User Fees

-

Council can grant permission for short term exclusive use under s.76, unless it requires a 3/4 vote under s.71 for a significant change in use or appearance from as shown on the strata plan.

In either case, council can also impose corresponding user fees under s.6.9 of the SPR.

I think a user fee rule that is not ratified, or adopted as a bylaw, ceases to have effect at the next AGM, but it can be renewed at the same time that s.76 permission is renewed.

Like all decisions, these decisions must be recorded in s.35 minutes.

Permission for exclusive use, whether it is a significant change or not, doesn't change the designation shown on the strata plan from common property to limited common property.

Nor can it be applied to change s.66 ownershp or proportionate unit entitlements. It is a short term privilege, not an entitlement or ownership.

Granting exclusive use of common property without imposing user fees would be a contravention of s.31 if it is unfair or contrary to the best interests of the strata.

If council members are acting in a conflict of interest that must be disclosed under s.32.

Significantly unfair treatment that creates a nuisance or unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of others is prohibited under the standard bylaws also.

****

I'm all for making the best use of common property. Just remember who paid for it, who owns it, and who is paying property taxes on it.

How are proportionate unit entitlement balances adjusted? Do you want unjust enrichment for some at the expense of others, and how are comprehensive user fees NOT in the best interests of the strata?

My strata was built in 1987 on a 5.5 acre urban site, and according to our property tax assessment, I am paying at least 4 times more for the the land value than the building value. I have been paying up to 30% more in property taxes and 30% more in maintenance fees for over 30 years than those who take more than their share, while they impose special levies and higher strata fees on others who pay more and get less than they bargained for.

If these people paid monthly user fees in proportion to their exclusive use of common property since 1990, the rest of us would not have to pay special levies. But they persistently dominate council, so they act in conflict in continuous contravention of the SPA and never contribute a dime extra.

They cut down shade trees for panoramic views and take common property for their own exclusive use for extra decks about 13 feet square that the strata demolishes and reconstructs as needed, all at our expense, but deny their neighbour a mere 3 cubic feet to place a heat pump in the most practical, least intrusive location on the ground.

Bottom line, taking common property for exclusive use without paying for it perverts proportionate unit entitlement interests and can dramatically distort property values, particularly when the land value is worth so much more than the strata lot. See the attached photo of 2 units listed in our complex at t;he same time... and NO the 2-bedroom owner did not renovate his unit!


****

Yes, granting exclusive use of common property could be making the best use of it - with reasonable user fees.

But taking common property for years without paying for it creates significant unfairness and unjust enrichment. In my strata it's like a festering disease that spreads contagiously.

They do not have permission for exclusive use of common property on file in my strata either, they just use it. No record. Nothing in the minutes.

Council members acting in their own interests destroyed our landscaping, created monstrous eye sores full of unsigntly tarps and garbage, and pierced the building envelope to unlawfully add skylights to their units, which we pay to maintain with our strata fees.

When I complained our patio was vandalized (aided and abetted by Garth Cambrey, now vice chair of the CRT, and Tony Gioventu of CHOA.) It's heartbreaking.

Unspeakable oppression is a foundation for high stakes white collar crime speading throughout BC's multi-million dollar strata agency industry.

Retaliation is not just insidious and relentless, it is also flagrant and blatant. One against many, bullying at its best, in a ruthless never ending relay of harassment.

There is no penalty for contravening strata enactments, and equal protection under the law is systemically denied. So they just keep taking more and paying less at the expense of others and retaliate so viciously when I complain that it's killing me, literally, like death from a thousand cuts.

Sorry if I'm ranting too much, I just can't help it.

****

User fees are at the discretion of council. With land values what they are, my opinion is that strata fees and special levies should reflect the value of the property, not just the habitable floor space. If they are out of whack, s.6.9 of the SPR provides for user fees, which may be used to adjust the expenses back to proportionate levels.

****

Council has discretion to decide what is a "significant" change from use or appearance as shown on the strata plan.

If they want it, they decide and don't consider it significant. If someone else wants it, well that could be VERY significant, and not only require a 3/4 vote, but also require a s.43 petition.

****

Owning land usually includes owning the earth under it and the air above it, unless the strata plan shows vertical boundaries, or includes air space agreements.  https://www.pushormitchell.com/2010/12/air-space-above-strata-lot-common-property-strata-corporation/

****

True, but a user fee (or a purchase, or a rental) usually includes not just proportionate consumption or costs, but also proportionate benefits and privileges.

If the patio is shown on the strata plan as part of the strata lot, then based on traditional property law, that land and air is also owned by the owner of the SL, unless otherwise specified.

Common property is defined by SL boundaries shown on the strata plan, which MIGHT specify air space parcels or topographical specifications for elevations or slopes. Without that, property law applies to the SL in the traditional way.

CP is not manufactured by the prescribed boundaries in s.68 of the SPA. Common property and fractional ownership of common property is prescribed by the strata plan.

BTW, if you see Garth, you can tell him that I have a crusty snack for him to eat the next time he writes fiction.

****


Popular posts from this blog

Conflict of interest

-
I think recusal depends on whether you have an interest in the matter that conflicts with your duty on council to enforce the bylaws. If for example if you're reporting something like a fire hazard that puts others at risk, then I don't see any reason to recuse yourself. On the other hand, if you're complaining about your neighbour interfering with your own use and enjoyment of the property then the best practice might be to recuse yourself. Further to that, if you're a member of council and a bylaw infraction is ever reported against yourself, then under s.32 of the SPA it is mandatory that you recuse yourself from voting on enforcement. **** If you were the one with the odd colour I would say you would have to recuse yourself. Otherwise, no - just report the infraction and make a motion to enforce the bylaw pursuant to s.135 of the SPA. Quote the bylaw, and give the owner notice that fines may be issued until the approved colour is reinstated. If the rest of...
Read more

Carpenter Ants

-
We had carpenter ants pouring into our family room like a river. The nest was in an adjacent railroad tie retaining wall on the north side of our patio. I don't know how the pest control company did it, but they found the nest, and we never saw the ants again. The trick is to find the nest. The building was repaired in our leaky condo project, but the retaining wall has remained damaged for about 20 years despite an engineers report recommending repairs over 5 years ago. ****  
Read more

Duplex Deadlock

-
You could check you property tax assessment notice. Or your registered land title for the legal description of the property. If it says Strata Plan#, fractional interest in common property, then it is s.4 of the Strata Property Act (the "SPA") that is forcing you to join the other owner on a strata council. It's the law, and there is nothing you can do to change it. In a deadlocked duplex there are a few possibilites. First choice is invite the other owner for tea and negotiate some kind of mutual understanding. Second choice is bring matters before the CRT. Third choice is apply for a court ordered administrator. Fourth choice is sell. The SPA and Standard Bylaws will determine the outcome of the second and third choices, with the third choice usually being prohibitively costly. You can go online to BC Laws and scan the Table of Contents of the SPA and the Schedule of Stanard Bylaws. You might want to add them to your Favorites for quick answers to most questions i...
Read more