Subject: RE: Storage Room Breakin
From: Jim Thomas (jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Date: Sun Sep 10 2000 - 12:47:24 CDT
Matthew and Belinda raise some good points worth pursuing:
It's generally preferable not to unnecessarily spend money or set
restrictive policies in addressing condo problems, especially if
there are alternatives. But, it's also useful to remember that exploring
such alternatives is not the same as either advocating them or
implementing them.
Now, given the problem of breakins and theft on both the inside and
outside of the building, and the concerns for personal security that some
residents have expressed, we might consider a range of options,
some that might be feasible, and some not.
A few points to consider on the owner-occupied unit issue:
a) Our condo bylaws already restict the percentage of rental units.
I don't have our copy at hand, but somebody indicated yesterday
that rentals are limited to about 20 pct of the units. So,
owners' rights are already limited.
b) My understanding is that many of the currently rented units were
purchased by realators or speculators who would likely have
less commitment to the building than residents. (Perhaps
Michael has some info on this). If so, it reduces the
opportunity for owner-occupiers to rent should the
existent percentage of rentals hit 20 pct.
c) Contrary to some views, there have been complaints about
a few renters, especially on one particular floor (they have
since moved out).
d) A change affecting owner-occupied/rental pct requires a change
in our bylaws, so no change can happen overnight, without
considerable discussion, and without owner consensus.
I agree that security is not an owner-occupied v. renter issue, and
obviously MOST renters are as responsible as owners. But, some renters are
fairly short-term, not inclined to keep up their area, and treat
the unit as a crash pad for fraternity parties.
But, my main concern on the owner-occupied v. renter issue isn't the
renters, but the owners of the rental properties whose economic
interests might not match our collective interests.
I'm of two minds about the owner-occupied/renter issue, and could be
swayed be either position. But, especially in light of current issues,
it might be something to begin examining, even if we don't take any
action.
Maybe Michael R could dig up some info on
--current pct of rentals
--turnover of rental units
--whether owners of rental properties have ever occupied their
units
--the pct of rentals that appear to be agency owned
Matthew also raises the issue of new for the main entrance. This is
a good idea.
Reminders about shutting that back door might be posted on the inside
and outside (it wasn't completely closed when I came through this
weekend).
24 your video surveillance, especially in the lower parking structure,
isn't excessively expensive.
Whether we opt to implement these or other measures is something
we can discuss, but exploring some of the options is free, even
if we ultimately reject them.
jt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 22:27:40 CST