LETTERS TO EDITOR

  

January 29, 2006

 

In recent weeks various articles in newspaper created quite a lot of interesting letters to the editors, from both sides of the fence. Just make your own mind up which side of the fence you prefer!

Owners paying price at condos without financial reserves

 

Herman Neubart

BOYNTON BEACH

Posted December 15 2005

 

Re the letter, "Ombudsman insulted boards" (Dec. 5): It is unfortunate that the letter writer's opinion was not researched before he decided to condemn Mr. Rizzo's opinion.

 

Firstly, the letter writer gave no thought to the fact that Mr. Rizzo has had the advantage of receiving and reviewing hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints registered against boards of directors for the past year or so.

 

Secondly, the letter writer should have reviewed the complaints registered against the past boards of directors where he resides.

 

It is my opinion that Mr. Rizzo's comments are valid, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.


Maintenance, reserves complex
Sun Sentinel
Virgil Rizzo 
Condominium Ombudsman State of Florida www.myflcondo.org 
Posted December 20 2005 

Recently there were opinions regarding statements in news articles about two issues that are sensitive to those who live in condominiums. 

On reserves, there have been legislative proposals that unit owners must pay into a reserve fund for future painting, roofing and paving instead of paying by special assessment when that project becomes necessary. The law requires the unit owners to make this choice by a majority vote. 

Some people want the Legislature to compel unit owners to pay up front. The office of the ombudsman has put the Legislature on notice, stating that this may not be a good practice since the money is often mismanaged and misappropriated and sometimes not used for its intended purpose. This recommendation is based on numerous complaints and inquiries received by the office.

Some directors, although well meaning, are unable to properly manage these large sums. The office recommends against mandatory funding until adequate safeguards are put into place where the reserve funds are placed in trust or escrow under competent supervision, and then used properly and only when necessary. Those who are upset at the ombudsman's position are obviously unaware of the complexity of this issue. 

As for maintenance obligations, Americas on the Park Condominium Association was embroiled in a legal battle regarding whether the association or the unit owners were individually or collectively responsible for replacing their windows. The association was headed for a lengthy and expensive legal battle that would have cost more than the replacement of the windows. 

This office suggested that the unit owners express their desire by a vote of the people. The appellate courts have held that the health, happiness and piece of mind of the majority of the residents is paramount in these situations. 

The association did adopt the recommendation and ended its dispute. Democracy prevailed. 

Divisiveness tends to polarize communities. It is not in the best interests of the unit owners to be antagonistic and self-serving. Usually a simple majority vote can provide the solution.


Editor,

Recently you published two letters to the editor criticizing the condo ombudsman. Especially the last one was very disturbing, considering it came from an attorney who works for the city attorney of Miami Beach, a city troubled by condo problems. Ms. Montoya has obviously no problems with the fact that her fellow attorneys can't make up their minds about what the existing statutes really say. Isn't it really disturbing if owners get opposing opinions from two lawyers who work for the same firm? What is wrong with this remark: "You want to live in peace and harmony!" Isn't that what we are all looking for? I don't think we are buying our homes to create a legal battleground littered with litigation.

 

The board and the owners of the Americas on the Park Condos obviously agreed at the last board meeting with Dr. Rizzo. They used common sense for their decision, not opposing legal opinions!

 

As to reserve funds? Ms. Montoya, who seems to be so concerned about the welfare of condo owners, should have done her homework before discussing the fact that lack of reserve funds is the main reason for red-tagging condo buildings. Claiming to be in the middle of this battle, Montoya should know that the reason for the problem is the lack of accountability of the board members, who seemingly failed to do their duty -- see Castle Beach Condos. The best reserve funds don't help if they are used for a different purpose than intended. Misuse of reserve funds by board members is one of the most common reasons for complaints.

 

I just received an e-mail from a condo owner who complained that his board used $8,000 of the sewer reserve fund to buy new plants. His question: "What should we do about it? The last time we complained to the DBPR they found our board guilty of violating the statutes and levied a fine. A fine we owners had to pay!"

 

Many owners will agree with Dr. Rizzo: As long as there are no legislative safeguards to prevent board members from spending reserve funds for their pet projects, reserve funds can easily be abused. Happens all the time!

 

And I really start wondering why it is always the presidents of these associations who are criticizing Dr. Rizzo. Lots of owners and board members are writing “Thank You” letters to Dr. Rizzo for his excellent work and for helping to solve many problems. But the letters criticizing his work or his statements most often start with the words: "I'm the president of my association and I was aghast ....!”

Is being president of an association a requirement not to like the Condo Ombudsman?

 

Jan Bergemann, President
Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.

e-mail: [email protected]


Dear Sun-Sentinel Editor:

I have been involved in HOA/Condo reforms for over six years and have corresponded with legislators from more than seven states.  Dr. Rizzo's comments and views in his recent letter on maintenance reserves reflects a surprising
understanding of the real issues.  Solutions to these condo and HOA problems must not be dealt with by isolated pieces of legislation, but by a comprehensive package that handles the broader problems.

In particular, unless the boards of directors of these organizations are held accountable for the trust monies of the unit owners, and penalized for violations of the governing documents as any other governing entity is expected to be held, there cannot be any just, fair and effective resolution of these problems.

G. K. Staropoli
Citizens for Constitutional Local Government
http://pvtgov.org

OMBUDSMAN INSULTED BOARDS
Len Pravda -- Boynton Beach
December 5, 2005

I am writing in response to an article, published on Wednesday, by staff writer Joe Kollin, regarding homeowners' reserve funds in which our state condo ombudsman, Virgil Rizzo, was quoted as saying, "I'm against reserves. It puts money into coffers that directors can [illegally] get into."

I am president of a homeowners' association and, if the quote is accurate, I am disappointed in Florida's choice for ombudsman. I strongly object to his implication that our board would illegally use homeowners' funds. We, the board, are also homeowners and these are our funds. Our board -- and I am certain the same holds true for many other boards -- comprises individuals who have volunteered their time and effort to make our community safe, attractive and affordable for our residents. I emphasize the "time and effort." It is no easy task for a group of seniors to listen to complaints and objections daily, create methods for getting through current crises and plan for the future. And planning for the future sometimes includes the case for reserves.

There are always two sides to the "reserve" issue. On one hand, there is the argument that "I may not be alive to see what this money will purchase." On the other is "let's pay a little each month so that I won't be hit with a large assessment."

The final decision regarding the creation or funding of reserves should be a community-board decision. For the state ombudsman to state that the directors can illegally get into the coffers is implying that directors are not working on behalf of their communities. I think Mr. Rizzo needs to rethink his position or, at least, his wording.


Rizzo's comments outrageous
Shirley Israel 
Delray Beach 
Posted December 8 2005 

I am president of my condominium and I was outraged by the comments of our ombudsman, Virgil Rizzo, regarding reserve funds. Mr. Rizzo stated, "I'm against reserves. It puts money into coffers that directors can [illegally] get into," implying that members of an association board would use funds set aside for condominium use for their own purposes.

My board has always worked for the betterment of our community. We would not dream of using our reserve funds for anything other than what they were designated for, i.e., roof reserves are used only for roofs, painting reserves for painting the buildings.

Mr. Rizzo certainly does not have a high regard for members of a condominium board. He does not realize that we are unit owners, the same as the rest of the community. Whatever we do affects us as well as the rest of the unit owners. We donate our time and energy to our community.

Gov. Jeb Bush should chastise his ombudsman for these statements.


Ghastly comments from ombudsman

Rhonda Montoya
Hasan Davie
Posted December 12 2005

I was aghast when I read the comments by condominium ombudsman Virgil Rizzo on the Americas on the Park board's decision to put in hurricane-resistant windows, specifically his statement that "The most important issue before a condominium is whether the people are happy ... not what's legally correct."

What is this man thinking? As president of my homeowners' association and legal adviser to the building and fire departments for a Miami-Dade County municipality, I find Mr. Rizzo's comments irresponsible and outrageous. Happy people are the most important thing? Not what's legally correct?

While perhaps viewed as an extreme measure on the Americas on the Park Condominium Association, it is very true that Hurricane Wilma caused substantial damage to condos, particularly older, existing buildings. In the city in which I am employed, we condemned over 30 buildings. And, while the price to replace their windows may be steep for the individual unit owners, their homeowner's insurance deductible is probably at least as high.

I also recall a similarly idiotic statement from Mr. Rizzo, who stated in a previous article that he was in favor of condominiums not having any reserves, as it was just money that boards could illegally divert. Again, how irresponsible! Condos in South Florida have been vacated because of lack of maintenance and find that because there were no reserves, any emergency project cannot be undertaken, which can begin a domino effect, leading to a building being red-tagged with the unit owners then being faced with either staggering special assessments or searching in vain for bank financing, which is next to impossible for a building deemed an unsafe structure.

Mr. Rizzo's off-the-cuff remarks and cavalier attitude toward serious issues involving condominiums dictate that he should be immediately removed from that office.




 

Letters To Editor To These Articles:

Combatants raise stakes in suburb wars

Statewide condo alliance taking agenda to Tallahassee

 

Boards' excesses

Sherwood Federman

Boynton Beach

Posted December 29 2005

 

Living in a homeowner's association is like living in a Communist regime. Neighbors watching and spying on neighbors is not the American way.

 

The Cyber Citizens for Justice group seems to have the best handle on exposing the excesses of these overzealous boards.


Condo `coalition' has other agenda
Jan Bergemann 
President, Cyber Citizens for Justice, Deland 
Posted January 1 2006 

It always amazes me that people who have a special interest agenda are willing to come out stating they have the best interests of the consumers in mind. The new "coalition" formed by members of the Community Associations Institute, a trade organization of condo association service providers, is again using twisted numbers and statements to promote its goals. 

We are aware that service providers may not like to be regulated. It's always easier to milk owners for easy financial gain if there is no oversight and no accountability. 

An organization that is formed to fight a consumer group that is asking for education of association members, accountability of the people in charge of other people's homes and welfare, easy enforcement of existing law and fair association elections can only have one agenda: Making sure that the cash-flow, created by fleecing owners in associations, doesn't stop!

Don't hide behind the false claim of representing millions of people. Most of these people you are claiming to represent just want one thing: A nice home in a peaceful community with neighbors being neighborly.. 


Disgruntled Homeowners

Rauni Armbruster, Phoenix,  AZ.  85053
Posted January 2 2006 

In response to Mr Herman's letter,  regarding "disgruntled homeowners"  he fails to mention that the Rules,  agreed upon when the purchase is made,  are often changed by the whims of the Board,  without regard or consideration of the homeowners.  Yes,  the Board members are residents also,  however,  they set everything up to make themselves the miniature Monarchy of the community.  There is much documentation nationwide about these so-called elections and the corruption therein,  with no checks & balances or governmental oversight.  These "management companies"  while being licensed,  are still hired & paid by the current Board of Directors and have a vested interest in seeing that the regime doesn't change,  because that change,  could end their contracts,  and all of the wonderful contracts they disperse through their managerial positions.  Finally,  most homeowners are decent law abiding citizens who just want to own their homes and live their lives free from the constant harrassment of the few members of a Board of Directors who obviously do not have lives of their own to live,  and therefore,  live to govern the lives of their neighbors.
The HOA concept,  is an abomination to everything the United States of America was founded upon,  and the Freedoms and Rights inheirent to the Country,  are not Freedoms that Homeowners,  who are imprisoned in the HOA system are free to exercise.  As far as the ability to just pick up and move,  most local governments encourage,  and many require HOAs to be installed into all new developments because this frees the cities & the counties from providing services,  and allows them to tax those citizens anyway,  without providing services.  In short,  the HOA concept is now forced upon free citizens because local governments wish to abrogate their responsibilities to their citizens.

Positive Condo reform

Maida W Genser

Citizens for Pets in Condos

Tamarac , FL

Posted January 3, 2006

 

It is important for readers to be clear about what groups represent which interests regarding condominiums and home owner associations.  The group that is FOR positive condo (and HOA) reform is Cyber Citizens for Justice http://www.ccfj.net.

CCFJ is for:

1.   Education of association members (i.e., the homeowners themselves)

2.   Accountability of the people in charge of other peoples’ homes and welfare

3.   Easy enforcement of existing law

4.   Fair elections

I have gone to a number of the condo town halls put on by the Condo Advisory Council, through the auspices of state DBPR/Land Sales agency.  I have heard some amazing testimony from home owners about abuses by condo and homeowner boards.  It is very clear to me that the actual homeowners need protection.

 

As an advocate for allowing home owners to have animal companions through Citizens for Pets in Condos http://www.petsincondos.org I am fully behind CCFJ and the fight to allow the individual owners freedoms and protection.


Nothing underhanded about condo owners wanting value

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

I'm not sure what is "underhanded" about a link leading to the Florida Statutes, but if the specialized attorneys from the Community Association Leadership Lobby (the lobbying group operated by Becker & Poliakoff P.A.) say so, Charlotte Greenbarg gladly will parrot their statements ("Cyber Citizens for Justice using underhanded methods," Jan. 6 letter).

Somebody claiming to be a community leader definitely should not be in favor of the bill filed by Rep. Carl Domino, R-Jupiter, HB 391, which would serve only the financial interest of the service providers to the detriment of the owners.

Ms. Greenbarg claims to be the elected leader in a district that is known as the hotbed for association problems in Florida. We recently have seen many recalls of boards by unhappy owners and election results that ousted sitting boards. This is a clear sign of owners figuring out what really is going on and that the owners have to take action to protect their families' welfare. That may be the reason why these community leaders are so mad about a consumer organization that raises the awareness of the owners.

Their stupid attacks on Florida's condominium ombudsman — some were false — fall into the same category, because his function as election monitor finally has created more fair elections in associations, obviously much to the dismay of long-term board members, who were used to being "reelected" by "elections" that would make a banana republic proud.

There are only two sides of the fence: homeowners, who want good service for as little money as possible, and service providers, who want as much money as possible for as little service as possible. Everybody has to decide which side he or she is on. We homeowners need owner-friendly reform. There's nothing underhanded about that.

JAN BERGEMANN, president

Cyber Citizens For Justice

Deland


Coalition's agenda a smokescreen
Eddie Hernandez
Vice President, Condo board of Grand Vista Condo Association Hialeah Gardens
Posted January 23 2006

Re your Dec. 25 article, "Condo alliance taking agenda to Tallahassee," about a "statewide condo alliance": Isn't it obvious that this coalition is nothing more than a group of attorneys taking their own political agenda to Tallahassee?

A couple of years ago, the coalition argues that its opponents, consumer advocacy groups such as Cyber Citizens For Justice, were just disgruntled and dissident homeowners. Unable to silence these homeowners with lawsuits and other legal tactics, the coalition is upset that CCFJ and other groups of homeowners like it have emerged with a powerful and respectful purpose: Inform the public of the reality of Florida condo living.

It should be illegal for board members and attorneys of your condo or homeowner association to unjustly enrich themselves with your monthly dues. Yet what record does the attorney general have of any board member or attorney firm they have ever penalized for embezzlement of condo funds? Not one!

Why not? It's no secret that condo laws, which were created by members of this coalition, have no power to protect homeowners from boards and their attorneys. Hiding under an umbrella that yells, "Of the people and for the people of associations," the coalition's agenda is clear in my opinion: Protect their cash-cow, not the residents of Florida!

Disgruntled condo owners make noise
Richard Herman
Delray Beach
Posted December 28 2005

For many weeks, I have been reading the negative comments about boards of directors and the apparent approval of their viewpoint by the supposedly neutral ombudsman, Virgil Rizzo.

It seems to me that a group is trying to pit boards against unit owners and trying to get laws passed that place onerous burdens on the associations. What has been lost in this dialogue is the fact that every board member, including the board president, is a unit owner. The rules that the boards are trying to enforce are only those that are in the documents that were passed and agreed to by all the unit owners.

Most of the noise being raised is by disgruntled owners who refuse to abide by the rules that were developed to help all the people live as a community and to share in the common expenses and the problems that go along with community life.

Also lost in this dialogue is the built-in process of annual elections that are usually supervised by a management company (which is state-licensed). If these disgruntled individuals represent a large portion of the unit owners, it is a simple process for them to be elected to the board and, if they are a majority of the board, effect change. They can join the board and facilitate the process.

Since this process does not appeal to these disgruntled unit owners, evidently, in the majority of cases, they represent a small minority.

The claim by one person that this newly created group, the Coalition of Community Associations, does not represent unit owners because they were not elected by them is, at best, a specious argument. I don't remember seeing a ballot in my community for Cyber Citizens elections. Since the coalition is made up of association leaders (elected by unit owners), this group is also speaking for the majority of unit owners.

As president of my association, within the restrictions of the documents, my board does its best to act in the interests of all the unit owners (of which we are part). Laws and restrictions that tie our hands (for the benefit of a few disgruntled individuals who refuse to understand or abide by the rules) do not help anyone. For those who do not accept the documents and cannot live with rules, feel free to buy elsewhere.


More information on condo coalition
Charlotte Greenbarg 
President The Broward Coalition Inc. Hollywood 
Posted January 2 2006 

Re the Dec. 25 article, "Condo alliance taking agenda to Tallahassee": No doubt because of constraints of space, the article didn't specify two important points that I discussed with staff writer Patty Pensa regarding the Broward Coalition's positions. To begin with, the Broward Coalition comprises duly elected leaders of over 100 condos, homeowners' associations and community organizations. Each group completes an application specifying its name and the name of the president/representative. The other Coalition of Community Association members follow much the same process. The accusation from Jan Bergemann [president of Cyber Citizens for Justice] is illustrative of the type of wild, unsubstantiated statements that we hear on a regular basis.

Our monthly (except July and August) newsletters are sent to those elected representatives to share with their constituents.

It's extremely important to get on the record that the Broward Coalition supports mandatory mediation for homeowners' associations. We also believe that the parties to the disputes must be able to choose the mediators from a list of those certified by the state, without having to wait for the state to assign anyone. Mediation has saved time, money and kept issues out of our already-clogged court system.

We know that condo and homeowners' boards are not always wrong and that owners are not always right. We want to see balance in the statutes, and the bias removed from the office of the ombudsman. Although this isn't the "torch and pitchfork" approach taken by other groups, it does illustrate the essential and very important differences between us.


Cyber Citizens for Justice using underhanded methods
Friday, January 06, 2006

As president of the Broward Coalition and a member of the Coalition of Community Associations, I was interested to read the statements by Jan Bergemann, president of Cyber Citizens for Justice regarding his group's positions in the struggle between homeowners and their association governing boards ("Combatants up ante in suburb wars," Dec. 26).

To begin with, the Broward Coalition is composed of the duly elected leaders of more than 100 condominium associations, homeowners associations and community organizations. Each group completes an application specifying its name and the name of the president/representative. The other COCA members follow much the same process. The obviously false accusation that "these umbrella organizations are not elected" is illustrative of the type of wild, unsubstantiated statements that we hear regularly from CCFJ.

It's also important to get on the record that the Broward Coalition supports mandatory mediation and the ability of the parties involved to choose the certified mediator without waiting for the state to make the choice.

In order to understand the sneaky tactics of CCFJ, one only has to read the e-mail comments by Donna Berger, executive director of the Community Association Leadership Lobby, who discovered a stealth link on the ombudsman's Web site. One of the links on this new government site takes you to a link to the Florida Statutes.

Imagine my further surprise that when you click the link to the Condominium Act, you are taken directly to a Cyber Citizens for Justice propaganda-laden Web site. The site actually says, "This is the Condo Act, very hard to read and very boring." The state made the necessary corrections, but one wonders what other surprises await the unsuspecting.

We want to see balance in Florida law and the bias removed from the office of the ombudsman. Although this isn't the "torch and pitchfork" approach taken by Mr. Bergemann and his group, it does illustrate the essential and very important differences between us.

CHARLOTTE GREENBARG
Hollywood


Homeowners who don't like rules have plenty of options
January 9, 2006
I do not know why the reporter who wrote "Combatants up ante in suburb wars" (Dec. 26) disparages homeowner associations. She writes that they "pit the rights of the individual to do with his property as he pleases against the rights of the group to govern itself with a set of rules, however arbitrary, enforced by the homeowners board." She should know that the only enforceable rules are those stated in the documents duly recorded with Palm Beach County. By law, these documents must be provided to prospective homeowners at the time of the signing of a contract, for their review, with a three-day "right of rescission." 

I chose to live in a community with a homeowners association because it provides me with important benefits: My lawn is cared for, and my house is painted. A heated pool, a clubhouse, tennis courts and other amenities all are maintained for me by the association for a reasonable quarterly fee. If you don't like rules and regulations, buy a house outside a community, and do your own thing.

JOAN NEEDLE
Greenacres


CONDO ARTICLES NEWS PAGE HOME HOA ARTICLES