Few questions:

Do you rent out the storage space?

Are there lockers that are locked, or just a central room where everyone stores their belongings with one central door that is now locked?

Do you have an agreement or a license to place your items there?

Who has access to the key for the lock? Just the employees, or all people with storage space?

the strorage space contains loose items mainly air conditioners. it also has individual lockers rented out with individual keys to them (owned by the renters of the lockers)

the key to the entire area is avialable to residents who must sign for it each time and also the staff who does not have to sign for it.

the items in question are air conditioners.

These are interesting questinos. We have one room, alternatively referred to as the recycle room or package room. It's also where bikes are stored and the supt goes through to get to his workshop. There's a lock on the door but much of the time it's left wide open with a door stop. Everyone living in the building has a key, as well as people who have moved out and took their key.

Delivered packages and discarded items are all left on the same table.

We depend on good will and good luck and it works most of the time!

I cant connect via the link since I have yahoo.

As requested- mblevine@ebmg.com

THANKS

Simple, board members are first and foremost shareholders, thus no special treatment e.g.: one can’t go to the head of the line. Butt out!!

Keep each of the lists in date of application sequence. Yes one for each parking area, e.g.; indoor upper, indoor lower, outdoor front, outdoor back, etc.

If a space becomes available in the indoor upper area, offer it to the shareholder on the top of list. If the shareholder declines, offer the space to the next shareholder, and so forth. The shareholder that declines goes to the end of the list declined with a new date, the date of offer and decline whichever is later.

Same goes for all the other spaces.

In this case a shareholder can be on all four lists. Having accepted any slot in one area, the resident remains on the other lists, untouched.

If one accepts an indoor upper space one can be still listed on the other lists. If the shareholder’s name is the next selected on any otherlist, the shareholder can either accept or decline (e.g.: go to the bottom of the list).

Even if the shareholder accepts a spot, e.g.: upper indoor, the shareholder can still go on the same list (bottom of course) in hopes of a better location at a future time.

Date of purchase has no meaning; only the date of application for one or more lists.

And, most importantly, a board member may never see the list, nor can the building manager reveal the contents of the list. Yes, the building manager must be trustworthy.

The date of closing should have nothing to do with the garage list. In our building it works on a first come first serve basis. You send a request to the managing agent and they put you on the list. When a spot becomes available the agent calls the next shareholder on the list. it doesn't make a difference if you have an indoor and outdoor if you wan tan inside spot you go on the list when you request. if no shareholder wants the spot than we can give it to outsiders.
The best is if you have your managing agent take care of the list so you don't have to get involved in any scuffle between the shareholders

Using the closing date is the only way to ensure the accuracy of the list and a fair process; otherwise you are always dealing with the human error factor.

The suggestion of multiple lists is clumsy and I believe is a waste of time for your managing agent. We maintain a single list and publish it on a regular basis. Shareholders are added to the list on request, using their closing date as the date of record. When a space becomes available, they have a period of time in which to accept or reject it. We will try to accommodate justifiable special requests, such as those for handicap access, but otherwise it's strictly a take it or leave it offer. Bottom line - keep it clean and keep it simple.

Our coop has 2 lists: the first is to get into the garage, according to the date a person asks to be listed; and the other for people already inside who want to switch parking places when one opens up. The latter has recently caused a fuss because an "insider" felt she should have first dibs to the space because she parked inside longer than the other person who asked for it (but who asked for it weeks earlier). Has anyone dealt with this situation before?

Also, does anyone have experience with shareholders who have left their name on the list, but have moved & kept their apartments? Some here firmly believe they should be offered the spot when their name comes up even if they return once a year. (Our waiting list averages 10 years). The rationale is that the shareholder might move back (and that does happen). We now have 3 people who have moved and have been offered a spot & turned it down, but their names stay at the top of the list.

I'd appreciate your input.

That's exactly why we only maintain one list. As I mentioned, we will try to accommodate extenuating circumstances but we will not shuffle people around every time a spot becomes available. That's also why we use the closing date as the date of record for the first request to remove any doubt as to who was first.

Another requirement is residency. Shareholders can live anywhere they want in the interim, but once their name rises to the top of the list, they must show proof of residency as part of the parking agreement by submitting a copy of Page 1 of their NYS tax returns with our address as primary residence. Also, their car must be registered in NYS with our address as the address of record.

Finally, if a shareholder is offered a spot and turns it down, their name comes off the list. If they wish to re-apply after refusing the offered spot, the date of record becomes the current date.

So that I understand and believe that we are following based on closing date... if a sh currently has an outdoor space and would like an indoor garage, it would be offer to the sh (when their names comes up on the list) but AFTER we have proceeded down the list to the next waiting named sh and their decision th take the apce indoor or out. They problem that we have is that when we have to go back up the list, who really knows to ask if one want an alternate space rather that simply moving down the list till it is exhausted. Comments!

You can have a fair system whether you maintain one list or multiple lists. It's something that needs to be tailored to your building. How much work are you willing to put into designing and managing your queueing system? Do you have enough disparity of resources to make multiple lists worthwhile?

For indoor vs. outdoor spaces, two lists seems like a good idea. A resident who wants a space can -- and probably will -- be on both lists. When a space becomes available, the person on top of the relevant list will be asked whether they want the space, and whether they want to remain on the other list. It doesn't matter whether they already have a parking space: if they do, they have the option of switching to the newly available space. If they decline the space, they are removed from that particular list, though they may choose to try again from the end of the line. Their queue position on the other list is unaffected.

There's also the issue that people in general are lousy at math, much less queueing theory. (I've gotten into arguments with people who honestly believe that the provably inferior "One line per cash register" algorithm is preferable to a single queue for the next available server.) You need to ensure that your system is easily understood and *perceived* as fair. If it's too complicated, people are going to suspect unfairness even where none exists.

Finally, I don't agree with using closing date to determine queue position. Suppose Mr. A moved in ten years ago and never wanted a parking space. Mr. B moved in nine years ago and *always* wanted one. One day, Mr. A has a change of heart and suddenly vaults ahead of Mr. B, who has been waiting patiently for almost a decade. How is this fair?

I don't buy the argument that closing date is the only reliable way to validate ordering. At the time the request is made, have the managing agent mail back a formal reply on letterhead stationery, noting the date and time that the person was added to the queue. A resident can use this receipt to establish priority, if necessary. Publishing the waiting list(s) on a regular basis would also help: people will know their relative position, and disputes are less likely to occur later. If someone sees that they are missing or misplaced, they can straighten things out long before they get to the top of the list.

I agree with CDT about not using the closing date as a criteria for a spot on the parking list. When a person wants to get on the parking list, they notify the property manager in writing. We distribute and post the rules so everyone is aware of them and we also post the list so people can easily see where their names are.

However, shareholders are asked over & over if they want to get in. They just stay up there at the top of the list even when they don't use this as their primary residence. One non-resident without a car was even allowed to stay at the top of the list. !?!?!

Thank you very much, Board Prez, for your reply. The residency requirement is a major matter, and your other response about turning down a spot is particularly apropos. The other criteria I'd like to see on the registration is that that person owns the vehicle.
We try to accommodate all the shareholders, but it can get out of hand, too. I'd like to see set of rules applied to everyone.
Thanks again.

Thank you to "Board Prez" as well

I don't know about the board, but I'd say Mary's friend is a vile, gossipy busybody and no friend at all. Friends don't tell other friend's secrets.

Anon - I understand why you think my friend is a "vile, gossipy busybody" but she isn't. I've known her for years. She said when Mary told her about the affair with the super, she told her board because she didn't know where this might go. At the time (about 6 mos ago), they dropped it and didn't tell anyone else about it, and still haven't.

If the SH who saw Mary and the super in a compromising situation at a restaurant last weekend didn't tell everyone in the bldg about it, this wouldn't be an issue. If anyone is a loose-lipped gossip, I think it's this SH, not my friend.

I don't know anyone in that coop except my friend. I just wondered if any posters here had any ideas on what the board there should do if this doesn't die down on its own.

Stop talking about it -- and it will go away!

Sounds like two people are trying to stir a tempest in a teapot... and should mind thier own business..

Legally, the Super or SH have done nothing wrong or to harm the Building. AliceT

The Board's job is to abide by the responsibilities dictated by the governing documents. I know there is nothing in ours about this, and I doubt it exists in the docs of any other condo or coop. Stay out of it. And ask you friend to leave you out of it. Board business is time-consuming enough.

Unless moral turpitude is involved, stand down, back away and drop it.

The behavior defined may go against one’s mores, but that’s not the value that tips the scales against the superintendent.

Whoever started any of this dialogue at the co-op needs to be smacked for disturbing the peace.

Tell the rumor (nay story) mongers to go about their lives; there’s more important agenda in the world.

I agree - the board has enough to do without getting involved in personal matters. Your concern with the super is that he does his job well. Don't give life to the gossip.

There are companies who start at $15K plus charge per unit. Habitat do an annual report around Jan. each year and it lists management companies and their pricing policies not all are listed. $30K is certainly too much for a 20 unit building.

We're in the middle of a search for a new managing agent ourselves. One of them told me the range was usually $500 - $900 per unit. So for 20 units, you ought to be able to find under $30k! We're a 40 unit building and are only looking at agents under $25k (and are finding plenty--based mainly on the Habitat Survey but also from asking around of friends in other buildings and real estate agents, for recommendations).

We maanage a number of coop & condos in the West & East village, our minimum is $1000 per month or $12,000 per year, we are based in the upper west side and would be happy to talk more to you about our serrvices or even come down to meet you and the Board &/or do a walk through of your building and do a free analysis of your buildings standing via NYC permit/registrations/billing etc. Call 212-799-2365 and ask for Carl Borenstein or Jimmy Maistre, we have refrences available for you as well.

This ad sg should be deleted as self serving crap

Obnoxious!

On it. Thanks for noting.

Our apologies. Still working on it. Tech things cropping up.

I'm Mr. Manager in the blog section of the site. The company that I own has a division in the city with an office on Bond Street. If you e-mail me I'd be happy to give you more specifics.

Mark

Try contacting Ira Meister at Matthew Adam Properties, Inc.(212) 699-8900 They do a great job in managing our building and very professional.

Hi Steve,

We use Blue Woods up here in Inwood and they have a 28th Street office too. We like them a lot. Not sure if they have a minimum fee. Call Don Wilson (owner) or our Manager, Justin, to get contact information for that local office at 718-549-7036.

Good lock :)

Call Impact Management
We have a 14 unit coop in NYC. They are great.

Hi Steve
we have a phenomenal company who does terrific management. The company's name is David Eisenstein Real Estate. I know they manage buildings in your area. Our building is 24 units and their fees are very competitive. Give Harry a call at 212-582-9080 and you wont have to look much further!!
If you have any questions feel free to respond.

The purpose of the site is to assist board members with their co-op and condominium building's. I do not believe the site is intended to be used for self promotion or negative statements. Clearly, since no one shares their true identity, Management Firms can promote themselves or make negative comments about other firms. Truly sad and cowardly.

Bren Management is an excellent company. Their number 1-212-681-1602. It just so happens that their president has a video on the front page of this website.

No.

Board members are shareholders in the corporation, right? If you applied your argument to anything financial, the Board would be unable to act. They couldn't set a budget, approve an expenditure, or change the maintenance fee.

Since there was a bike storage fee in the first place, it was the Board that voted it in.
The Board -- any board -- is charged with setting the policies of the business it oversees. If the Board doesn't vote on bike storage policies, there will be no bike storage policies.

On another note, I have to say that it's refreshing to see someone here complaining about a fee being eliminated!

Assuming that the cat lady has owned her cats for a long time, the Board is completely in the wrong. Rent control isn't an issue. Once a tenant has openly owned a pet for three months, there is nothing that can be done, and changing the House Rules doesn't alter this fact.

It doesn't matter when the House Rule was passed; that's a red herring. Otherwise, all a Board would have to do is periodically change the House Rules to allow pets for a couple of months, then change them back and claim that the three-month clock started with the passage of the "new" rule.

http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/Rent/OpinionLetters/COL-1552.htm

"Where a tenant in a multiple dwelling openly and notoriously for a period of three months or more following taking possession of a unit, harbors or has harbored a household pet or pets, [...] such lease provision [prohibiting pets] shall be deemed waived. ... It shall be unlawful for an owner or his or her agent, by express terms or otherwise, to restrict a tenant's rights as provided in this section. Any such restriction shall be unenforceable and deemed void as against public policy."

Responding to my own response: It looks like there's one provision in the Pet Law that might be of use with someone who has a jillion cats:

http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/Rent/OpinionLetters/COL-1552.htm

"The waiver provision of this section shall not apply where the harboring of a household pet causes damage to the subject premise, creates a nuisance or interferes substantially with the health, safety or welfare of other tenants or occupants of the same or adjacent building or structure."

Again, this has nothing to do with House Rules. If there's a substantial health or nuisance issue, other protections kick in.

(I'm not a lawyer; please consult your own!)

You are on the right track CDT. You can file a complaint with 311 for unsanitary conditions such as smells, improper disposal of waste etc. They actually send an inspector around to investigate We've had success with this approach as it also gives you a paper trail. Good luck.

Hi,

We have a similar elderly lady in our co-op (she rents) who had many cats. We don't have a rule limiting the number of cats but it was obvious from the smells that she was having trouble caring for them well.

The various 'extra' cats were parceled out to good homes within the co-op and she is down to 3 or 4. I am not a lawyer however my personal opinion is that no Judge would throw out an elderly lady for this rule especially is the cats are being well maintained and existed previously.

Steve

Here's the FDNY page on BBQ's:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/safety/barbeque.shtml

so MUCH fun. you have to love life!