💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960
Posted:
Hi all! This is in Florida so answers/replies may need to be "state law answered". Our condo complex has had an influx of criminal and vandalism incidents to residents, cars and community property. Some members are requesting we install security cameras. We've discussed it at meetings and I brought up the statute that any "new, material alterations" needs to be voted on by the members, in order for it to be passed. Our property manager believes we have to have a vote of the members...which would be 66 2/3% for it to pass.

The problem is that we have SO MANY new, rule-violating, owners that THEY will block the majority of voters! We'll NEVER get the % we'll need to pass the "improvement" to have them installed. Even though we have a huge number of owners who want them. It's the "nay-sayers" who will "tip the scales" to ensure we don't get it passed. (Nothing good has ever passed here.....not even an American flag pole on the property.)

I just find it hard to believe that the Association has to put the safety and security of the owners/residents on the back burner because of a few people who are going to dictate that their behavior is going to decide how the rest of the people have to live.

Any thoughts; experience; or advise from others at condos in Florida?
Thank you!
GlenL (Ohio)
Posts: 5,491
Posted:
I'm not sure that security cameras would constitute "new, material alterations".

Studies show that 5 out of 4 people have problems with fractions
LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Anna,

The place to go to get your question "state law answered" is to an attorney. It sounds like you are on the board and your board should have the wherewithal to seek the advice of a professional.

PeterD3 (Florida)
Posts: 708
Posted:
Your post contains both speculation and contradiction in the same sentence.

Speculation:
"The problem is that we have SO MANY new, rule-violating, owners that THEY will block the majority of voters! "

How do you know this?

Contradiction:
"The problem is that we have SO MANY new, rule-violating, owners that THEY will block the majority of voters!"...

How do SO MANY block a MAJORITY?

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
Anna

Glen and Peter had good answers.

Are you trying to stnd in the way of installing cameras? If not is sounds like you are. Why?

CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563
Posted:
Like Glen, I'm not so sure that the installation of security cameras constitutes a new "material alteration." I think you need an answer from an attorney.

How to pay for such a system is a different question and may require a special assessment or??? You need to learn more, Anna.
AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960
Posted:
Yes, I'm on the Board; have been for almost ten years. No, I'm not trying to stop the installation of the cameras....I'm trying to help get them in place. I'm responding to the request of the owners, here, because of the criminal and vandalism actions of some residents and their visitors. It's a safety and security move that the Board would like to implement.

The "fail rate" is simple. We have 46 units...15 units are habitual violators; criminals; etc. We need 66 & 2/3% IN FAVOR of cameras for it to pass. That would have to be 31 units voting IN FAVOR of it. We'd never get 46 units to even vote...and the 15 units voting AGAINST would wipe out those voting FOR the cameras.

I hope this makes sense. I still hope to hear from other associations in Florida who may have installed cameras on their property without having to jump through hoops to have the membership decide that this is a good action for everyone involved.
Thank you!
PeterD3 (Florida)
Posts: 708
Posted:
No it does not make sense.

Rule violators are not criminals.

The police will not arrest anyone for violating any HOA rule, covenants, or bylaw.

That is a civil matter.
PeterD3 (Florida)
Posts: 708
Posted:
"I still hope to hear from other associations in Florida who may have installed cameras on their property without having to jump through hoops to have the membership decide that this is a good action for everyone involved."

As I read this again it is utter nonsense.

No one here can help you achive your goals despite your members wishes.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099
Posted:
Anna,

Without seeking qualified legal advice, you have concluded that security cameras are "new, material alterations." You have then gone off on a tangent from there concluding that, among other things, approval of 2/3 of the members is required and that such approval will be impossible to obtain.

Yours sounds like a typical HOA board: Aware of a problem, aware of a solution to the problem, and having a million artificial excuses to do nothing.
AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960
Posted:
Peter---please look at how many posts I've had. I was an active member of HOATalk since 2006...but QUIT posting,because of the "snarky", non-helpful people such as yourself who TOTALLY changed the purpose and meaning of this forum. People such as yourself have chased a LOT of helpful, informed, intelligent, seasoned board members OFF this forum because of the arrogant, self-serving comments you post.

Please stop posting your vicious, insulting comments to MY question and let the others answer me. If this is how you talk to members of your association and if this is how you speak to your Board Members then you need help.......a LOT of help.

Your comments serve no purpose. Refrain from posting.
AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960
Posted:
"Yours sounds like a typical HOA board: Aware of a problem, aware of a solution to the problem, and having a million artificial excuses to do nothing."

Larry---I GET what you're saying here!!! I really do! The "million artificial excuses" are barbs thrown at us from members.

But don't think we cow down to all the members...who want to complain but not be part of the solution! We do our homework; get quotes and estimates; make informed decisions; vote; act; and follow through.

I asked what I thought was a simple question for Florida condo associations. Security Cameras? Material Alterations? Any similar situations?
RobertB31 (Florida)
Posts: 15
Posted:
I think if you do your research you will fine through case law that installing security cameras is not defined as a "material alteration". Installing cameras for safety and security does not fall under that definition any more than installing a fence for the same reasons,most general maintenance and security upgrades have not in the state of Florida. As a board member you should still spend the couple hundred dollars for a legal opinion.It always pays to be one step ahead of the naysayers.
MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836
Posted:
I find security cameras don't do much about crime. It only records it. We went through this too. The HOA should NOT be in the crime business. I would consider instead working with the police and creating a SEPARATE NON HOA funded/operated neighborhood watch. They will install a sign at your entrances and help guide you all through other solutuins.

Putting up fake cameras and warning signs could work but watch out for legal responsibilities if you do. False sense of security but also a deterrent in some cases. That option can work as long as it is not known they are fake.

Former HOA President
JayP3 (Florida)
Posts: 154
Posted:
Anna,

I agree Peter can be snarky. So can I.

I agree as stated above that cameras are not helpful.

But that is not what you asked is it?

You later posted:

"I still hope to hear from other associations in Florida who may have installed cameras on their property...

...without having to jump through hoops to have the membership decide that this is a good action for everyone involved."

What could be more arrogant and self-serving than the last half of that sentence??

You later make your own snarky, vicious, insulting comments.

Maybe you should take your own advice. Just say'n.
JayP3 (Florida)
Posts: 154
Posted:
Here's a recent story illustrating the deterrent potential of cameras (not).

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/breaking-news/boynton-beach-police-seek-duo-that-stole-from-vend/nTs8Q/

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,062
Posted:
Anna,

If you read the applicable statute I believe that the phrase "material alteration" is open for interpretation. Therefore, I would suggest seeking a legal opinion of that definition OR to contact the FL condo ombudsman for their definition.
JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265
Posted:
From The Sun Sentenial:

Most board members understand that they must obtain membership approval for material alterations or substantial additions. What they are not so clear on is what constitutes a material alteration.

The most basic litmus test is if the change materially or palpably changes a common element's appearance or use, it's a material alteration. In a condominium association, a material alteration must be approved by at least 75% of the total voting interests unless the governing documents provide otherwise. In a homeowners' association, the governing documents will control what needs to be done in the event the board makes any changes to the common areas.

The reasoning behind the requirement for membership approval is quite simple. An owner might have purchased in a particular community solely because it has a tennis court or is painted a lovely shade of blue. While that same owner might be on the losing end of the vote to change these items, they must at least have a say.

Some examples are obvious and others might be a little less clear. The following examples are material alterations which must be approved in advance by your members:

1. Changing the paint color of the building's exterior, corridors or any other common area;

2. Adding a cell phone tower to the roof;

3. Changing from carpeting to tile or vice versa;

4. Changing from a flat tile roof to barrel tile;

5. Cutting down a large tree on the common areas;

6. Changing light fixtures in the clubhouse;

7. Adding a fountain to the lake; and

8. Changing the card room to an exercise room.

These are just a few examples of changes that constitute material alterations which require membership approval.There are exceptions to the need for membership approval. For example, changes required in order to comply with local or state ordinances can be made without membership approval. If you are performing maintenance or repairs and simply want to take advantage of new materials or technology that was not available when your community was originally built you can do so without treating it as a material alteration.

This is one of those areas that definitely requires a discussion with your association attorney in advance. Some boards are hesitant to ask the members for approval for these kinds of projects for fear they will be voted down. Even the best ideas can fail to garner enthusiasm and support; they should be scrapped until the board and members can jointly decide on a vision .


Personally I do not see adding discreet security cameras as a material change. Now were I on the BOD, I would seek owner input on need and cost and act as they indicated.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836
Posted:
I agree with John. This is a whole membership issue. We had several conversations about installing security cameras in our HOA only to decide no. The biggest issue was that we had to install them on common property of the HOA. That property included a clubhouse with a pool and the mailbox house. The two main places our crime took place.

The issue became a privacy one when it came to the pool area. No one felt comfortable with video cameras in the pool area due to "bathing suits" privacy issues. The mailboxes were the post office responsibility. In the end we just decided it was better to insitute the old tradition of neighbor watching neighbor. Which worked the best and caught the most.

There is the fine line between privacy and crime. Your HOA may be better off allowing individual owners to install their own cameras if they want them. That way they won't be paid for by the HOA or their responsibility. However, the HOA may want to put in certain guidelines of where they can be pointed, type, and placement. You can get some disgruntle or creepy neighbors who may point their cameras at their neighbors just because they don't like eachother. It opens up another can of worms but as long as the HOA doesn't use their money, that may be the best option.

Former HOA President
EllieD (Vermont)
Posts: 446
Posted:
AnnaD2,

Based on the information from The Sun Sentinel that was just posted, IMO (I am not an Attorney, nor do I work in the legal profession) Security Cameras (new technology) would fall under:

“If you are performing maintenance or repairs and simply want to take advantage of new materials or technology that was not available when your community was originally built you can do so without treating it as a material alteration.

Would you be willing to post a bit more information about the “camera installation” being considered? For example: Hidden cameras? Out in the open cameras? How extensive a set up? Wired? Wireless?

Are you thinking of spending perhaps, $1,500 which on a per Unit basis would work out to be roughly $32 per Unit (you posted Condo complex, 47 Units), or perhaps spending as much as $20,000, about $425 per Unit?

My Board (Condominium) has occasionally discussed whether or not installing security cameras might be a good idea. Not so much to stop, deter, crime, but to try to identify the culprit. However, never did the thought arise, that it would be anything more than a Board decision.

Thank you.
CarolR11 (Colorado)
Posts: 2,563
Posted:
Along with the friendly advice from many--to get an attorney's opinion--who would monitor these cameras, Anna?

We have about 21 cameras in our 200+ unit urban high rise situation, but we also have 24 hr. security staff, who look at monitors. Tapes also can be reviewed. In our situation, they've been useful in identifying residents/guests who've damaged elevators; been noisy too late in the pool or spa. We were able to identify a resident's guests who took one of our luggage carts off the premises for a "joyride." The cart was abandoned, never found, and the unit owner was billed ($1,200!) for its replacement.

We added three new cameras a year ago and didn't need to seek homeowners' approval, but that's different than your circumstances, Anna.

AnnaD2 (Florida)
Posts: 960
Posted:
A very SPECIAL thank you to:
CarolR
Melissa
JohnC
TimB
and RobertB
for providing VERY helpful, thought-out, constructive opinions and information to my question! You are the type of people that HOATalk is all about! It's refreshing to see that some of you are still around---and providing USEFUL comments to those of us who ask for your help! I'm going to review (and USE) your comments for an upcoming meeting. Thank you all SO MUCH!
Anna
JayP3 (Florida)
Posts: 154
Posted:
You're welcome Anna!!!!

No go and jump through some hoops!
MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836
Posted:
Your welcome Anna...That is why we are here. We've been through it and got the T-shirt.... Difference between could've, should've and did it and done that...

Hope you do your research and talk to law enforcement on their feelings on the subject. Our local police have a neighborhood watch or public liason type who can share in information to help with crime prevention. They came and talked to us in a a meeting and gave us a video to share. I just strongly advise that if you do a neighborhood watch that it is SEPARATE from the HOA and NEVER EVER mixed funds. Ours simply had a sign at the front entrance and we all watched out for each other. Nothing formal.

Good luck! It's not a simple issue...

Former HOA President

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

  • ✓ Ask follow-up questions
  • ✓ Share your experience
  • ✓ Get expert advice
  • ✓ Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here