ANOTHER Parking Issue

Anna writes:

>>>To me it seems pretty cut and dried that the third vehicle is in violation.<<<

I'd second that.

Anna,

You stated your docs say: "But our documents read: OFF STREET PARKING: A unit owner may not lease or assign his parking space EXCEPT in conjunction with a lease of his unit." So, do you interpret that to mean that if this elderly resident, who has no vehicle, cannot allow another resident to park a car in her space unless they are leasing her unit? So that space would remain vacant? Does that really make sense?

But by allowing an owner to "trump" the two-car limit rule by using another owner's space is setting us up for problems. The rules specifically state that anyone who has more than two vehicles must park the additional vehicles off-site.

Our parking spaces are "limited common areas". Even though one space is assigned per unit the unit owner does not "own" the space outright. As I said, our documents prohibit anyone from leasing the space. Should someone be allowed to profit (monetarily) by "renting out" part of the limited common area?

"A unit owner may not lease or assign his parking space EXCEPT in conjunction with a lease of his unit."

The elderly lady is NOT leasing out the spot. She is giving her spot to this fellow. you could spend time splitting hairs about this (the word assign), but unless this woman complains, you have no case. She could argue that she is using his car, and that space is hers to do what she wants.

I'd stay out of this until this woman brings the issue to the Board.

The entire issue is that ONE homeowner now has THREE cars on the property. We're getting ready for a backlash of other owners with two cars wishing they'd "gotten" to the lady with the empty space FIRST to use her space so someone else in their household can have a third car parked on the property.

As I stated in my original post, we're not yet sure what the situation is with her space. Another owner (mistakenly) parked in her space then went back up north. We tried for weeks and and weeks to notify the owner that the car would be towed if they didn't move it because the lady was really p---ed because her nurse couldn't park there. We eventually had the car towed. The friend with the car keys showed up the next day to retrieve it from impound. The lady allowing her space to be used (for another owner's third car) is starting to show signs of dementia or Alzheimers.

The lady can allow whomever she pleases to park there----but do we have to allow this when it violates the two-car rule? As I said; anyone with more than two vehicles must park the additional vehicles off-site. It doesn't say they can use someone else's space.

Please keep the comments coming. You're saying exactly what arguments we expect to face. Thank you all!

Barbara---you bring up a very good point! (MY point, too.) The areas we're talking about are owned and maintained by the Association. Not the unit owners.

Anna, you mean people bought a home with NO parking space? That would be in the deed, if included.

Just because the HOA takes care of it, does not mean the HOA owns it.

Please clarify.

I see this is that each owner is allowed to use one of the open spots. It does not matter how many or vacant or who gives who permission. One spot is allowed per home. Anything more is a clear violation of the rules.

Now in our community I have encouraged the board not to act as police in our community. If there is an issue that a board member would like to address, then they do so as a member of the association, not as a board member. I wouldn't pursue this issue unless another member does or it is really a detriment to the entire community.

Someone will eventually complain. Probably sooner than latter.

Hi Anna,

Because the parking lot/spaces are owned by the association and maintained by the association, they belong to the association. Each owner is allowed to have 2 and no more. Any more than 2 is in violation unless the excess vehicle is parked on the street. It seems pretty cut and dry after reading your posted section from the documents.

Now on the other hand, what if you have 5 or 6 owners who do not drive? Their spaces would all be empty. I see no harm in those spaces being rented out to members with an overflow of vehicles. BUT, ACCORDING TO YOUR DOCS, THE EXCESS CARS MUST GO PARK ON THE STREETS.

Now the real chink in the armor is the fact that your documents do not address vacant spaces and what can be done with them. Now what? Should they be allowed to be used or rented out by their assigned member? This almost ends up as a power struggle between multiple vehicle owners, those who have too many cars.

Anna,

As Michele said, "this could get ugly"! IMO, this is a situation that calls for some common sense. If it's not practical to have the docs amended to delete the requirement to park on the street; I would say the board should allow any member who does not need their space to assign it to anyone they choose. Or, the board could require those members to inform the board and the board, in turn, could have a lottery to assign those spaces or perhaps rent them out. Some could be assigned as "visitor" spaces if those are at a premium. There are any number of actions that could be taken that would be more equitible than what is now required by the gov docs. Whatever action the board decides to take (absent an amendment to the docs) should be by resolution and transmitted to all members of the assn.

Charlie,

And just let this space go unused and require the h/o to park the extra car on the street??? This, IMO, makes no sense whatsoever. As I said, this is an issue that requires the use of common sense. But, of course, we all know, "common sense, ain't so common"!

Here is some additional information. We are a very small association. Two buildings; one (dead end) drive down the middle with marked parking spaces in front of both buildings. There is no property to develop any more spaces.

We have 46 units x 2 cars equal 92 spaces. Here is the problem....we only have 72 spaces total! This used to be a community of mainly older, retired (one car people) but as they leave, younger families with two (or more cars) started to move in. Hence, the rule of two-cars only per unit. We've already reduced ten visitor spaces to Resident/Owner Reserved spaces (NON-assigned) to at least give two-car people a chance to find a parking space for their second cars.

Imagine coming home and being unable to find a space because someone had poker night or a baby shower and all the guests used up all the visitor spaces? Trust me, we worked very carefully with our association attorney to write these parking rules. Our rules and documents state (in three different parts) that the Board can change and alter the parking spaces as needed.

I don't want to sound like a smart-aleck but we really can't be concerned if there are no spots for visitors. People should be aware what the parking situation is when they move in and that the association is under no obligation to accomodate visitors or guests when our main concern is to ensure the people who live here and pay their maintenance fees here have a place to park their second car---not their third car.

And I'm curious, Anna, as to how you handle cars if parked in a space specifically assigned to an owner.

Well I wonder why your docs give one slip but the allow 2 cars per unit.
Seems to me that this wasn't thought out in the beginning, unless I'm
missing something.
Edie

Edie, you are SO RIGHT it wasn't well thought out. It was originally a rental apartment complex for adults only. The owners were very selective of who they rented to and it was mostly retired couples or single older people. Then they "went condo" and sold to everyone and thus the problem was created.....and it's only going to get worse. Much worse.

You could send a letter to the older lady with signs of dementia, with the hopes that she or her nurse might read it and understand what is going on with her parking space.
"XYZ car has been noted parking in your space. If you agree to this car parking in your space place sign and return. If this is not your car please call us at your convience."
I'm not sure if you have a form letter that says something to that effect but then you've put the accountability for that cars ownership in her hands IN WRITING. I would think that if other members were told that the lady is claiming the car then they could take the issue up with her and not the Association.

Anna,
As you can see from all of the posts having similar problems but each have different results in how they handle this. Each association has to do what they feel is best for all of the members and your Board also must react with what they feel they can do without causing a holy members war.

I do agree with Mary that why not utilize empty spaces with members cars. This is not about visitor spaces, this is an assigned space. Sometimes we cut off our noses to spite your face.I would set a policy or perhaps rule to fill this type of space with a members car. Maybe the 2 car rule needs some tweeking?

LOL!

No, Anna, I wasn't trying to get you all to figure it out for them!

I was just curious how far the next closest parking is to your'alls' units.

I mean, if I came home from work and all the spots were taken, would I have to go just a block away? Or would I have to park somewhere and take a bus home!

I would be really really ticked!

The Association could sell the two spots to each owner and include it in their dues... that way it would be up to the individual owner to ensure their spots are empty.

The HOA could still enforce parking violations. You could amend your documents to clarify the status of each person's spaces and the role the HOA will take in maintaining those spots.

Ouch!

Well, we didn't have a meeting but we were going to decide with our P.M. what we were going to do about it. Yesterday we found some more information. Another neighbor (who checks on the lady who owns the space) said she was asked if they could use her space while their "visitor" is here. She gave them permission. But the neighbor who told us this said she doubts Mrs. D. even realizes it's now been over two weeks.

Another twist---since our rules stipulate that guests cannot park overnight for more than ten days the third car now mysteriously disappears after 10:00 p.m. then shows back up around 6:00 a.m. Talk about playing games!

So we're still watching the situation. We're also taking part of what Charlie posted here; sort of a wait and see attitude if any other members complain and not act like the police. As he said, sooner or later someone will complain then we can act on their complaint.

To me it seems pretty cut and dried that the third vehicle is in violation. I know I can count on all of you and your opinions to show how we may be met with resistance.

I posted a topic on parking, I live in Los Angeles and as you can imagine parking is one of our HOA's most difficult and touchy issues. In my HOA it would be easier to convince one of my neighbors to eliminate one of their children than it would be to get them to get rid of one of their cars. I was upset enough that I went to "Alternative Dispute Resolution" and it got me nowhere.

You need to keep working on the problem and keep the communication open. You may be surprised how little being self-righteous and angry may accomplish, even though it may be completely justified. Wasn't it Yoda who said you had to be patient? Years ago someone told me the State of California would never be able to get people to stop smoking in restaurants. Before that, Detroit said that it would never be possible to force people to wear seatbelts. Not too many years ago a friend assured me that a black man could never be elected President of the United States. Change does actually occur, it is often surprising, but parking is a tough problem.-Tom