A Bad Idea for Co-ops A Critique of Intro 119

We've all heard the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." The old saw applies to legislation as well. We've often seen laws passed with what seemed to be the best intentions, only to discover later that they have left a trail of ruin behind them.

The bad news is that we are on the cusp of seeing just such a law being passed by the New York City Council. This bill will have such a detrimental effect on co-op owners in Queens, I was surprised to find many of its sponsors are the elected representatives of those same owners. I can only conclude that they have not read their own bill—or that they haven't spoken to any of the co-op leaders in their district.

About Intro 119

The bill in question is "Intro No. 119" and it would require co-ops to provide a "specific reason" for rejection of any potential purchaser. Sure, to the uninitiated it sounds harmless and reasonable—who would oppose a bill called "The Fair and Prompt Disclosure Law" anyway?

But to co-op presidents like myself who are responsible for co-op finances and the monthly maintenance fees, it spells disaster with a capital D. Intro 119 is an unfunded mandate being forced down the throats of working class co-ops by the same councilmen whose districts will be financially impacted by the bill. This bill is likely to increase monthly co-op charges as it opens the floodgates of litigation, and makes the already difficult task of recruiting volunteer board members next to impossible. I have re-dubbed it the "2007 Attorneys' Full Employment Act."

Here in Glen Oaks Village, a volunteer admissions committee created by the board screens all new applicants. This screening process is what sets co-ops apart from other types of home ownership. Screening is done not to hassle people, but to insure that all co-op residents truly understand the nature of co-op living. Living in a co-op is more akin to living in a fish bowl than residing in a private home. You have neighbors not only on both sides of you, but also above and below you. This close proximity to one another creates all sorts of problems that homeowners rarely face.

Read More...

Related Articles

A Look at the Westchester CCAC

A Sounding Board for the County's Co-ops and Condos

Q&A: When Someone Is Refused Ownership

Q&A: When Someone Is Refused Ownership

On Board

On Board

 

4 Comments

  • I think the board should explain the reason why someone was rejected.
  • Maybe the board that Mr. Friedrich serves is an honest board that only want the best intentions for all the shareholders, but know first hand how board members in my coop uses their power to make more profit for themselves, makes the law for coops to reveal board rejections much more important than ever. Board members can really ruin shareholders financial lives. I will never buy another coop because of the misconduct and illegal things the board in my building transgresses!
  • How and who do you contact to bring suit where you are personally treated differently then other scareholders who hold the same type of stock as you do. Are their Fed., St. and City agencies that handle these matters?
  • My husband and I are going through this terrible process now. It seems that the co-op that we are trying to purchase is in the midst of a board turnover and there is some sort of power/control struggle occuring between the old and the new guard. According to our agent and the seller's agent, we are undoubtedly qualified financially, (putting 40% down), qualified as individuals who are honest and good citizens, and qualified in every other sense or nonsense. The issue may be that our 18 year old son will be living in the studio loft where he is attending a major university. We own our own very successful, stable company, are both licensed healthcare professionals who possess graduate degrees, and are involved in our community. My feeling at this time (as the board is handed the package to re-review) is that we are too good for this co-op and do not deserve the treatment that we have been receiving. If people like my husband and I do not clear their assessments, then many others will not and it will be impossible to sell our co op in the future. Owners of co-ops need to ascertain that the values of their shares are not lowered because some egotistical meathead at the helm believes that closing the doors to many makes the coop "exclusive". Well, we live in a very "exclusive" neighborhood in Palm Beach County that these board members could only dream of. I do not wish to have my dreams turned to nightmares by a board that is discriminatory. I understand the need to maintain financial stability, but who is to say who will be successful in a few years from now? If the bank approves us, the co op board should also. Since I am the "victim" of an empty nest, I believe I will spend more time investigating this issue, seeking legal assistance (it's free in the family). Who knows, perhaps there is a trip to DC in my future. To discriminatory co op boards: be scared, be very scared