Third, the last sentence of paragraph (v) makes it highly unlikely that the percentage of leased units in our Condominium can ever be reduced much below 30% unless a follow-on amendment is approved in the future. I see nothing in the amendment that gives Boards of Directors any authority to prohibit leases for the purpose of reducing the percentage of leased units to less than 30%. The two posts on this blog immediately preceding this post both addressed this problem.
Forth, and finally, the amendment as a whole seems to give little authority to future Boards of Directors to apply judgments regarding what rental policies might be in the best interests of future unit owners. The amendment seems to try to decide everything for future rentals now, and relegates the Board to some enforcement responsibility, but even tries to put some of that on the seller. I still believe language like I proposed in some of my early posts on this blog is much more consistent with the role our bylaws seem to envision for our Boards of Directors, and would be much more in the best interests of us unit owners. But the choice we unit owners have before us now is whether or not to vote in favor of the amendment that was mailed to us.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
30% Lease “Cap”???
It appears to me that using the term “30% lease cap” in the “Amended Proposal for Leasing Limits” is, at best, misleading, and, perhaps, deceptive.
I acknowledge that the Proposal will eventually get the percentage of leased units down to 30%. The problem is that the Proposal probably isn’t going to permit the percentage of rentals to be reduced to much less than 30%. So 30% isn’t a cap; it’s a percentage of rental units that, once achieved, must then be lived with forever unless the leasing bylaw is again amended.
That makes no sense to me. If we are going to all this effort to amend the leasing bylaw, why would we not give future Boards of Directors the authority to mandate a percentage of rentals less than 30%?
Why wouldn’t 25% rentals, or less, be better than 30%? By what thought process did the creators of this Proposal conclude that it is in the best interests of future unit owners to maintain the rental level at about 30% without another difficult-to-pass bylaw amendment? Or did the creators of this Proposal not realize that one of its results probably would be that the percentage of rentals can’t be kept to a level less than 30%?
I acknowledge that the Proposal will eventually get the percentage of leased units down to 30%. The problem is that the Proposal probably isn’t going to permit the percentage of rentals to be reduced to much less than 30%. So 30% isn’t a cap; it’s a percentage of rental units that, once achieved, must then be lived with forever unless the leasing bylaw is again amended.
That makes no sense to me. If we are going to all this effort to amend the leasing bylaw, why would we not give future Boards of Directors the authority to mandate a percentage of rentals less than 30%?
Why wouldn’t 25% rentals, or less, be better than 30%? By what thought process did the creators of this Proposal conclude that it is in the best interests of future unit owners to maintain the rental level at about 30% without another difficult-to-pass bylaw amendment? Or did the creators of this Proposal not realize that one of its results probably would be that the percentage of rentals can’t be kept to a level less than 30%?
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Lease Proposal Hopes
I hope the proposed leasing bylaw amendment that comes back from the Association attorney will make the following points clear.
1. After the number of units leased has been reduced to the 30 % lease cap specified in the bylaw, the Board of Directors will have the authority to specify a percentage less than 30 % for the number of units that may be leased.
2. A unit owner has the right to sell her/his unit to anyone who wants to buy the unit, and the onus is on the buyer of the unit—not the seller of the unit—to become informed regarding the leasing restrictions of our Condominium, and to comply with those restrictions.
1. After the number of units leased has been reduced to the 30 % lease cap specified in the bylaw, the Board of Directors will have the authority to specify a percentage less than 30 % for the number of units that may be leased.
2. A unit owner has the right to sell her/his unit to anyone who wants to buy the unit, and the onus is on the buyer of the unit—not the seller of the unit—to become informed regarding the leasing restrictions of our Condominium, and to comply with those restrictions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
