Based on today’s market values,
purchasing the smallest unit in our complex will cost a potential buyer approximately $300.000. For first time home buyers,
the home ownership dream is the most expensive investment that will consume
somewhere close to 50% of their annual income, though banks extending mortgages
prefer to see a percentage closer to 35%.
One major question that many
first time condominium owners confront is: “After
investing so much money to purchase a condominium, how much freedom do we have
in controlling the destiny of our biggest investment?”
In our building the answer is
plain and simple “ZERO CONTROL”. The
Board of Directors, with the TOP/DOWN
governance style, may precipitate in your mind the illusion of control by
asking for your input or ideas about extremely trivial projects, but when the
time comes to decide who gets what out of the $2.000.000 collected in maintenance
fees, the owners have no say in it. Let me elaborate more with a concrete
example. During the 2016 annual meeting The Board announced that approximately
$1.2 million dollars was set aside to replace the carpets and the wall papers
of the building. The amount is not open to any form of negotiation with unit
owners. It was announced without any formal or informal contribution of
suggestions and ideas from unit owner. However, The Board intends to form a
committee of unit owners with the narrow mandate of helping The Board in the
selection process of the most compatible color and carpet pattern with a good
visual appeal.
Of course the previous example is
not the only arena where unit owners can express their opinions. Back in June
2014, The Joint Management Council (JMC-not the real name of the council),
distributed in the complex a survey, supposedly designed to help The Council
plan new “Community Activities” and
strengthen the “Sense of Community”
by bringing together unit owners who share the same hobbies or social
activities.
In July 2014, the newsletter of
The Council published the results, and the figures were earth shattering. In a
survey distributed to more than 570 unit owners, only 52 residents completed
and returned their “Community Activities
Survey”. Approximately 10% of unit owners showed an interest in the goal
pursued by The Council. A very impressive percentage that indicates a clear
apathy about the strong sense of community that exists in the complex, and how
noble goals are exploited to shape the notion that decision makers are providing
a large array of “CHOICES”, but unit
owners are too reluctant to take advantage of what is being offered by the JMC.
It is true that the survey had a
long list of potential activities (approximately 20) from dancing, to movie
nights, to Yoga and Tai Chi classes, etc…The only problem is “there is a fee
for an activity” to be paid by the unit owner, if it meets the most crucial
condition of “a minimum of 10 participants per activity”. During the last 2
years, many activities were planned and scheduled only to be cancelled by the
instructor simply because the number of participants was unacceptable from a “Business Model” point of view. One is
forced to wonder why instructors, often unit owners in the same building, are insisting
on a minimum of 10 participants, and cancelling classes simply because the
criterion is not met, when the purpose of the activity is not to generate an
extra income for the instructor (who is using the common elements of the
building but not paying to The Board a single penny), but to strengthen through
social activities the “Sense of
Community”. If the activities are advertised out of the benevolence of a
heart willing to serve the common good, why are instructors following a “Business Model”?
To understand the bizarre
behavior of unit owners, their apathy in holding accountable decision makers,
and surrendering the destiny of their biggest investment to “Experts” who promote the image of
infallibility, one has to understand modern marketing techniques designed to
manipulate people, influence them to invest mindlessly in products and
services, and obey authority figures
blindly by buying the argument that all decisions come from the benevolence of
the heart to promote “The Common Good”.
A good source to understand the previous
phenomenon is a book titled “The Paradox of Choice - Why
More Is Less”.
Researched and written by American psychologist Barry Schwartz
who emphasizes throughout the book the cardinal importance of autonomy and
freedom of choice in a modern democracy, and how the 2 factors (autonomy &
choice) impact our psychological well being, positively if we can see how we are
manipulated by clever techniques,
and negatively if we allow others to victimize us by selling us the illusion that we have control over
our day-to-day choices and ultimately our destinies.
One practical example of clever
marketing and manipulation techniques is the purchase of a cell phone. The
service provider offers you a product that has more than 20 functions and
applications, meanwhile on a day-to-day basis all you need is 3 or 4. You can
have the product in 12 different colors, even more if you are willing to buy an
extra casing that comes decorated with 25 different patterns. To operate the
phone you have to study a fifty-page instruction manual. By the time you try to
see which color is a close match to your purse and clothing, and which purse is
more compatible with the size of the gizmo you plan to buy, you are so exhausted
and mentally drained, that you cannot think about the most critical aspect of
your purchase-a long-term contract that you have to honor for three years and a
monthly payment where you have no say at all.
Of course it would be unfair to
talk only in theories and blame The Board for imposing on us a Top/down method of governance, where unit
owners can decide which ornament goes where on a Christmas tree, but we cannot
participate in any serious endeavor about how the $2 million-dollar budget is
spent. We are expected to follow blindly without any criticism and the most concrete
evidence is the following letter reproduced in full with minor modification to
prevent the identification of the Corporation:
===============================================================
Attn:
Board of Directors,
MTCC
No 000
Resident
Services Office
August
15, 2016
Dear
Members of The Board,
Year
after year, during the Annual General Meeting of unit owners, The President in
her annual report emphasizes the notion that “…Board members are volunteers who spend untold hours serving our
condominium community…” It is safe to assume, based on assertions made by
The Board in a variety of sources and circumstances, that a significant amount
of time is invested by Board members into probing cost cutting measures while
maintaining a high standard of living for owners and residents.
I
am also convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no Board member is willing to
claim for herself or himself the Divine attribute of being infallible. If The
Board is not willing to challenge the previous statement, then
one can safely argue that The Board had made mistakes in the past and adopted
projects that neither improved the high standard of living in our building, nor
made any meaningful contribution to the common good despite the thousands of
Dollars invested and all the noble intentions associated with each project.
To
avoid such mistakes, a group of unit owners in the building are willing to
invest time and effort to help The Board assess the merits of projects $10.000
and up, do a background check (open sources) of contractors to avoid selecting companies
such as Plenora Restorations Ltd. (PRL)
boycotted by The City of Toronto “…to enhance the reputation of the City for ethical and fair business
dealings.” Plenora was
selected by decision makers of the complex based on the strength of a
recommendation made by an engineering firm, without any rudimentary check of
the reputation of the company. Had any decision maker made a simple background
check, substantial complications could have been avoided during the entrance
and exit ramps repairs of the underground parking lot.
Please
advise in writing if The Board is willing to support and coordinate projects
review and analysis with a committee
composed of owners fully dedicated, like The Board, to cost cutting
measures while maintaining a high standard of living for owners and residents.
Needless to mention that the recommendations of the committee will be
non-binding recommendations and The Board is free to adopt or reject the
findings or the views expressed by the committee.
Looking
forward to hearing from you, I remain
Yours
truly
================================================================
In
a letter dated Nov. 01, 2016 for a variety of reasons, ranging from ethical
factors to privacy concerns, The Board clearly said NO. Even if within the ranks of unit owners we have architects and
engineers who can contribute to the collective good, they cannot share power
with The Board. And if mistakes are made and thousands of dollars are wasted on
projects that do not contribute anything to the collective good, blame it on
the experts who have access to the ears of The Board.
In
conclusion your most valuable asset, your condominium’s destiny is well beyond
your personal control.
Admin “The 215 Forum” © 2017
Admin “The 215 Forum” © 2017