Getting more owners involved in HOA

Started by SheliaH • 15 replies • 1699 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Hello, I'm from Indianapolis and am new to this website. I'm also a member of a homeowner association board of directors, and have received a lot of interesting information and views on the same issues facing my community (I thought we had problems, but some of you....good grief!)

I would like ideas and thoughts on how to get our off-site owners more involved in HOA affairs. We're a 156 unit condo community and for the past three years, we've tried to get revisions to our CCRs ratified and set up advisory committees to the Board (e.g. an Architectural change committee). Unfortunately, it's been almost impossible to get our owners involved in anything. They don't attend annual meetings, let alone the regular board meetings, volunteer to do anything, and of course, they haven't signed off on the CCRs, either.

We have had an increasing number of renters in the community - it wouldn't be so bad if some of them behaved responsibly, but unfortunately, it's the few that have made life a little difficult for everyone else, and the off site owners don't seem to care (in some cases, it takes two nastygrams from the association attorney to get their attention).

That's one reason why our revised CCRs include the rental restriction - as you can imagine, people complained loudly about that, so our attorney helped us add a grandfather clause that would apply to current owners only, but we still haven't received enough votes. I could understand if these owners said they still weren't satisfied with the amendment, but they haven't said ANYTHING good, bad or indifferent.

I know some of the owners are out of state, but I would like to see more of the ones living in and around town to take more interest in what's going on in the community. Our 7 member board isn't perfect, but we're trying, and can't do it by ourselves. Does anyone have any ideas on how we can motivate the off-site owners - there has to be some way we can appeal to their own self interest (whatever that is)

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

WELCOME SHEILAH,

I am on 1 Board and 2 other Document committess in 3 places. The answer is? NONE! It is a sad state of affairs when owners don't care about their associations as long as they are not being bothered with some issue. But when we REALLY needed to increase a Board from 3 to 5 and could not get enough votes for passing it, we sent out (actually I did) our 7 member Document committee members and went door to door to gather members signatures. We carried extra copies of the amendment vote because most had lost or could not find theirs. We explained very breifly what signing the amendment meant. Everyone signed.

That is how to get some of the business stuff done. Other things to do are to get as many committees as you can think of formed and talk to people. Communicate with them . Try the old Chocolate Chip Cookie party trick. It is very sad but condos seem to have the bad turnout problem everywhere. If you have a clubhouse or pool area, assign someone to talk their hearts out to any living, breathing body who shows up. It takes alot of work from the eager beavers but hey, someone has to do it.

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906

Posted:

What percent does your documents require to change your CC&Rs? And then what percent of your units are rentals?
I doubt you will ever get a "yes" vote from any owner who is renting his unit, even with a grandfather clause, because when they do go to sell, it can only be sold then as an owner occupied unit, which may not, but probably will affect the resale value.
And then you have owner occupied units who think like I do: I would never agree to limit rentals because I never know down the road if I might have to rent out my home myself - because it isn't selling like in today's market, or because I have to move for my job, but want to come back to this home to retire, or for many other reasons that I might have to or want to rent the home. Why would anyone voluntarily vote to restrict their options and control of their property down the road?
You already have all the tools you need to control rental problems: Simply hammer the owners with all you have - fines, liens, etc to force them to make their renters abide by your rules. Most people look at the bottom line of property they are renting, and if it begins to cost them, they will take action quick. Harold

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Thanks for your response! Some of the board members did go door to door to try and collect signatures (they did wind up with two - but everyone else was a tenant). This past summer, I was delivering newsletters and got another signature from a homeowner (who spent about 20 minutes ranting about the sad state of affairs in the association - yet I've never seen her at meetings. At least, she finally did sign).

We are trying to set up the architectural, crime watch and a landscaping committee to start, and we even invited tenants to join. Even if they don't have voting privileges, I'm thinking this might be a way from them to get more active and maybe talk to their landlords about buying the unit.

Still, I'm beginning to wonder if we're just going to have to call these folks and see what the problem is (we've sent the approval form out twice and will make it available AGAIN at our annual meeting in February). Any suggestions on how to get a dialogue?

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

And thank YOU for your response! The current CCRs require 75% approval (yes, I know that's probably too high, but when the things were written in 1972, I suspect people were a lot more active in their communities).

The upside of the percentage, however, is that the homeowners DID pass the revised bylaws - which suspend voting rights for delinquent homeowners, so if you subtract those folks, the approval rate is about 55 or 60%. On the other hand, there are homeowners who one two or three units (one out of state owner owns 10 {!}), so the problem remains.

I should add that we didn't toss out the right to rent altogether - there IS a hardship clause that would allow owners to rent. And yes, we do hammer the owners with liens, nastygrams and everything else, but with so many being out of state, it's as if they don't really care about the house having a lien against it. Then, these knuckeheads whine when the property value drops - certainly there are a ton of reasons for that, but these guys and gals only seem to care if the house is being rented by anyone with a pulse - and don't care about what chaos they cause.

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Sheliah,
You are doing many things right to get some of the owners to sign. But it will always be this way as owner apathy is probably THE major impairment in haveing a well oiled association machine.

Getting the tenants involved is fine for some committees but you will not be allowed to have them work on several issues, like Documents, Arc, budget, fines and any group that will have any influence on management items. Crime watch and social are great spots to begin for their involvement.

As for calling the absentee landlords, that might be all that is left to do. And sure, you will always get the rant and rave variety but whoever calls them, be prepaired to lecture them kindly that their lack of responding is not being useful to make the changes for betterment of the community.

DonnaS (Tennessee)
Posts: 5,671

Posted:

Sheliah,
You have said several times, "out of state" for the owners. Where do they go? You probably have sent them down here to Florida

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

LOL - I have no clue - the lady with the 10 houses is in California. Indiana DOES have is fair share of snowbirds, so maybe some are in Florida!

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

JoeW1 (New York)
Posts: 728

Posted:

SheliaH - Your HOA is made up of investors. Write them a letter that investors tend only to care about. Tell them how their involvement will equal an increase in their investment and therefore benefit their bottom line.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Any ideas on what such a letter might say? They already know the CCR revision may enable the Association to sell some undeveloped land which can build up our reserves and pay for a few delayed projects, there's still a hardship clause for rentals and the grandfather clause won't apply to them - just future owners. We've also told homeowners we're starting to see problems with potential homeowners getting financing from certain programs like FHA because of number of rentals.

And, we've told owner-landlords we're cracking down on tenants behaving badly by holding THEM responsible for damages they cause. Yet, everyone seems unmoved.

(if this sounds like I'm at my wits end, I am! It's more than a little frustrating when you try to improve the community and the response is an overwhelming thud. I'd be happy if people at least said something like they don't see the need for any changes, but they haven't said ANYTHING one way or another!)

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Sheliah,
I take it your don't think your board is the problem and are working hard to make things better, good for them.

But the problem as you describe it seems to indicate the Board is not wagging the tail, the absent owners are. What does your documents say about Owners obligation and conduct of tenants and does it mention fines. I would not involve the tenants in a weak or ineffective board business.
You can look back at the Boards action and see where you have been successful and where you fail, make a critical assessment to determine how much you all can do better, after all, from what you say, the Board is the only thing that you all control.

Your problems are not unique, they are never solved, but they can be made manageable, it will be a process to correct, it will take push and dedication, and it will not be solved at the Board table, it will be out in the community that you will find the answers. I understand completely what you say, and know you have to change, what ever you are doing may be right as rain, but it does not solve the problem. You folks are on the Board and have certain powers you can use, how do you feel a single homeowner in your association feels when they observe what is going on, it is their money and their property and life also. Get them involved, you can do enough to get control.

HaroldS (Arizona)
Posts: 906

Posted:

"we're cracking down on tenants behaving badly by holding THEM responsible for damages they cause." How are you going to force them to pay? I don't believe you have any legal authority do that. You can certainly fine the owner after due process, because your contract is with the owner, not the tenant. It is the owner who must make the tenant comply. Harold

GloriaM (North Carolina)
Posts: 829

Posted:

Sheila:

Perhaps it might take going through the due process of holding a hearing for the off-site owners who tenants are behaving badly (not incomplaince with your governing documents).

Sometimes it may take hitting them in their pocketbooks that might jolt them to attention.

For those off-site owners whose tenants are in compliance, I would take Joe from NY suggestion and write them a letter that will spark an investors interest $$$$$.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Thanks one and all for the comments and suggestions! I'm making a copy of this and will share it with the board tonight. I do think it's time for us to take a new approach to some of our problems - they won't disappear overnight, but since some people probably won't respond to anything we do, the best we can do in reach out to the ones who will (maybe they'd wanted to, but didn't know how)

In the meantime, I'll keep traveling around this website to see how the rest of you deal with similar problems - and if anyone comes up with something not already mentioned here, please write it down, because I will check on the post as long as people discuss it. Again, thanks and wish us luck!

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

RobertR1 (South Carolina)
Posts: 5,164

Posted:

Shelia,
I expect you will drum up some business beating the bushes and it is nice to see people able to put the association above their personal agendas. One of the reasons I don't mind seeing tension and dissagreement in HOA is because more people get involved. If boards tend to think complaing folks are a detriment, I think they are off base. I like to see an owner stand up at a meeting and have a specific complaint, and have some one else disagree. It is nearly always a repeat of something that is common to all regimes. There are a bunch of ways to solve all these problems and limitations are always the reasons of a bad thought process to the problem.

I don't expect everyone to sit around at a meeting and sing, "I saw the light", but I do expect the process to be one of education about the Regime. If you are honest, persistent, convicted and patient a few people can build a strong association. It is so much easier if the owners trying to better the community believe without a doubt that the Association holds rank on everything else. That is hard to grasp and hold onto, but after a while it is a comforting thought, it eliminates personal agendas, and playing games.
IMHO.

JonathanT (Colorado)
Posts: 3

Posted:

Sheila: I thought I would add my 2 cents regarding this issue. I have been the president of our community for nearly 7 years. - I keep getting elected probably because there are not enough members motivated to take initiative.

I can appreciate your situation as we are a 32 year old community with nearly 50% off-site owners and I have struggled with some of the same issues for these many years – I have also been an owner of 12 year so I have watched our community change from being a place where people raised their kids and lived among their neighbors for many years, to a community with nearly 50% rentals and a situation that sounds a lot like yours. In the past I tried to suggest a rental limitation with a grandfather clause just similar to yours. And although our attorney suggested an innovative clause to gradually reduce the % of off-site owners, the idea died in series of lack luster board meetings as being unrealistic and potentially illegal. Seeing the difficulty in mandating this whole rental issue made me look at the problem from another angle. I have been working with our board and our property manager with some new tactics that you and the other readers may or may not agree with. If they help great if not well at least I tried. You can be the judge. Quite honestly, it comes down to promoting ideas and people who are for enhancing the community and minimizing those who are not.

Currently, we have adopted a two pronged approach:

1.Find ways to build support in the on-site ownership and make the community more desirable for on-site ownership. Typically we have done this by making adopting a mind set of continual improvement and promoting the most highly visible projects to show the community the board is serious about the betterment of the community. Of course there are always a few board members who are in it to advance their own personal agenda, but by enlarge we manage fairly well.

2.Find ways to slowly discourage off-site owners from taking advantage of the community such as creating a set of clearly defined rules and regulation which spells out appropriate and inappropriate behavior of the residents and makes the landlords directly and ultimately accountable for the actions of their renters.

We have leveraged the state laws and the rules in our documents to find means to reduce the effect of non-participating members on ballot issues. We found that don’t have to allow owners who are behind on their dues by more than 30-60 days on their dues to vote, and when an initiative fails to get the required participation fro off-site owners for a quorum, we can set a new meeting with the same agenda take the proxy votes we already have and request a second vote that requires a lower percentage of participating members to establish a quorum.

Most controversially, we raised our dues quite a bit. We found that investors were looking for properties with weak boards and low dues to set-up rental units for students. While not entirely popular with the community, the result has been to help make desperately needed improvements, and help reduce the attractiveness of our community to off-site investors with who just want to use the community to turn a quick buck.

It has been a slow process and our success is still somewhat fragile, but in the last 2 years we have actually seen a reversal of the balance of on-site and off-site ownership. We initiated our first annual HOA meeting using an on-line web platform to allow off-site owners attend the meeting without actually having to be on-site. – We needed every vote we could get.
So that’s it. I hope that might give you some ideas. Most importantly, it has required the commitment and strength of our board to be strong and act as one voice to the community – and for that I commend them.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here