3 ms·

I'm sympathetic to their plight, and wish them to get a good payout, but this is the basic contract of a Condo - You don't own the building, you own a slice of

I'm sympathetic to their plight, and wish them to get a good payout, but this is the basic contract of a Condo - You don't own the building, you own a slice of it, and if everyone else wants out you're gonna have to agree. They never owned their home. They owned a share in a compact that owned their home. Where to draw the line between the rights of the majority to implement rules and the rights of the minority to refuse them is one of the central problems of civics, and there's no one right answer.

pram 4y ago
Sometimes it's even worse than that. I had a condo and then I discovered all the units were on land that was just a 99 year leasehold. The whole thing had an expiry date no matter what lol
- grugagag 4y ago
  I think it should be illegal to not disclose that info when you buy. But I guess it worked out for you when you passed the buck and sold it to somebody else…
zajio1am 4y ago
Here, owning the condo flat means being first-class property owner, registered in public real estate cadastre, like any other real estate, while a homeowner association manages common/external parts of the building, it does not own them, and has limited authority to tasks strictly defined by law. It seems strange to me that condo ownership in US is so much weaker. > They never owned their home. They owned a share in a compact that owned their home That is pretty much housing cooperatives works here, while condos provides much higher legal certainty by registering members as individual flat owners.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  Just FYI, nobody else knows where your "here" is.
- refurb 4y ago
  There are multiple options in the US, the one in the article is only one type. - you can own a “share” in a building where you have exclusive use of a part of it (tenancy in common in CA) - you can own a unit within a multi-unit building (the entire building be a defined piece of real estate) - you can own a legally separate unit that is a stand alone piece of real estate
kwere 4y ago
In Europe you own a property inside a building and the condo is represented only by its own hoa that manages common spaces and handle simpler stuffs, nobody can force on you something more serious than cutting noises at 10 pm
- somewhereoutth 4y ago
  Indeed. This seems another example of how Very Bad Things can happen to almost anyone apparently randomly in the US. In Europe we've legislated much of this sort of thing away - you have to try really hard to screw things up for yourself. First thing I noticed back in Europe after returning from a couple of years in the US - nobody was afraid.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I think here this type of activity would be possible. But solution is simply buy one from big enough company(special type of company). Thus it would be unlikely that anyone is able to gain majority and in fights there is likely enough people on sensible side. Like where I live has 126 units. No one is going to own more than half of them. And big corporations instead own entire similar buildings next door.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
The thing is, efficient use of population and better housing supply relies on one thing: building vertically, and the "condo" building is a core entity for doing so. Hammering out good and fair law to underpin this is important for many environmental and sustainable reasons. The bylaws may technically allow this, but should it legally stand given basic rights? The key thing here is to draaaaaggggg this out. Their desired state: stay in the condo. If they can drag it out a decade or so, it'll cost the investment people money as well. Time is on their side, if they can get it.
HWR_14 4y ago
While it's a balancing act, they bought it with the legal understanding that they could veto certain actions because those required 100% agreement. Surely it's fine print BS to say "sure, X requires you to agree, but modifying the agreement so you no longer have to agree in the future and then immediately holding another vote does not require you to agree". At that point, there is literally no value to the first part of that sentence.

pram 4y ago

Sometimes it's even worse than that. I had a condo and then I discovered all the units were on land that was just a 99 year leasehold. The whole thing had an expiry date no matter what lol

grugagag 4y ago
I think it should be illegal to not disclose that info when you buy. But I guess it worked out for you when you passed the buck and sold it to somebody else…

zajio1am 4y ago

Here, owning the condo flat means being first-class property owner, registered in public real estate cadastre, like any other real estate, while a homeowner association manages common/external parts of the building, it does not own them, and has limited authority to tasks strictly defined by law. It seems strange to me that condo ownership in US is so much weaker. > They never owned their home. They owned a share in a compact that owned their home That is pretty much housing cooperatives works here, while condos provides much higher legal certainty by registering members as individual flat owners.

listenallyall 4y ago
Just FYI, nobody else knows where your "here" is.
refurb 4y ago
There are multiple options in the US, the one in the article is only one type. - you can own a “share” in a building where you have exclusive use of a part of it (tenancy in common in CA) - you can own a unit within a multi-unit building (the entire building be a defined piece of real estate) - you can own a legally separate unit that is a stand alone piece of real estate

kwere 4y ago

In Europe you own a property inside a building and the condo is represented only by its own hoa that manages common spaces and handle simpler stuffs, nobody can force on you something more serious than cutting noises at 10 pm

somewhereoutth 4y ago
Indeed. This seems another example of how Very Bad Things can happen to almost anyone apparently randomly in the US. In Europe we've legislated much of this sort of thing away - you have to try really hard to screw things up for yourself. First thing I noticed back in Europe after returning from a couple of years in the US - nobody was afraid.
Ekaros 4y ago
I think here this type of activity would be possible. But solution is simply buy one from big enough company(special type of company). Thus it would be unlikely that anyone is able to gain majority and in fights there is likely enough people on sensible side. Like where I live has 126 units. No one is going to own more than half of them. And big corporations instead own entire similar buildings next door.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

The thing is, efficient use of population and better housing supply relies on one thing: building vertically, and the "condo" building is a core entity for doing so. Hammering out good and fair law to underpin this is important for many environmental and sustainable reasons. The bylaws may technically allow this, but should it legally stand given basic rights? The key thing here is to draaaaaggggg this out. Their desired state: stay in the condo. If they can drag it out a decade or so, it'll cost the investment people money as well. Time is on their side, if they can get it.

HWR_14 4y ago

While it's a balancing act, they bought it with the legal understanding that they could veto certain actions because those required 100% agreement. Surely it's fine print BS to say "sure, X requires you to agree, but modifying the agreement so you no longer have to agree in the future and then immediately holding another vote does not require you to agree". At that point, there is literally no value to the first part of that sentence.