Problem Owner

If you remember, back in December the previous BOD in a knee jerk reaction closed the pool to all the owners because of ONE owner. This one owner is bringing in the surrounding homeless population into the pool area so they have a place to shower. Now this Owner is dong it again. The PM sent out another compliance letter, replied back to the PM and two other BOD, compliance letter do no good and this owners behavior is ongoing. The health and welfare of the owners are put at risk by having homeless people in the pool area. I feel this owner needs to be called to a hearing and be 86'ed from the pool due to past and ongoing treats to the safety and welfare of the community.

Your thoughts please.

I agree with Sheila. I don't believe a hearing will be any more effective than the compliance letters have been, and there needs to be serious consequences for his misbehavior. As was noted in the earlier discussion, his actions are endangering other members of the community and putting the association at risk of a lawsuit if anyone is injured.

Make sure you have evidence that will stand up in court, lock down the pool facilities including the showers (shut off the water to them if possible), and get your attorney ready to rumble.

Your BOD needs to grow a pair and stop letting one crazie owner control them.

Let A,
First I want to start by saying I totally get your frustration on this issue. I am going to share some concerns that may come up with this issue.

1) I would assume HOs are allowed guests in the Pool area. What makes one guest better than the next guest?

2) People bring lots of stuff to the Pool when they go swimming for a afternoon. The homeless bring a shopping cart. What is the difference?

3) Homeless people are unsightly and smell bad. Are you going to put someone in place to smell everyone entering the Pool?

4) Homeless people may be sick. As you probably know many Pool rules say if you have had Diarrhea in the last 10 days you should not go in the Pool. Who checks that?

5) You state that the person may have a mental illness. Does that make him lose his privileges as a homeowner if he pays his dues?

I am sure if given a little time I could come up with more examples but I think you get the point. We live in a strange time and when people think this is an easy solution it may not be. People will see this from one side or the other.

The association I am currently the President of has nearly 1500 homes. I am sure you could find one of just about everything in those homes. It is very hard to go after 1 class of people without offending others.

Some random thoughts:

This probably wouldn't fly in a condo situation, but the last apartment complex where I lived moved to a biometric (fingerprint) system for pool and clubhouse access. Personally I had some privacy concerns about it, and it wouldn't stop someone from bringing in too many guests, but it did solve the problem of access codes and keys being given out freely.

As a board member, I was always weighing perceived benefits against the cost in time, money, effort and potential liability of these benefits. In LetA's position, I would start to ask myself at what point could I no longer justify keeping the pool open.

While on the board, I also dealt with a couple issues involving homeowners with possible mental health issues. We made sure our attorney was informed and vetted each step we took to make sure we complied with Fair Housing laws. No shortcuts, lots of bending over backwards and dotting i's and crossing t's. Lots of documentation, everything in writing, no unscripted one-on-one discussions with the persons involved.

Fair Housing laws are pretty unforgiving and the penalties stiff, so I completely understand LetA's board's hesitation on this. It's not a case of them not doing their jobs. Instead it's a recognition that in this particular instance, the stakes are much higher than they would be for run of the mill enforcement cases.

I think it's misleading to view the homeless as comparable to other guests. Guests are known personally to the homeowners who accompany them, and the homeowners are answerable for their guests' behavior. I'm pretty sure that the offending homeowner in this case does not "know" the individual homeless persons, especially if he simply props a gate open, nor is he answerable for their behavior.

At the risk of saying something controversial, I will point out that the homeless, as a group, bring added risks to the community. As a group, the homeless are more likely to be dealing with diseases and mental health issues than a random group of non-homeless citizens. This isn't discriminatory, it's an acknowledgement of the public health issues surrounding homelessness. Cities by and large haven't figured out how to deal with it successfully, and it's kinda above-and-beyond for a board made up of volunteers. However, given the potential liability and safety issues involved, the board has no choice but to deal with it as best they can.

Closing the pool will stop the showering, but if the problem homeowner opens gates and whatnot, there may still be the issue of unaccompanied strangers roaming the property. Maybe 24 hour security - even if they do nothing but check the gates each hour to make sure they're still locked, that would help. Then call the police if there are intruders, rather than dealing with it themselves. I think in this case just making the property uninviting will help.

I am not against this owner helping out the homeless on a personal level. Sorry but I am not against humanity... That said. It should be a requirement that if you have a guest, you must be with that guest. You can't just give someone permission or access when you are not in their presence.

Understand that tenants/renters would be considered "guests" and owner would not be needed with them. However, every other situation, the owner should stay with their guests. So make them be at the showers with that person or call the police.

+ the member should accompany their 'guest(s)'

Hopefully I can type this minus all the typos in my first response! The game of using a tablet, I guess.

I understand your board colleagues being nervous about disciplining this homeowner, but as Mark said, there have to be consequences to bad behavior. That said, this does require special handling because you just separate the illness from the problem. Just because the man has a mental illness doesn't mean that's why he continue to break the rules. On the other hand, mental illness can impair the part of the brain that controls judgement and impulse control, so that could be part of the reason your letters haven't worked.

Does this man live alone? If not, have you spoken to his family about the problem? Do you know what type of mental illness this? Maybe there's a local mental health agency that can give you some ideas on how to address this (don't name names). Also take Kathy's advice in keeping your attorney in the loop because it this lands in court, you will have to show you aren't singling him out because of his condition.

Well said and done.

"Reasonable accommodation" does not mean letting a mentally disabled person do what he is doing in this case.



I think this is overstating the situation some. E.g. if the Board has film footage of this member propping the gate open, tag him with a violation (assuming the HOA has a rule on this). Impose fines. If there is no rule and no fines, create the rule and a schedule of fines. Hit violators in the wallet hard.

LetA posted that he his being outvoted with regard to closing the pool. Two want it closed; he opposes closing it. It seems to me closing the pool is a violation of the board's duty to maintain common areas and enforce covenants for same.

I think the Board needs to switch to an electronic pass card, like what Mark suggested. It worked at my former condo. It will be expensive. Residents who lose their pass card had to pay $30 for a new one.