Non-Resident Board Members

You have a few issues here that need addressed. First off, whether or not the owner lives there full time is irrelevant. As long as they are owners they are qualified. I think your definition of residency is a bit off. Resident may be translated or is equal to owner. It is renters who are not owners and are not members of the HOA. Having rental property doesn't discharge you from being a HOA member or put you in a different class of ownership. Being a renter does.

What kind of rental restrictions are you trying to put into place? They may not be legal as most states except for California has any kind of legal restrictions on rental property in a HOA. A HOA can NOT interfere with the contracts of an owner. The HOA can not evict or enforce it's rules against renters. The HOA has to enforce it's rules against the owner/member only. So it is a good thing these owners are taking responsibility and participating in the HOA. Most off site owners never do and don't deal with their properties at all. I don't see a bad thing if you have people who are concerned about their property even though they don't live there.

I was actually still president of my HOA and lived in a different neighborhood. My HOA property was being used as rental while I was fixing up the house I had bought in a neighboring neighborhood. Granite I lived walking and viewing distance from my HOA. I still was not a resident. Heck, I was still a board member for another year. As long as I had a vested interest in my HOA, I was going to stay involved. Just be glad they are not apathetic and still keep an interest in what is going on. It's been my experience that 90% don't.

Our by-laws read: "Each member of the Board shall be one of the Unit Owners and shall reside on the Property." I think that's pretty clear.

Susan,

I agree with your conclusion. Requiring board members to be unit owners living on site does not create more than one class of owners. You may have to take these two board members to court to get them removed. Good luck.

We don't want to make it more difficult for prospective buyers to obtain financing which would happen if we don't have a rental cap. Certain financial institutions will not lend if the percengage of rentals is too high. Why limit the buyer pool especially in this market?

Well Susan in the real world as it exists today that sword cuts both ways. While you might see the positive perhaps you shopuld take the time to se the negative.

WHY have the number of rentals increased? My guess many folks under underwater on the their mortgages and either can't find a buyer or can't find a buyer at a price they can affrod to sell for. Now set aside the legal difficulties you will have now prohibiting the rental of some units while permitting others to rent I see a lawsuit coming. And IF you have an owner who can't afford to sell now restricted from making any form of income on the property where will that lead to? Foreclosure, non-payment of CCs, violations of rules, or the mass sale of all rental units. Out of those please explain which might be positive?

Now we all should know by now the banks have no interest in helping imporve the housing market. They add restrictions rather than working to make homes more affordable and accessible. They make demands while sitting on foreclosed properties refusing to pay the association CCs. They allow proteries they will own to reamin in legal limbo to avoid paying carrying costs. Truth is imrpoving the housing market is not on their agenda.

So as has been suggested step lightly and very carefully in your effrots to put into place any form of rental restrictions. My guess the opposition will be great, the costs will be high and in the end it may hurt as much as help.

Your efforts to remove those from the Board not supporting your agenda will divide the property between those with opposing interests. And IF successful my question would be for how long and at what price?

When everything appears so cut and dry IMO perhaps you failed to look real carefully.

Susan

I do not think people are disagreeing with your intent/desire. I think what they are saying is be careful.

Also what is the "bid" idea?

Thanks

Jon,

I sense a lot of hostility from you. I thought this was a forum to discuss ideas in a civilized manner, not for personal attacks.

I did want to caveat that rental property can effect the home values due to damages occurred to that property. That effects the owner and NOT the HOA as they have to spend money to fix it. You also have to factor in "tenant Rights" which even the owner can not violate. A renter could potentially stop paying rent for a year and not be evicted legally. There is also proper notices which can be 30 days before an eviction can be completed. Something to factor in when making restrictions.

Susan,

Jon might be direct, but if you get past the method used and just focus on the message, Jon does raise some good points.

If you really want to limit rentals, I would suggest what has been suggested on this site before:

No unit/Lot may be rented during the first two years of ownership.

hope this helps,

Tim

Susan what you seem to think of as personal attacks is my effrot to make you hear your own words. You wish to now force the removal of two Board members to just get what you think is right. Despite the fact they may not agree. We these two folks elected? How long have they served? Were they willing to serve when others stayed back and stayed out of this Board service thing? Have you offered to serve on the Board? Have you served? Or are you directing what the Board should do from an owner's position?

Owners IMO should have the same rights as every other. Not some can rent, some can't, some can serve on the Board and some don't deserve to do so.

I myself own several units which I rent on the same property where I live now I see the argument for both sides is one more right than the other NO. If someone was pushing for rental restrictions I would not support them. Not hard to see why. Does it seem unreasonable to you that I would wish to have the ability to rent my current rental units and perhaps someday rent out my home if I so choose? Without gathering points or stars accroding to some system you and others who don't rent have come up with? Sorry Mr. Smith according to our records you still are one point from being able to rent your unit so sorry but you need to losse the perpsective tenant and forfeit the lost income....

And I agree with your current Board member you should not set up a system where you form two or more classes of owners some have some rights while others don't. And as John mentioned just how would you enforce these rules. Lets say someone is in dire financial circumstances and they either rent the unit or lose the unit you are willing to act to prevent them from doing so? Or you would just have those willing to serve do that for you?

IMO you are going down a slippery slope and with your now mentioned plans of some made up points system my opinion ripe to be held unreasonable in most courts of law.

Amazes me when folks can decide to demand their rights while taking away the rights of others. Whether you decide to hear that or not.

Sticky-wicket Alert!!!

I have a new set of revised CC&R's which were never passed because of poorly written rental restrictions of EXACTLY the type you describe. Another law firm is working on a second set which will probably NOT pass either. The state legislature is dealing with this issue. And the Feds seem to be changing their emphasis on encouragement of home-ownership over renting.

This issue is in such flux, that I suspect that the lending standards may be adjusted to accommodate a higher percentage of renal units by the time all the lawyers are done fighting over the enforceability of forced rental restrictions! And that would be a good development. Those of us concerned with this issue might do well to lobby for just that. Are you listening, Senator Elizabeth Warren?

It is a well known "fact" that owners take better care of their property than tenants. But you have owners who are trying to do just that by siting on your HOA board, and still you are persuaded that the problem is with renters. Now, I have no way of knowing that those two owners you mentioned are not greedy slum-lords, but it seems if they were, they would not be able to be elected, unless your association is filled with totally disconnected and apathetic members. You live there, why not try to get yourself on the Board?

It is common for resident owners to believe that only they can really care about the CID, and to overlook the possibility that older, (as in longer-term) owners who have moved on but kept their property may well be much more familiar with and sophisticated about matters of oversight, having owned at least 2 homes. People often move from a condo to a free-standing house, and thus learn so much more about preventive maintenance, out of necessity. I am much more consciencious, and uber-picky about my rental unit than I am about the one I live in. And I always have stellar tenants to show for it!

If you think about any kind of rotating scheme for rentals, you'll realize it is an enforcement nightmare which can only lead to conflict and lawsuits. Our aforementioned D.O.A revision contained one.

What really brings down property values is lack of enforcement of standards & maintenance, and it's hard, I know, but the HOA has the right (and duty) to make the landlords keep up their units and see to it that their tenants comply with all covenants. In fact, done correctly, I would argue it is easier to control renters (through owners) than the owners themselves.
Think about this: you can demand proof that the renters have been given a set of your rules and policies, and then you can legally hold the landlords responsible. That is easier emotionally for most board members that having to scold resident owners with whom they interact personally every day.

I hope to see MUCH more discussion of this topic here!

Elaine

I was on the board for 8 years, 7 of them as president. I should add that 6 of those years we were self-managed. I resigned because I got frustrated being one of the only ones on the board who actually did anything. There is no one on the board who has served longer than me. There were board members who never attended meetings. After I resigned, a few months later, the management company dropped our association because they couldn't deal with rest of the board. We didn't get another management company for over a year and during that time none of the board members did anything about the upkeep of our property. Things only got done after a number of unit owners complained. So you can see why I'm concerned. Fortunately, there now seems to be a lot of unit owners who want to get involved.

Our decuments state that a owner is a member of the Association. The owner does not need to live in the building o be on the Board. We have one Board member who lives about 20 miles away. Also the document states that the spouse of a member is also a member and can serve on the Board. One of our previous Presidents is not on the deed to the unit, but his wife is the sole owner.

We have 43 units and 3 renters. When I first moved in I was told that the owner had to live in the unit which was incorrect. This was one of many things I was told that was incorrect.

Bonnie,

My declaration and by-laws state that a board member must reside on the property. The question I asked was whether or not this was in contradiction of the Illinois Condo Laws.

It would help if you would quote the section of your declaration that requires a board member to live on the property and the section of Illinois Condo Laws where you think the conflict might be.

Until we have that information we are all flailing in the dark.

Your stated a concern that the bylaws may be in conflict with the statutes. No one can make an informed decision without also seeing the statute(s). Where is the quotation from the statutes that you think may conflict with your bylaws?

I didn't say my by-laws conflict with the Illinois Property Act, one of the other unit owners did. When I asked him where in the Act it says this, he responded by saying "you can't have two different classes of ownership."