I did a full podcast with this with Greg Quattlander from NY Plumbing, and you may find it useful. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/20-local-law-152-2016-gas-inspections-greg-quattlander/id1316217394?i=1000457877512

Valid questions and concerns. We have also wrestled with the long term effects of cell towers.

I agree that there is no definitive long term info out there and because of that, we have declined to install it in our co-op. For us, it would be like taking blood money at this time.

I'm no expert by any means, but I wonder how much 'radiation' would penetrate downward as opposed to outward from the building, thinking I would feel better under it than across the street from it.

I *am* an engineer, but unfortunately not with the specialties you are looking for. :-) The reason we might notice a proliferation of cellphone towers is not because the Deep State (or your conspiracy group du jour) is trying to exercise mind control by pumping more radiation into our frail physiques, but the opposite. GSM cellphones, the current and almost universal technology, uses less energy than CDMA cellphones. Thus you need more towers for the same coverage area.

GSM is much more directional than CDMA, and JG is correct that as much energy as possible is beamed horizontally. Verizon, AT&T and the like don't obtain any revenue by turning an apartment building into a giant microwave oven. The antennas are aimed, and I would bet there is shielding at the base of the antenna to prevent any leaks into the building.

We're constantly bombarded by radiation from many sources. Cosmic radiation, solar radiation, CT scans, dental X-rays, etc. We've been exposed to all sorts of radiation for so long that the Zombie Apocolypse would have occurred long before now.

But don't believe me. Here's a link to a July, 2019 article in the NY Times about this very topic https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html . Another good website for debunking conspiracies, myths, urban legends and such is snopes.com

Anything new and not easily understood will frighten segments of the population. So let's look on the brighter side. 5G radiation irradiates and kills the coronavirus. How about that for a benefit!! Prove me wrong! <chuckling>

That all sounds great, but the issue I have is that a cell carrier performed an RF test on our rooftop and within the penthouse areas and found that the radiation bleed is more than 10X the permissible or regulatory limits for safety. Their solution? If they place signs inside and barriers outside, it somehow becomes legal.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with conspiracy, its blatant greed and should be criminal to permit anything over any reasonable (whatever that is) limits. There is no denying that RF of all types are harmful to the human body (which is a virtual electromagnetic antenna). 5G spectrum have been used and weaponized by the military for years.
but that, along with the deep state theories aside... Q
BTW - whos checking the fact checkers? Snopes is soros funded!
So the original posted question was placed as an inquiry as to how to best limit liability, exposure and to see what others who have sites are doing in regard to this,,, I am still seeking someone to create a baseline RF safety report independent of the carrier.

you are not alone in having shareholders that are disheartened.  I have the same situation in my co-op,

There have been many people who have run or wanted to run for the board but once the current board members and property manager got wind of the candidates, the retaliation began.

Little by little people started to back away, so far away that they stopped coming to meeting or giving their proxies to be voted on their behalf. 

It is difficult to get these shareholders back once they have had their cars damaged, their beautiful gardens that they planted destroyed and were last on the list for any repairs or any type of service.

However, we did get a petition together by gathering a brave group of people from various sections, going door to door to get signatures.  We were successful and with our request for a Special Meeting following the guidelines of our by-law, we were able to stop the few real mostly dummy cameras from being installed. BTW the cameras were from a friend on the board.

As far as the shareholder list section 624 of BCL, I believe you can review the list even write down information but the list only shows the name number of shares and possible unit number. 

Shareholder addresses are to be kept and recorded but the shareholders addresses are confidential except to the person(s) who have fiduciary responsibilities, agents or attorneys and would be needed if legal action was brought against the board.

If a shareholder wants their name redacted from the list seen by other shareholders, an affidavits can be drawn up to protect their privacy.

In the link below it states “For starters, according to the BCL (Section 607), “Upon request, any shareholder is entitled to receive a list of all shareholders [in the building], with the addresses of any non-residents.”  It only mentions address of non-residents.

https://cooperator.com/article/i-got-rights/full

I worked for a large financial institution.. we did not even give the shareholders name. They were referenced by a number. Since co-op are governed by the same laws. I would say you would not be able to see addresses.

https://www.upcounsel.com/lectl-access-to-shareholder-lists-who-and-how

Sounds like the co-op's attorney needs to get involved immediately. What you voted on is not what is now written in the amended by laws. Therefore, the new amended by laws as now written were never approved by a vote of the shareholders at the special meeting.

From my experience, the wording in the proposed by law amendment must be exactly the same as the written by law amendment after the voting takes place.

Some questions come to mind:

Was the attorney present at the special meeting?
Did the attorney draft the proposed by law amendment?

Speak to that attorney ASAP. Good luck.

Thank you Marty and NYC.

The proposal was drafted by one Board member (in consultation with her own personal attorney). Some shareholders had encouraged the Board to invite our attorney for a discussion prior to the vote but the Board refused.

In various emails, we were told by the Board that our attorneys had "vetted the proposal's legality and language;" "reviewed the amendment for legality and clarity of language;" " "this plain language document has been vetted by our attorney at...for clarity and legal precedent...;" and "It has been carefully reviewed by the Co-op attorney." We don't know for sure that the co-op's attorney actually approved the document that was mailed to us purporting to be the new By-Laws. There was a Certification included from our secretary that said "I hereby certify that the annexed document is a true and accurate copy of the By-laws of the Corporation and that said By-laws are in full force and effect as of October 28, 2019, and have been properly amended as of October 28, 2019." Nowhere does she say they were voted on on that date.

You are being handed a bunch a gobbledygook with the "various emails" explanation. Of course the motion must be vetted for legality and clarity of language - but it's supposed to be done by the co-op's attorney, not the personal attorney of a Board member. That doesn't pass the smell test. Keep in mind what Judge Judy says: "If it doesn't make sense then it's probably not true."

This tells me that your co-op's attorney has probably no idea what's going on - only because he/she has been intentionally kept out of the loop. That raises red flags.

If this is such an honestly drafted amendment, then why has the Board operated in such secrecy about it? Why is the Board paying money to retain an attorney and then not use him/her for such an important matter such as a by law amendment? You know the answer.

Bottom line - as you stated, what was voted on is NOT what's now being presented as having been voted on. That is illegal and invalid. NYC and I agree on this.

There's something very rotten going on here with this Board and it can impact the lives of everyone in the co-op. Someone has got to stop this. You've taken the first step by reaching out here for opinions. Take this ball and run with it - straight to your attorney.

My suggestion is to call the co-op's attorney and personally meet with him/her to show him/her this conversation that we are having here on Board Talk. I think your attorney will be very surprised, among other emotions.

Best of luck.

I have to agree. According to Roberts Rules "The proposed amendment, has to be precisely worded". As was it was in notice of special meeting.

You’d need to check with the rules of your particular 401K plan. I think that most plans allow it, but make 100% sure about your own plan before doing anything.

401k's allow for hardship withdrawals which you don't have to pay back. For example paying a house, dental bills, Dr. bills. The other one is a loan against your 401k this allows you to pay back into your 401k every payday.
I chose the Hardship withdrawal. Talk to your human resources or the person in charge of 401k's. You'll need to fill out papers if you chose a hardship withdrawal. Best of Luck and let us know what you decide.

Systems like GateGuard® (which is only $49.99/mo) will ring your phone, iPhone, Android, or tablets which you can put anywhere in your apartment.

It's a massive waste of money to install on-wall units. (Those who want on-wall units can get them from GateGuard, and they can use existing wiring saving you many thousands on labor. Or they can mount a Samsung tablet to the wall and get the same functionality from the GateGuard app).

Hundreds of buildings across NYC and North America use GateGuard. It's impact resistant, works in all weather, is insured (if it fails they'll replace it free!), and they install it themselves so you're not paying thousands in markups to a 3rd party installer. You'll see them all over NYC, the glowing blue screens.

Https://teman.com/GateGuard

(if the history of this board is any judge, sadly you'll now see ugly replies and false accusations from guys trying to push cheap Chinese knockoffs and sell their expensive installation services... Buyer beware. Speak directly to the sources!)

If the system is needed, the Board can certainly choose to assess if the funds are not in reserve or on hand. The mechanics of the assessment are also at the discretion of the Board.
I have a building where we did a complete system, which allows for a basic panel in the apartment (also has mobile capabilities), and multiple individual upgrade options for the interior panels. The building supplied a basic panel and Shareholders have the opportunity to upgrade at their own cost. Any and all upgrades are become a part of the building system and remain as such.
Consequently, the repairs and ongoing maintenance is a building responsibility.

I hope that helps
~AR

We need to upgrade our intercom system, but residents have very fierce opinions about whether the system should be mobile or with built in panels (like the original system in the building). We have struggled to find a solution that offers both, as you have mentioned above.

AR, would love to know (by name) what systems you used to achieve this, or if anyone else had recommendations.

Our system has a low up front cost, with low monthly fees, yet provides award winning services, that no other systems in the market can do. You can also use the system with wall mounted tables, as well as your mobile phone, so you still have the indoor unit option.
Check us out.

www.MVIsystems.com

From my experience, it does take a while... NYS does make these types of errors and it is important for your manager and you to stay atop of it because it can fall through the cracks if not.
You may also call the City of New York Department of Finance 311 Hot Line help center yourself to check on the status.

I know this seems like a nightmare, but it can be solved. Your problem is quite common. The city often makes mistakes when adding or subtracting a name.

First of all, the co-op real estate abatement is administered by NYC, not NYS. That means you need to contact a city agency to help you. That agency is the Dept of Finance.

The person we dealt with 2 years ago is Sheelah Feinberg. Her email is FeinbergSA@finance.nyc.gov. She was very helpful in resolving our issues, correcting our account, and getting refunds paid to the shareholders who were entitled to receive them.

I would contact her with the subject line reading "Abatement error made. Please help".

I would then describe the situation as you have done here. I will say that it will likely take several months for the error to be corrected, but at least you'll get your foot in the door by contacting Sheila. I know it's hard because you're frustrated and angry, but remain calm and polite with Sheila. She didn't cause the problem, but she'll be helping you fix it, so smile a lot and hang in there.

She will need to send forms to you or more likely, your management company. Ask her and your management company to copy you on every email between her and management, so you can stay in the loop. Those forms will need to be completed and returned to her. The info needed includes your co-op's block and lot numbers. Then the DOF can begin to correct your account and get it where it needs to be.

I think you're being told a story when your mgt company said that the law has changed. It hasn't changed as far as I know. Your apartment ALWAYS had to be your primary residence in order to receive the Co-op R/E abatement.

Please be patient since this is going to take time. But, it will get fixed.

Something you said should be confirmed with Sheila or your mgt company. You became a s/h in Jan 2018. Your husband was already a shareholder. My understanding is that you don't get extra abatement because there's 2 of you living there instead of one. Whether it's your husband alone or you and your husband, your R/E co-op abatement should be same amount - as long as it's the primary residence. Adding your name to the account should not affect the amount received.

Good luck and be patient.

I'm giving you a link to see what the abatement change form looks like.

Google "NYC Department of Finance Cooperative Property Tax Abatement Change Form".

The 4th item from the top will say "[XLS] abatement renewal and change form - NYC.gov".

Click on this link and open it. This will be the excel form used to input the changes that you need. At row 39/40 of the excel sheet you'll see the word "Continue". Click on it.

This will put you into Section B. This is the section where the necessary changes need to be input BY YOUR MANAGEMENT COMPANY and given to the Dept of Finance.

Thank you for the input Marty and REAPLLC! This is very helpful. Marty, thank you for the links and the time you took to detail all of this.

So, it's now a year ago, that we were incorrectly charged the abatement tax. I've email contacted individuals (through recommendations which I appreciated) from the NYS DOF who said they would look at my case, but I never heard from them again. This is after emailing a follow-up asking for any updates. I then went direct to the NYS DOF website and submitted the details there, in hopes someone can look into my case, but within 24 hours, I received a "case closed" reply, with this response:
----
Although you completed the application to establish your primary residence with your managing agent, they must relay this information to Department of Finance by listing you/unit on a co-op/condo change form. Please provide a copy of the change form listing the added owner for the 2018/19 tax year.
Thank you for contacting the New York City Department of Finance.
----

The managing agent for my coop claims they DID take care of this, and that it's the DOF that is causing the delay, and not them. Even one of the board members mentioned that this has happened before, but never took this long to resolve. I'm at my wits end, and because of what's going on with the Covid-19 situation, I don't know if now is the time to expect any movement.

This is now happening to me with my condo. Two days after I closed on my unit, I emailed management to confirm they knew I was using the apartment as my primary residence, knowing I would be eligible for the abatement. Management said they would update the register when received from the city. (Already annoyed that they weren't taking a proactive approach, they can log into the system to update it.) I thought nothing of it, but come to find out that I have not been receiving the abatement for the last two years and the only other apartment that recently closed hasn't been receiving it for three years. Management insists they updated the system and this has happened before and that it's their word against the city. They also said they have a tough time trying to recoup the funds.

I am furious. If my management knows its an issue with their other buildings, I would ensure my changes were well documented prior to the February 15th deadline. I feel it's my management's fault. And if I don't get the credit back from the city, I would like to go after my management / my building to receive the difference.

Any else have recent luck on this?

One of the stupidest and most infuriating tax changes of recent years is the "primary residence" nonsense you're talking about. The coop/condo tax abatement was intended to correct a palpably unfair tax rate for coops and condos when compared to houses, and was not in any sense a tax giveaway for wealthy homeowners. Years down the road, sanctimonious idiots got the wrong idea and slapped on the "primary residence" requirement.

To make things worse, the city has been utterly incompetent at managing its own books on this. One couple in our building had lived here for years when they were suddenly removed from the primary-residence rolls. Why? No one knows. Some brain-damaged bureaucrat hit the wrong button somewhere. So this poor couple didn't get their abatement that year, or the next. Finally, the city owned up to its error and the abatements were eventually granted retroactively.

Another couple moved in about three years ago and the primary-residence paperwork was immediately filed. There is proof it was filed. The city doesn't care. Year after year, this couple never gets their abatement. They are justifiably angry. There is nothing else we know to do. There's no doubt the managing agent and the shareholders did everything they were supposed to do.

I don't know of any solution to this other than (a) vote out everyone who is in charge of appointing these dolts and refuses to fire them, and (b) reform the tax system so coops and condos are taxed at a fair rate without the abatement band-aid.

This is for JC, Scott, and anyone else having the same R/E tax abatement issues.

First I want to confirm we're discussing Co-ops and not Condos because they're treated very differently. I'm assuming we're talking about co-ops only.

This really is a problem with the NYC DoF and not your managing agent. Knowing about a problem and being able to do something about it when it involves an NYC or NYS agency are worlds apart. COVID has exacerbated an already horrible situation. With these agencies, you'll have to walk a thin line between being a PITA and being sweetness and light.

A few shareholders in my building are having the same issues so it's not just you or your MA. You *will* eventually receive what you are due. It will just take longer.

Keep on Truckking'...
--- Steve

We do our flip tax based simply on a $$ per share basis. It makes things much less complicated.

Having said that, I agree that the co-op can't limit attorney fees and other similar charges. Those charges are set by the attorney and banks and have nothing to do with the co-op. It IS none of the co-op's business.

However, if your Board wanted to limit those fees as far as incorporating them into a flip tax formula, that would seem to be within the jurisdiction of your Board.

Perhaps your Board should look into making life easier by comparing your present flip tax calculation with a flip tax based on $$ per share. The difference may be small enough that it's just easier for all if you do it on a $$ per share basis.

A few thoughts...

First thing to do is check your by-laws. They probably state who can serve as a Board member. Mine state that the Board member must be a shareholder in the corporation. If yours state the same thing and the mgt person is not a shareholder, then they must be removed from the Board immediately.

How did you learn that the mgt person listed as a Board member? Just curious.

You say there was one vacancy on the Board, but no one wanted to run. In these situations, the Board usually has the leeway to fill or not fill that position until the next election.

Good luck

Thanks Marty, I am not at liberty to discuss how I became privy to this information.

Our by-laws do say that to be on the board you must be a shareholder in good standing and yes when there is an empty seat, the board can appoint someone until next election.

Secret or not? The main problem is share holders don't want to serve on the board. This creates a problem in so many ways. Everyone should get involved at least once (become a board member) It's not hard to be one. It doesn't take up much time. Plus you can get involved in what is happening in your building. The most important thing is Communication and communicate with the share holders this will stop rumors. Best of Luck in running for the board.

Thanks, Great advice. Much easier said than done, especially if the current board members are determined to keep their seat no matter what Hopefully next proxy season will bring positive change.

Is the managing agent also managing for the sponsor?
The sponsor may be entitled to hold a seat, and that would be the one the managing agent is legally able to hold.

No, but thanks for the input.