Give up one visitor parking place to appease new owner?

We recently hired a new HOA attorney in an experienced downtown firm. He’s written his first opinion for us. Our board will make a decision tomorrow night (6/25). Here are the details.

Mr. X recently bought a unit in our downtown condo building that comes with two deeded spaces in our secure access undergound garage. Drivers must pass a kiosk at our gate that is staffed 24/7. Mr. X wrote a letter to the Board requesting a trade from his own space to the sole handicapped space in our Visitor Parking (VP) undergound- garage area of 16 total spaces. There are 211 residential units in our HOA. Residents are not permitted to park in VP, nor are our personal workers, employees, etc.

He included a letter from his chiropractor who documented that the disability involves “mobility issues” that require him to open his car fully & completely to exit & enter it. He isn’t wheelchair bound and walks just fine. His cars are ordinary sedans.

Last month our Board of 7 voted to get an opinion from our HOA attorney. The attorney wrote a thorough 3-page single-spaced opinion. He opined that we should not give exclusive rights to Mr. X to our lone VP handicapped space for ADA reasons.

Instead, it would be “prudent” if we offer to exchange his deeded space for exclusive use of “any” regular space in VP of his choice. We should do this if Mr. X “believes that one of the Visitor spaces would be superior to his existing space.”

The attorney points out that we should make “reasonable accommodations.” We must afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling or common area.”

So far as I know our attorney didn’t visit our premises to actually look at the parking spaces in question.

I disagree with the attorney’s advice because:

Any space that he selects in VP is no wider-- more ”superior”-- than his own deeded spaces, i.e., his own spaces--like every other residential parking space--permit him to open his car door fully; they “reasonably accommodate” him.

There are times when VP is full, but even if Mr. X is away for the day or longer, no visitor would be permitted to park in “his” space and would be forced to find scarce and expensive street metered parking or even more expensive public parking in a lot.

I’m asking for your advice because most members of our Board have become very timid, don’t want to make residents mad, etc., and usually follow our onsite full-time PM’s recommendations. In addition, some are not very diligent in reading our board packet materials. Our PM recommends that we give Mr. X the VP space.

I hope the Board will follow my suggestion that we ask Mr. X to write to us to explain how a VP space is “superior” to his own before we make a final decision.So far as I know our attorney didn’t visit our site to actually look a the parking spaces in question.

What do you think?

I have to agree with John. This would not require an opinion from our lawyer.

VP is just what is says VP.

Who will come next with "mobility issues" to take over another VP spot.

So you have 221 residents and Johnny come lately now decides he should be allowed to pick where he parks his car and submits a letter from his Dr.

Who cares???

Time to practice saying NO!

And just because you went to law school doesn't make you the burning bush. The lawyer has an opinion that does not require you to go along.

Time for the Board to borrow a pair

I am curious as to why the handicapped Mr. X purchased a unit with its two deeded spaces and then played the disabled card. What changed between the time he purchased and now? Has the state issued handicapped plates to Mr. X?

My recollection is that ADA does not apply to a condo because it is not a place of public accommodation.

I agree. Mr. X only has a note from a chiropractor. He is not legally designated as disabled. A lot of people function with pain and are not designated as disabled. Where I used to work, they had handicapped parking and they had parking for pregnant women. Yet there is no parking exception for those people whose hip problems will necessitate hip surgery. I think if Mr. X was designated as handicapped this might be fine except you would still need a handicapped parking space. I would require more than a chiropractor's letter. In the state of California, only physicians and osteopaths are given the power to declare a person disabled by workers comp standards. I would hold Mr. X to the same standard.

I REALLY appreciate your replies. As you know, I'm opposed to this parking sp. exchange. As much as i'd like to, I cannot order the other directors to "grow a pair"; I have to try to use reason. I agree with John46 who notes that when some (other directors, attorney, PM) hear "ADA," fear replaces logical analysis.

He & JM also say that notes from chiropractors shouldn't carry much weight. Think I'm gonna have to google CA evidence requirements for handicap placards. Additionally, they and others prompted me to look again at the materials and I noticed this: The Chir. note is dated 5/13/13 and it's addressed To whom it may concern. The CA handic. certificate shows an expiration date of 6/30/13! The two items seem unrelated.

Our CC&Rs, re: Jon & John46, give our HOA the right to make rules about parking spaces and our Rules & Regs. are one of our governing docs. From day one, they've stated that residents may NOT park in VP.

Jon & Matthew remark that others may now want a VP space and, indeed, we have a few elderly residents who occasionally need personal mobility scooters for various usually temporary back problems. What if their disabilities become permanent?? I will, tonight, emphasize this issue.

Matthew also asks: why did Mr. X buy (May, '13!) this condo unit? Indeed! As JohnB26 would have declared, "CAVEAT EMPTOR!" The exclusive use common area pk. sp. #s are included in the unit description. Nothing has changed. As I wrote earlier, per our attorney, we may not exchange his sp. for our sole HC space in VP.

Kevin & Tim discuss the distance from Mr. X's current spaces to--in our case--the elevator access to his tower (in our twin high rises). There is NO written evidence that he needs to be close to such access. His problem is getting in & out of his car because of hip, knee & back problems. He walks perfectly and, to boot, is in his 40s. More, the elevator access is NO closer to any VP spaces than in his own deeded spaces! I'm guessing that he got the CA handic. certif. because so many PUBLIC pk. spaces are so skimpy he truly would not be able to open his car door fully to accommodate his disability. I've sure had that problem & I'm fully mobile. Our spaces are much wider than those in your typical mall, health care facility, etc.

There are some deeded spaces that would be problems for him, e.g., a few have pillars next to the diver's side. But his are not such spaces.

I'll add that though we have 211 res. units, we only have about 365 deeded auto spaces (on three levels) because most 1+den units only have one space. They really need the VP spaces when they have guests.

Your comments all have been really useful; many thanks. I'll love any further thoughts or questions before 3:30 PDT!

Say, Bruce (and John46 & JM), I did google who must write a letter to show evidence to CA that someone qualifies for a handicap placard certificate and learned that all kinds of professionals do, including chiropractors, midwifes and others. I presume which professional depends on the disability, e.g., temp certificate for pregnant women.

Thanks too, for your opinion, Bruce.

Btw, I thought I once saw in our 115-page CC&Rs that the HOA cannot give away common areas (VP spaces), but cannot find it now. "Give away," isn't the right phrase, but words to that effect.

If you provide such a letter to your state's MVD they may provide a home for you where parking will no longer be an issue.

So Mr. X buys and unit. Doesn't want to park HIS vehicle where the other 220+ residents park so he demands he be given "special" treatment becuase his bone cracker sent in a note that he has mobility issues. After a certain age most people have issues like that.

The new attorney who was paid $$$$__________ for their amazing assessment of the situation the MC who is a servcie provider, and the President of the MC whose opinion seems to carry more weight than those that live there all decided for the Board what would be done.

5-1 all the Board members but 1 rolled over and did as they were told.
Did they at least get a treat???

Guess borrowing a pair was in fact not an option.

Sounds like a well oiled machine. I just have to wonder who next will submit perhaps a letter from their Yoga instructor that their Lotus position is suffering because they have to wlak to far from their parked vehicle.

Seems for some the FEAR card always wins when played...

Sadly, Jon, most directors have pretty much turned over their "stuff" to our PM and defer to her. Those directors are 64-78 y.o. and are easily frightened. All have served for at least five years during which time we went thru 2-1/2 meeting-loaded years of litigation against our developer. And though our last major reconstruction project with settlement funds is underway, which means we won't be having special meetings to interview vendors, I think they are burned out.

The good news is that last night we did vote to fill a recent vacancy on the Board until our next election on 10/23. One among the new-owner couple, who were so annoyed at "our" decision last night, will probably apply and both are very knowledgeable as they've served on high rise HOA boards previously. They also are younger and quite feisty. If either serves, I think they might be a pain in the rear, but it's really time to shake up our board and get some fresh ideas.

(The guy who resigned was youngish, but worthless.)

Well Carol IMO turning things over to any PM even the best in the world is not doing YOUR job as a Board member. Now don't get me wrong I have had PLENTY of dead wood on our Board over the years. The only good thing about them was they stayed out of the way. Your problem is thet are making decisions that someday soon might be a problem for future Board members to deal with. When you do for one you just opened the door to having to do for all.

But I am sure you know this.

My concern would be what other Board decisions were influenced by the opinions of your MC? Perhaps, the high speed internet equipment that was sold to you as an inprovement for your property along with free service to your service staff? I wonder how much that compnay would have truly been willing to PAY to use your building as a site for their equiptment?
Was the MC in favor of that agreement?

And your service contracts for your elevators? How about your stationary engineers who reviews their performance and cost to your property? The MC?

As I recall you have I think a $2 MILLION operating budget lots of room for waste, fraud and abuse. And IF the Board is to "burnt" that makes this even easier.

NOBODY will watch YOUR money for you as good as you would watch it for yourself. Just the reality of HOAs and life.

IMO in this case your Board dropped the ball. My guess this was not the first time nor will it be the last.

And I agree time for change just make sure the savior you welcome in is not more of the same just in different clothing.......

Good luck.