This is utter nonsense. 400 pedestrians were killed by cars in the past 12 months, 1 pedestrian was killed by a cyclist. Which do you *really* believe pedestrians are afraid of?

Motorists fees go to Albany, not City Hall. Just look at who issues the license and registration.

Cyclists must pay the same gasoline tax as motorists. The only difference is that cyclists don't use gasoline.

Cyclists pay City and State income and in many cases Real Estate taxes, just like motorists. *That* is what funds the DOT to pave and maintain the streets.

Motorists on the other hand create infinitely more wear and tear on our infrastructure than cyclists, and they get to pollute the air as a bonus. Their cars require 20 times more space to park than bicycles. As for insurance, just compare how many millions of dollars in injury and property damage cars are responsible for versus the miniscule amount caused by cyclists. You're an insurance broker. How many claims and for how much have you handled in the past year against cyclists versus the same for motorists?

"Yet bicyclists are more feared by pedestrians than cars..." Quite a sweeping generalization for something that has absolutely no basis in fact. There are thousands of pedestrians who regularly stroll in the middle of the Central Park loop and coexist with hundreds of cyclists. How many pedestrians can you find strolling in the middle of Queens Blvd coexisting with cars?

Thoughts? What does an anti-cyclist rant have to do with good Co-op and Condo governance?

Statistics aside, I think the fear comes from the fact that while you can see and hear cars coming, and while cars all go the same proscribed direction on streets, bikes often move silently and pedestrians never know from where a bike will come -- behind them, in front of them. Bicyclists ride both in streets (both with and against traffic) and on sidewalks. As well, some bicyclists stop at lights and intersections, and some don't.

It's that complete unpredictability that makes bicycles scarier than cars.

both comments are on. I am a advid bicyclist, and direct action bcycle advocate.
Last night in central park twice iwas almost hit by the 2% of psychotic idiots. Once on the path next to the drive. On the plus side a bicyclist on the drive was yelling at the bicyclist to get out of the path.
However this has nothing to do with coops

Spot on. The client "Liz R" refers to is Albert Volpe. Mr Volpe is a well-known anti-bicycle agitator in the Queens CB2. He's written a number of similar screeds to various publications. I suspect it is Mr Volpe hiding behind "Liz R" who uploaded the original post in this thread.

More likely Liz R insurance Broker just wants to sell insurance.

Sorry, csuarex, but I simply don't buy that. As I questioned in my original response and reiterated by coopapartm Tumbler, what does an anti-bicycling diatribe have to do with good co-op/condo governance and what kind of insurance relating to cycling could Liz R. be trying to sell to the members of this forum?

Chill out Steven 424. Peace. I already read your original response and agree. It has no place here. I've seen other so called questions on ths site that were obviously made by people trying to sell something. To answer your question some homeowners insurance does cover a biker's liability, but that is neither her or there, this is a fear mongering question and fear mongers usually are trying to sell you something. Why do you think someone would put an anti-bicycling statement on this website? :)

Hi csuarez -- I'm chilled. :-) I actually don't think anyone was trying to make a sale here. My perception is that the original post was an attempt by a very hostile person to spread his brand of bias by hiding it behind a "re-post." But you are right. We have parsed and dissected this enough. Over and out.

Write the Mayor Office - you will get a response, guaranteed.

I think the property manager should write your city government to complain about the poor communication from them and I do think that residents should complain, individually, to your councilman.

Does your management company have anything to do with the search? Often, we will have other Superintendent's that we have on various staffs that can recommend someone who they have worked with / know. Also, you can contact the Superintendent's Technical Association to see if they have any members who would be interested in interviewing. (http://www.superstechnicalassociation.org/)

Typically Notices of Special Meetings and Annual Meetings, etc. are served upon Shareholders of the Cooperative and not the roommates of those Shareholders. If the Board has an open door policy, that is one thing, but if you would like to get technical, those 3rd parties have no relevancy to the Cooperative and do not need to be involved in any discussion / do not need to be permitted in the meetings.

Thanks

As Mark stated, the non-shareholder spouse would not have any of the shareholder's rights; speaking, voting, or otherwise.

However.... I can think of a situation where the shareholder gives his/her spouse a proxy, power of attorney, or in some other way vests his/her rights in their spouse.

If you anticipate a problem I would suggest you read though your bylaws and consult your board's attorney for what can and cannot be done to maintain control over this situation.

Elisa, in my experience with a lot of the smaller buildings that utilize those smaller (and cheaper) management companies, a lot of the laws, filings and requirements that are changing yearly are often overlooked and the lack of adherence to these will cost the building a significant amount of money and heartache in the future if left unchecked.

As you noted with the Local Law inspections (Every five years for buildings that are over 6 stories) you should have a management company or a consultant to oversee and ensure that the Board is made aware of everything that needs to be completed.

With regards to minutes and other administrative tasks, the Bylaws should be a good starting point; to ensure that the Board is adhering to the guidelines that were set forth when the Condo was established.

If you'd want to talk more about it, privately, you can always reach out (without charge, of course).

Mark Levine - mblevine@ebmg.com

Banks tend to not want to lend towards buildings that are greater than 15% of investor-owned or subleased. This is because they fear that if the tenants don't pay their rent then the unit owner(s) may have an issue paying the common charges as they were relying on that income to pay for their monthly fees.

The sooner you can get your bylaws amended by the 80% that is called for in the document to reflect the change in the sublet policy, the better off you will be. If you wait too long and greater than 20% of your units are rented out, it is more likely that you would never be able to capture the 80% approval vote as you need.

If you'd also like to make it less onerous on the owners, you can institute a sublet cap in years (no more than 3 out of every 5 years) or 3 years total, etc. You can also make it a soft-income revenue builder by charging a sublet fee to all unit owners who do choose to rent.

If your Offering Plan holds a provision for a Right of First Refusal for sales and sublets prior to their implementation, that is one tool that you have to manage the sublets as well.

You can also institute a bylaws change of policy that no rentals or subletting are allowed during the first 3 years (or 5 years) of ownership to make it financially undesirable to purchase for investment vs. domicile/residential ownership

All these are good suggestions, but they seem to be more "co-op" based than condo based. People buying into condos often assume that there are far fewer rules than in a co-op, and that they can rent out their unit for as many years as they want. There is also no "proprietary lease" in condos. How exactly can condos create, implement and enforce these rules on limitations on owner rental? In what document would such rules reside? Also, how enforceable are they? In a co-op, boards can always threaten to revoke the proprietary lease if its strictures are violated; what power do condos have in similar situations?

Hi Elisa

As a condo you do have and must abide by the 1.Rules and Regulations
2.Condo Declaration
3.ByLaws

Would need to review and see the language contained with regard to leasing of ones unit.
By Laws can be ammended usually with a 2/3 or 3/4 vote.
The penalties for not complying with bylaws or any of condo regulations can be also spelled out to the degree on severity desired.
Again a clear and concise discussion and presentation of all the negative ramfications should get enough support to pass.

My Condo in its 1979 offering plan clearly states that owners can sell or rent their unit to whoever they want. The condo does not require right of first refusal.

We don't approve tenants, or owners. Honestly between folks using it as weekend places, pied a tiers, primary homes, second homes, units in LLCs, and renting it out. And some rent it year round vs seasonal leases. We have snow birds who go to Florida and rent for winter. Leases of one month or greater is legal.

I dont know how we would even attempt to regulate this. Also in a 36 old condo with a few original owners hard to imaging enforcing the rules. Sounds good on paper, but 36 years in it is hard.

Besides the issue of renters not paying their rent on time I am seeing an issue with renters having a total disregard for house rules and recycling policies. This puts a burden on the Super, the Property Manager, and the Board.

Besides the issue of renters not paying their rent on time I am seeing an issue with renters having a total disregard for house rules and recycling policies. This puts a burden on the Super, the Property Manager, and the Board.

Although this is a bit off-topic, when the percentage of unpaid rents and occupancy charges is climbing while rules are being ignored the board should be examining its management style and policies. Substantial overdue rent coupled with widespread rule violations are often suggestive of a breakdown in one or more basic elements of operational management.

I think it may be very good that shareholders, board members, managing agents, and attorneys chime in on this serious topic. The attorney general should keep their ears and eyes open and glued to these conversations as well. Let's keep them coming, because they will come in very very handy. If you can make a list of how you feel that your investment, your home, your co op has been harmed because the sponsor(s) refuse to sell, it would be very helpful.

Rhona

While there are a handfull of options for finance for residents in high investor concentration projects... for several reasons most lenders will not approve.

The associated industry term is "unwarrantable" for a building that doesnt meet standards which today are industry wide.

There are quite a few ramifications, including direct impact to value and marketability. Some of the other concerns are not as obvious but just as important to present to the ownership. Definately seek the advice of a source familair with the intricacies associated with your building and the mortgage landscape today on a plan and ongoing review of compliance.

Many buildings have implemented strict requirements and tighter guidelines for investor owned vs owner occupied units. This scrutiny also applies to those who may now decide they want to rent their unit.

Most mortgagee and lender documents include verbiage requiring owner occupancy and in the event of a change they must be notified and the request to rent can be denied.

Making changes that bring and maintain a project to the standards and requirements of the mortgage environment we face today is a non negotiable and long overdue for those yet to make them.

Fancy locks, keys, key fobs, card swipes can be expensive but almost useless security. How often have you or someone else held the door for someone going in or out? Unless you're in a small building and you all know all the residents, it probably happens several times a day. Not to mention delivery people buzzed in or walking out allowing someone else to enter.

At least with fobs and swipes you can control the number of people that have keys, which can be duplicated and given to anyone. JG is right, no matter how many times we send out memos asking people not to let strangers in, they still do. We also had a incident where a UPS guy let in someone. We saw it on our camera system. How about a virtual doorman system, has anyone had experience with those?

I know a Coop that changes their front door keys every 2 years. This is done at their annual meeting which guarantees 100% attendance. The annual meeting is held in the lobby and as you sign in you return your keys and are handed a new key for each key you have. The current cylinder and keys are used again the next time keys are changed. They have about 3 set of cylinders with non duplication keys. No expense, security is in check and a quorum at the annual meeting. How unique is that.

They had contacted our building last year. Everything sounded good - no cost installation and maintenance of panels, they would charge us a fixed flat rate guaranteed to be less or equal to Con Ed rates, and they would profit from excess power being sold back to Con Ed. After they did a site visit, we never heard back from them. Emails, phone calls, no response. No explanation.

I remember seeing a year or two ago an interactive online map based on a survey done by a City department which showed how much sunlight every roof in NYC received and estimating how much electricity solar panels could generate. You might try to find it and use it as a starting point if you're considering installing solar panels.