"Make them cooperate" is an interesting phrase. Clearly, you hope to make them WANT to cooperate.

Involving the sponsor could be useful, but not if you're just passing the hammer & hoping he'll make them cooperate.

I suggest delivering a letter, by courier for emphasis, co-signed by the sponsor if he's willing, saying: "We've previously told you of the importance of having your apartment treated for bedbugs. This is not just for your own health, but vital to the welfare of your neighbors. We have the absolute authority & power to force you to comply...but we would greatly prefer to proceed amicably. If you agree to work with us, we'll arrange for the preparation of your apartment & coordinate timing with you. If you refuse, we'll have no choice but to force compliance by legal means. We hope that's not necessary. Please let us know your decision within 24 hours."

An alternative is to offer to "bake" their units. Contractor cost is higher, but there's no preparation required; this would be faster, simpler, & might not cost more if you're paying for prep.

Bed Bugs are a health issue, they do spread disease, and the Board is responsible for protecting the Shareholders.

Report them to the Health Department. Call 311

They will come to the Building. Since this is an very serious issue in NYC, and has been in all the papers -- have the Pres of the Board call, to make the complaint. Also the neighbors should call. Keep calling until the Health department comes to the building. This complaint will become an official record, which the sponsor is probably aware of, and will force them to take action.

...it would be helpful if more people checked facts before spreading rumors, which is 1 reason the New York condo & co-op community is so ripe for scams, fraud, & general over-reaction to the problem.

Here's what the Harvard School of Public Health has to say on the matter of bedbugs & disease:

"Despite what you may have heard or read elsewhere, bed bugs are not known to transmit any infectious agents."

And: "Don’t panic. Although bed bugs can be annoying, they can be battled safely and successfully if you adopt a well-considered strategy."

Annoying--yes. Dangerous--no.

Here's the link to their site:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/bedbugs/#cause

That said, I'll make no argument that bedbugs should be ignored. I don't understand, though, your suggestion that a visit from the Health Dept. will "force them to take action." Force whom to take action? The Board is already motivated, the Sponsor doesn't appear to be an obstruction & could be an ally. The original poster's inquiry was about how to get the tenants to comply WITHOUT using force.

I stand by my earlier recommendation.

As Anonymous said, the Harvard report states that
"bedbugs are not known to transmit any infectious agents" but I have read reports by health agencies stating that bedbugs can cause health issues. But that aside, this is from the same Harvard study that Anonymous quoted from:
----------
What are your rights and obligations?
Landlords and property owners have specific legal obligations to provide safe and habitable accommodations for tenants. Certain infestations, including bed bugs, may constitute an unacceptable condition. Tenants have an obligation to cooperate with owners and landlords. This includes preparing the apartment so that the pest control operator can easily inspect the rooms and treat if necessary. Contact your state or municipal health agency or housing authority for more guidance on these issues.
----------

Regarding the elderly residents who won't cooperate, the elderly often resist change or "intrusion" into their homes where they've lived for many years. I've worked with the elderly. Their objections to many things is based on fear - of losing control over their lives, of things they never had to deal with and may not understand, of basically being closer

SORRY - MY POSTING GOT "SENT" BEFORE I COULD FINISH OR ENTER MY NAME. I AM NOT "ANONYMOUS" - I AM "BP". I'VE COPIED MY POSTING HERE SO I CAN COMPLETE IT.

As Anonymous said, the Harvard report states that
"bedbugs are not known to transmit any infectious agents" but I have read reports by health agencies stating that bedbugs can cause health issues. But that aside, this is from the same Harvard study that Anonymous quoted from:
----------
What are your rights and obligations?
Landlords and property owners have specific legal obligations to provide safe and habitable accommodations for tenants. Certain infestations, including bed bugs, may constitute an unacceptable condition. Tenants have an obligation to cooperate with owners and landlords. This includes preparing the apartment so that the pest control operator can easily inspect the rooms and treat if necessary. Contact your state or municipal health agency or housing authority for more guidance on these issues.
----------

Regarding the elderly residents who won't cooperate, the elderly often resist change or "intrusion" into their homes where they've lived for many years. I've worked with the elderly. This is based on fear -- of losing control over their lives, of things they never had to deal with or maybe don't understand, of being old and infirm and near the end of life. Sensitivity to their fears should be considered.

Barb, a suggestion. Do your 2 elderly residents have a family member, aide, priest/rabbi, anyone close to them who can talk to them and explain that the bedbug issue is important for their well-being and their neighbors'? Maybe they'd be more amenable to cooperating if they hear this from someone they know, trust or love than from your board. Just an idea.

Unless the elderly couple is suffering from an early stage dementia or some other form of mental debilitation -- which case the humane and proper thing to do is to the Dept for the Aging, which sends social and medical professionals in to do evaluation, at no cost to anyone -- then, barring that, that couple has the same responsibilities to the building's and the other residents welfare as anyone else would have.

Making excuses for them only prolongs the problem. "They are frightened, etc." ... again, unless there is mental debilitation taking place, that is a patronizing way of treating older citizens. They need to cooperate, just as a younger resident would. Be polite and caring, but be firm and take responsibility. Indeed, this may be a crucial if coincidental moment in time where their need for Dept. of Aging help, which might not otherwise have been noticed, has been.

JB - just to clarify my posting...

I agree with you that the elderly have the same responsibilities to their building and neighbors as any other residents. But I wasn't making excuses for them, and I don't think showing them a little more sensitivity prolongs or exacerbates problems.

The elderly can be mentally sound but still worry about losing control over their lives or fear some situations. How we think, for example, when we're 45 is quite different from when we're 85. The elderly in Barb's building must have their apts cleared of bedbugs, but Barb said she hopes to do it without force if possible. In any case, it must be done but I don't think it's patronizing to treat them with more understanding of their "position" in life or to see if a relative or someone close to them may be able to help elicit their cooperation. Try to see it from their perspective. If they were not frightened or unsure of what this issue is all about, I would think that they would have cooperated already.

Just my opinion.

I've got several uncles and aunts in their 80s who behave like they're in the 50s and 60s, and a friend in his 70s who acts like he's still in his 20s. With normal health, an older person isn't any different from you or me. What's being described here is either phobic behavior -- unreasonable fear of neighbors or minor elected representatives (the board) coupled with the clutter you describe. All told, this isn't normal behavior for ordinary, healthy people in their 80s.

Just because we get old doesn't men we stop behaving like responsible adults, and, seriously, it's patronizing to treat them otherwise. (They especially hate to be called "hon" or "sweetie" or other infantilizing terms.)

Judging from what I've read here, these are people suffering what I hope at this point is a still a mild case of dementia. They need help. You can't count on family -- there may be some reason they've been left alone this way. The longer it goes on, the less able this couple will be able to fend for themselves.

The first, most human step, is to have the city evaluate the need for a guardian. If they're well enough not to need one, that's great -- then you treat them like anyone else. If they do need a guardian, and I suspect from the stubbornness and the hoarding that they might, then you would be HELPING them. Dancing around the issue and making halfhearted, ultimately pointless non-decisions and "well-meaning" plans are time-wasters that do this couple no good. If they need help, get it ... it's free and easy. If they don't need help, treat them with the respect you'd give any other adult.

JB, the original post about the elderly and bedbugs isn't mine. It was from "barb"' on Dec 15. If you read it again, she says they're elderly residents in two rent-controlled units - not an elderly couple. Barb also asks if the sponsor who owns their units can be "forced" to exterminate them. I saw nothing in her post on whether the sponsor has, or hasn't, agreed to the extermination. That should be settled first, and the answer is yes.

The sponsor is responsible for the units. If he AND the elderly residents won't agree to have the units treated, Barb's Board has to act. Barb also said the residents aren't capable of doing the extermination prep work. I assume they can't move furniture and all the clutter they have because of advanced age and inability to physically do it.

Barb also didn't say that these elderly have been, as you said, "left alone" by their families. Maybe they're able to live and function on their own, and the families stay in touch and check on them. We don't know that here. If so, maybe they can help in getting the elderly residents to cooperate and in preping the units for extermination. That was my point. I'm far from being elderly, but I can't move big or heavy furniture by myself either!

JB, I have aunts/uncles in their 80s too who behave younger than their years. You say that "with normal health, an older person isn't any different from you or me." I disagree. What may be "normal" for someone 85 and still spry and mentally sound isn't "normal" for someone 40-50-60. People are healthier and live longer today than ever, but with some exceptions - elderly is elderly, and just because someone may not need a guardian or health care aide doesn't mean they can move sofas, beds and heavy boxes.

As for the clutter and "hoarding" these residents have, that's very typical of elderly people, and as healthy as they may be, that still doesn't mean they don't worry about falling ill, losing control of their lives, or wondering how many more years they have if they're already 80 or 85. I don't know many healthy 40 year olds who focus on things like that.

We didn't get all the facts from Barb and it's easy to make suppositions, but one fact I see is that Barb's Board should get this situation resolved, one way or other, asap for the good of those elderly residents and everyone else in their building.

I just wanted to thank everyone for their helpful responses, especially BP.

The head of our Management Company had a long talk with one of the two tenants and I think he now understands that we have to do this, he also came away from the meeting with the phone number of local family and the tenant's permission to contact them. I'm not sure if the tenant is totally clear on exactly what is going on as there is a language issue as well but now that we have involved the family it may be under control.

Thanks so much for turning me on to "baking". It is hugely expensive and we are going with traditional extermination because of cost .........OTOH, if *I* were to get infested I would pay for a thermal treatment out of pocket.

The other tenant is a still a problem apparently he doesn't open his door for anyone ------ frankly we aren't sure he has bugs but because of his location in the building he probably does, and they will need to send a demand letter in order to get access to check.

Our board has decided to proactively treat about 20 units based on their location in the building, I will be very interested in seeing what kind of cooperation and/or resistance we get in general.

Great.... with all those 311 calls, you've now not only involved a city agency with your co-op workings, your building will have a record with it for any prospective (or not!) shareholder.

A commonsense approach would work much better, I think - these are PEOPLE. If they're elderly, they're most likely frightened they'll lose their apartment, they're scared of strangers in their home, etc.

Doesn't ANYONE in your building actually KNOW these people to talk with them? If not, glad I'm not living in your building. People in mine are much friendlier and more neighborly.

Please note the advice to Call your Doctor.VP

Symptoms
By Mayo Clinic staff
Bedbug bites

It can be difficult to distinguish bedbug bites from other insect bites. In general, the sites of bedbug bites usually are:
 Red, often with a darker red spot in the middle Itchy Arranged in a rough line or in a cluster
 Located on the face, neck, arms and hands
Some people have no reaction at all to bedbug bites, while others experience an allergic reaction that can include severe itching, blisters or hives.
When to see a doctor
If you experience allergic reactions or severe skin reactions to your bedbug bites, see your doctor for professional treatment.
LINK To: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bedbugs/DS00663/DSECTION=symptoms

the landlord aka coop board has the right ot enter where there is an infestaiton. you must enter and remedy. also, firstly, you can threatend to send the bill to the tenant for all the costs to the neighbors - they are liable if they did not themselves take steps to remedy.

In regards to trying to get access to have elderly people's apartments inspected for bed bugs, I would suggest you make contact with their immediate family members. I have many cases like this and I find that they can be a great help if you explain to them the benefits of the inspection and the protections for not only their mother and or father but all the residents in the coop including children.

How many apartments does your building have? If he is not union then he didn't get raises over the last couple of years, he should receive a raise. If the building is going to give him a raise, then give it to him as a weekly bonus, then when/if he leaves the building the next superintendent won't get the bonus only his salary.

I understand that your question asks how he relates to union supers; nevertheless, I wanted to make a few points and answer your question...

Many of my supers are either forgoing a raise this year, or receiving some benefits in lieu of a raise.

The purpose of a live in super is that they have the understanding that they are on call 24/7 and should be available for all emergencies and hour shifts (in case of snow, etc..)Unless he punches a clock, and is mandated to remain out of his apartment during those hours, I am certain he makes these hours up on his own.

A super earning 50K, plus rent, phone, electric, gas and ?? paid equates to 75-90K per year, depending on the apartment size and market value...and more if there are health and/or retirement and other benefits added.

All that said... A union super on the job for that long can make more or less depending on the benefit package, etc... but you are in line with where it should be (this is also dependant upon the building size and finances).

I suppose my point is, why are you comparing him to a union super? the whole point of being non-union is just that!
You can provide many deductable benefits that are mutually beneficial to both the super and the buildings budget and bottom line.... these ideas may be a good topic for a separate post?

Best
~AR

you must make the deadline in March and the second one in October. This is worth doing.

Your Prop Lease (and probably your House Rules) should have provisions that no Shareholder or resident can place items in the common areas including but not limited to lobbies, hallways, stairways, etc. They don't own any portion of their space outside of their interior doors, so they are unilaterally infringing on the common space of the building.

The property manager should send them a letter while you await your lawyer alerting them that they are in violation and have x amount of days to remove it or you'll go to legal action, at their cost, naturally. Letter writing is step #1. Get everything in writing, and cite the specific paragraphs that they are in violation of.

I don't blame the person,especially while she is away. Maybe she should have installed it on the inside pointing toward the front door.

This is something I should have done a while back. I could've sworn on a couple of occasions something wasn't right when I came home.

If your neighbor (she? he? you mixed genders - perhaps intentionally?) is new to the building and to co-op living, I strongly suggest you not get the lawyer involved unless he/she refuses to remove the camera at the Board's request.

A friendly but formal letter informing the Shareholder of the violations, and requesting the camera be removed within 48 hours of his/her return, is probably sufficient - if it isn't, you can always turn to the lawyer for advice. But if it IS, your Shareholder will be much happier that he/she wasn't automatically treated like a felon by the governing body of your co-op.

My 2¢ - always be friendly first.

RLM makes an excellent point about diplomacy and friendliness. If the shareholder is away, however ("on his/her return"), the Board should absolutely and immediately drape or otherwise cover the camera in some way that doesn't hurt it (no painting over the lens) to protect the privacy of fellow shareholders. And let's face it -- if there are kids on that floor, that camera is just plain creepy.

Your prop mgr should send the SH a letter ASAAP saying the camera is in violation of the house rules and must be removed within 48 hours of the letter date. Put the letter under his door (in a sealed envelope) on the letter date and send it certified/return receipt. State on it: "Hand-delivered to Apt X and via Certified mail/return receipt".

The letter should also say if the camera is not removed as required, the apt corporation will have a qualified service remove it and the SH will be billed for all charges incurred for this service.

Our roof door is locked and residents are not allowed on the roof. We had a SH who went up the fire escape to the roof and installed a satellite dish for his apt. We sent him a letter stating the above which our attorney said we could do. He didn't remove the satellite dish so we had it removed, returned the equipment to him, and billed him for the removal service. He paid the charges and there was no further issue, but it's even more important that you have that camera removed to avoid problems for the coop with other residents.

The letter should be courteous but firm. Don't let this slide, and do it asap.

Many new SHs don't read the house rules. You should advise all new SHs that it's their responsibility to read and comply with them. We include the rules in all our sale/sublet packages, and all applicants are told to read them and required to initial each page. This way, they can't say they never got the rules or they didn't know what they are.

That camera needs to come down immediately. It's up to each shareholder to be familiar with the bylaws and other provisions of the propriety lease, and also to have enough common sense to know you don't record your neighbors' and their children's comings and goings without their permission or notification. You need to have them take that camera down immediately, in your presence, before one of the neighbors or a visitor files a lawsuit against both them and your co-op/condo.

I looked into this in Forest Hills after just taking over a cooperative building and was able to get a $35,000 rebate for overcharging. This is a fluke though, as 20 other properties that I checked were correct. The expeditor that I used is Avi Naumberg and you can reach him at AviNaumberg@waterbills.com

I've had consistent success and professional guidance from Avi Naumberg, Esq. @ New York Water Mgt.Real Estate Management Consultants 405 Central Avenue, 2nd Floor, Cedarhurst, New York 11516
Phone: (516) 569-1320 or Toll Free: (888) 4-CUT-BILL
Fax: (516) 569-1344 Web: www.waterbills.com,
Email: avinaumberg@waterbills.com

I am wondering what this company (NY Water Mgmt..) charges for their service? Are they paid only if they are successful? If so, what's the percentage they receive?

At the Site map here

http://www.habitatmag.com/publication_info/site_map#water

I found the article "Fighting Back Against High Water Bills"

http://habitatmag.com/index.php/habitat/publication_content/2008_january/featured_articles_from_our_print_magazine/high_water_bills__1

I would call the Better Business Bureau and the State Attorney Generals office to see if they have any complaints lodged against them.

Wentworth, Jal, Coopersquare



Are now one company, as for JAL the former



Owner John is a racist right wing nut,



Jerry is an ex cop, with an attitude



Of a cop not a manager he never went to college,



he just finish his high school



Education.

I have many buildings with long term self amortization mortgages that I prefer NOT to refinance...
Ask... if the mtge is in place since 87... are the rates good? are they close to being debt free? is there an exorbitant prepayment penalty? is it more cost effective to keep the loan? ...there are many good reasons for this... Any sponsor would want a lower mortgage just as you the shareholder would; and most management companies earn 1/2-1% on the refinance so it would behoove them to refinance the overlying mortgage also..... (We recently paid off a 1986 mortgage in full and the smaller Coop has no mortgage or other debt now and is in a great financial position no matter how the economy turns!)

That being said:
As the first poster put it, the BBB and the AG are best... Also, ask around. As you see below, some people are more than happy to badmouth a company and give out information that are not on record.... Just be careful that you are listening to proven fact and not just the opinion of someone who was disgruntled with them.

Best
~AR

I believe so, down the road when you have to go to Court, you should have a paper trail!

We just ended a court case, I wont go into the details, BUT,,, the fact that for years there was no mention of the problem/situation -- in the Board min, was a very BIG issue with the judge. The owner had been on the Board all those years, and with a complient board, kept his situation out of the min.
We learned that Board min are not only a legal record, but can also help in traceing leaks/strutcual problems and problem owners/tenets. As oppose to putting in the name of the owner/tenet you can put in the apartment number.
I strongly advise all Boards to start looking at the min, as an important record for future boards. VP

When you say "the owner," do you mean the sponsor or just a shareholder?

The owner is a Shareholder. However, it would make no diffrence. The Board min are a valuable/legal record of everything that goes on in the building.

you must be vERY careful to be very accurate and have good faith when evicting someone for non-financial reasons. do not be biased, in accurate, have unfounded accusations or discriminate or you place the coop at risk.

Corporate minutes are valuable to any case. They can also hurt the Board if not written properly, so many secretaries are vague as not to cause undue liability, some do not include items as not to scare buyers, and for many other reasons... But when you get before a judge, you better have everything in order. Yes, make mention of it in the minutes; no, do not add every detail.

In short: Have a separate log and/or record with all documents very well kept, keep your minutes short, to the point, descriptive of the matter at that pint in time, but not so much of the discussions themselves or the participants (unless you make third party reference to an attorney opinion, etc)

i.e. The board was advised by Larry Lawyer to commence a holdover proceeding against a shareholder for failure to clean their apartment and creating a fire hazard for the building.
A vote was taken and the Board agrees with the opinion of Council.

(This was an actual case we had in one Coop I manage - we won and the Coop recovered the apartment!)

Best
~AR

I thought, in order to be price fixing, there must be cahoot. Who's the other party? Remember, the board has the right of first refusal. Buy it and resale it.

The main reason for a board to reject a low price offer on a coop unit happens to be value of the other units. When units are financed through a bank, there is a bank lender's questionnaire to fill to arrive to the right value of the unit (bank appraisal). If units have sold at a low price in a coop, banks will not be willng to lend money for a unit at a much higher value. Consequently, the price of the other units suffer. In a down or stagnant market, a low price may be rejected by some co-op boards in fear that the units will be devalued.

In a coop there is no right of first refusal. The Board just refuses for a reason or no reason at all. A low price is a common excuse in some co-ops.

AdC

You live in a co-op. Your apartment is in the same line as one for sale. You're about to put yours on the market, and suddenly the other guy drops his price substantially because he's desperate for an offer (maybe he used the wrong real estate agent who doesn't know the neighborhood and wasted 6 months of listing. Maybe the shareholder is selling it himself. Maybe he's in dire financial need and in danger of foreclosure). And suddenly, YOUR apartment is worth a lot less than it should be, because "the comps" reflect lowered pricing on his apartment. (This actually happened in our co-op; the second owner was denied more than $50K of sale price the very day before he was going to put his apartment on the market.)

Lowball prices can ruin a co-op's value really quickly. A board that's cognizant of its fiduciary responsibilities may feel it has no choice but to reject an offer it feels is too low. And yes, before allowing an offer that's too low to go through, I think the board might consider purchasing and holding on to it until the market's better if the co-op can afford it.

I agree with RLM. We had to do this in our coop and later found out the 'agent' wanted the unit for his own profit.

I don't think fiduciary responsiblity stretches to the point in which you will be protecting the market price of certain apartments when they are listed. There are many reasons why an apartment is listed and sold for less price:

1. You mentioned financial hardship of a particular individual.
2. The need to sell immediately to relocate rather than subletting or leaving an empty apartment.
3. You bought low years ago and have flexibility in the price you accept.
4. A handyman's apartment (i.e., unrenovated and in need or major work)on the same line v. a move-in, totally renovated apartment which commands greater price.

However, the main reason why Boards worry is the drop in appraisal value of apartments and the ability to obtain financing on units with higher prices.

Unfortunately, Boards do not worry nor have any power in forcing residents to improve their units and to keep them at a certain minimum statndard. This may be the cause of disparity in prices. The conditions of a unit are major considerations when selling a unit. I have seen units with the same layout and on the same line that require a minimum of $25K in basic updates and repairs. These units can only be sold at a low price so there is an incentive to renovate. As you may know, you cannot request a share loan above and beyond the asking price to conduct renovations. Consequently, unless you have the cash for renovations or you refinance the unit at a later time or request a personal loan at a higher interest, the unit may not be renovated.

I would say, Boards should be extremely happy when residents renovate and take pride in their units. Therefore, if the person buying the unit has the intention to renovate a neglected unit, tne purchaser will demand the market price at the time to sell. In the case of the shareholder who could not sell at a higher price, extra time will be necessary to find the ideal buyer or reduce the price if necessary if the wait becomes too long.

AdC

"...However, the main reason why Boards worry is the drop in appraisal value of apartments and the ability to obtain financing on units with higher prices...."

If I may add... that most of the time, it is a self serving concern as they feel the value of their own unit is being compromised, but as AdC pointed out, and I will plainly state, they may be too short sighted or narrow minded to make or draw an ingenuous assessment of the current situation and wind up doing more harm than good in the long run… Did that make sense!?

~AR

I agree with AdC, Right of First Refusal is in a Condo not in a Co-op.

If you have access to the Habitat article archive, read this:
http://www.habitatmag.com/archive/p_view_article.php?article_id=3803

An excerpt:

[A board member] asked, "Legally, can boards even set minimums?" In Manhattan and the Bronx, the courts have said, "Yes, you can." In Westchester, Queens, and Staten Island, it’s been, "No, you can’t." The logic in each case was contradictory. ... No higher court has ever reviewed the conflicting rulings.

The buiilding Super/Resident Manager should seal the smokers apt as well as the adjacent apts to prevent the smoke for entering the non-smokers apt. Also the smoker has to properly vent his/her apt.