Right to Dry - Legislative Alert

Please take just five minutes to help the Community Associations Institute – CT (CAI-CT) OPPOSE the reintroduced “Right to Dry” bill. (H.B. 5995) The public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 17 @ 1:00pm. 

 

Many members of the state legislature are under the impression that the allowance of clotheslines on community association property, no matter what your documents say, should be allowed. We are concerned that passage of this bill will do the following:
 

1 – Increase costs for maintenance and liability insurance;
 

2 – Decrease property values (Potential buyers may not be impressed with the landscape being filled with old, ratty towels waving in the breeze);
 

3 – Negate the agreement that owners had with their association with respect to control of the appearance of the property; and
 

5 – Usurp associations’ rights to self-govern. A key purpose of associations is for the community to determine what kinds of rules and regulations they choose to impose. 

A state mandate on clotheslines would take away community control on this issue today – what next?

 

We need you to ACT NOW! 
 

CAI-CT's Position on H.B. 5595: OPPOSE

H.B. 5995 states that all community associations may not impose any restrictions or regulations prohibiting any kind of clothes drying apparatus. Read entire bill here House Bill 5995.
 

CAI-CT OPPOSES H.B. 5995 because community associations by their nature are self-governing.  Homeowners who have invested in a community are in the best position to make these value judgments, whether the issues involve clotheslines, solar panels or street lighting.   

Community association homeowners adopt rules to preserve the nature and appearance of their communities, meet the established expectations of residents and protect property values. As we know, homeowners can modify a rule or even eliminate a restriction if there is enough resident support for a particular change. We believe that education about energy conservation techniques should be explored by all associations.  However, the decision about the types of energy conservation options that are most appropriate should be determined by each community, NOT the State of Connecticut.
 

Contact Energy and Technology Committee Chairs:

Sen. John Fonfara – Fonfara@senatedems.ct.gov - 860-240-0043 and

Rep. Vickie Orsini Nardello – Vickie.Nardello@cga.ct.gov - 860-240-0434
 

Contact State Representative & State Senator:   

Find Your District by 9-digit Zipcode

Find Your 9-digit Zipcode

 

February 17, 2009 - CAI-CT Testimony 

Nuisance Dogs Bill - We need your help!

If you live in a condominium association in Connecticut are you aware that animal control can not remove a dog from the property unless it has bitten someone or was hit by a vehicle?

CAI-CT has been trying unsuccessfully to get this bill to the floor in Hartford.  Our elected officials feel we simply do not care about this issue.  Please take a minute to email your state senitor and state representative letting them know that this issue is important to you as an association. 

It is especially important that you contact the following people as soon as possible to ask them to take action on this issue: 

Sen. Edward Meyer 860-240-8600 email: meyer@senatedems.ct.gov and/or Rep. Richard Roy 860-240-8585 email: Ricard.roy@cga.ct.gov

 

Issue:  Nuisance Dogs on Community Association Property

 

Summary

 

To enable animal control officers to impound roaming animals which are on community association property.

 

 

CAI-CT supports legislation on this issue.

 

The Community Associations Institute – CT (CAI-CT) is the educational and technical assistance entity for community associations and their service providers in Connecticut.  We need you to be aware about how  proposed legislation will affect the more than 3,900 common interest communities in Connecticut, and the hundreds of thousands of people who live in them.

 

Statement

 

CAI-CT supports legislation that would provide authority for animal control officers to impound the dog of a resident of a condominium association.  Many of our associations have experienced the problem of roaming animals, but in some cases, animal control officers have stated that they do not have the authority to go onto private community association property.  In several instances, vicious dogs have terrorized communities because animal control officials have felt they did not have the authority to provide assistance.   Proposed legislation would allow for enhanced public safety in all communities.

 

Purpose of the legislation.

 

The provisions of Chapter 435 of the Connecticut General Statutes were not drafted in a way that fully addresses problems of animals on the common elements of a common interest community.

 

For example, Section 22-364 provides that dog owners may not allow their dogs to roam “upon land of another.” Section 22-232 empowers animal control officers to impound dogs that are roaming in violation of Section 22-364. In 1975, the Connecticut Attorney General issued an opinion in which he concluded that animal control officers have no authority to impound the dog of a resident or unit owner of a condominium that is roaming loose on the common elements, because the unit owner shares an ownership interest in the common elements.

 

While this conclusion is technically correct, the result is contrary to public safety, and illustrates how Chapter 435 does not take into consideration animals in common interest communities.

 

Conclusion

CAI-CT believes that an amendment to Chapter 435 C.G.S. will benefit the safety of all of our communities.  If we can be of any further assistance, please contact our Executive Director, Kim McClain, at 860-633-5692.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Community Associations Institute – CT provides education and advocacy for the board members, unit owners and service providers of common interest communities.

 

We are greatly concerned about the issue of roaming dogs on association property and animal control officers currently limited authority to deal with such animals.

 

Attached you will find:

 

1 – A brief summary of our position;

 

2 – Language proposed in 2007 changing the statute;

 

3 - Full explanation of the amendments which we support – from 2008.

 

 

Please contact me at 860-633-5692 if you have any questions.

 

Thank you!

 

 

 

Assigning blame in communities

Anyone who has spent time on a board of directors knows that the board or the management company is always to blame for anything that happens.  From a flooding rain to their neighbor with a wild dog if it goes wrong the leaders are thought to be at fault.

As a long time board president I was told that I:

• don’t care
• am selective with enforcement,
• negligent with maintenance
• etc.

I have to chuckle when these things are said because I am among a few people in the community that volunteer their time to the betterment of the community, so obviously I do care. 

What made me think about this post was a conversation I had with my son last night as he was in a heated argument with his mother.  I got the call as from mom as the argument was going on because he had gotten very disrespectful.  She was blaming me, he was blaming her and I was stuck in the middle blaming Verizon for selling me a cell phone.  Just kidding about the cell phone, but after about 30 minutes of calming down my son and explaining why he should not talk that way to the person who carried him for 9 months things seemed to be better all around.

It seems like an odd connection but dealing with misplaced blame everyday is just part of life as a leader.  The real message here should be accept blame when you are responsible, fluff it off as just part of life when God decides to dump 4 inches of rain in 1 hour on frozen ground and someone’s carpet gets wet.

Creating a sense of community

I was chatting with an old neighbor yesterday about working with online (virtual) communities when a light clicked on about creating a sense of community.  If we can create a sense of community in a virtual environment, why can’t we create a sense of community where there is real community which is a condominium community? 

If you lived in a planned community then you will know what I am about to write is 100% the case and that is we are quickly losing the sense of community.  People are going about their day to day lives and ignoring what is happening to their left and right. 

A planned community can have a host of benefits, including security, sharing, personal support, and networking.  Yet in today’s environment we probably can’t answer a single question about our neighbors other than possibly how many people live in the unit and what their gender is.  Chances are these same people are pouring their hearts out to strangers online in a social network.

So the question is can we merge the two environments and bring the sense of community back to our condominiums through our own social network?  I believe it is worth a try.

Are your neighbors creating a vintage car collection?

This is the title of my next article in “Common Interest” magazine.  A couple of recent incidents that happened in my complex helped me share this information with our members.  There is a delicate balance that has to be maintained when you are a member of the board of directors.  A balance between being a good neighbor and protecting everyone’s investment and quality of living.  In our complex parking is a place that really has an effect on everyone’s quality of living.  We have had residents fight harder for their parking spot than increases in monthly fees.  While other residents just thought it would be ok to take up parking spaces with an old vehicle they just could not part with.  Left unchecked the parking lot can quickly fill up with junk yard gems. 

Here are a couple of parking lot problems we face when trying to clear our lot of stored vehicles:

• The delay tactic – They have no intention of using the vehicle but have this need to hang on to the past.  They ask for time to keep the vehicle, delaying the inevitable.  Unfortunately in this instance it is at everyone else’s expense.  This the squirrel crowd, they keep gathering old things just in case.
• The two door shuffle – Once caught with a stored vehicle they keep it on the move for a while thinking you will just give up and go away.  That is until you let them know what the new storage fee is going to cost them every day.
• The Assist – When you get the person who completely ignores you, like the rules don’t apply to them.  They get a little help deciding the best course of action for their vintage vehicle from the local salvage yard.

Check out the February/March issue of Common Interest magazine for the complete story and visit our website at www.caict.org for more information about this publication.

Michael Zimmer is the President of The Meadows of Southington Condominium Association, Inc. Michael has served on the board of directors for this 166 unit complex in Southington for over 15 years and has held the position of President for the last 12 years.  He can be contacted via email at mjzimmer@bigplanet.com.  

Dealing with Live Christmas trees

Christmas is over and your residents need to dispose of their live Christmas trees. My association has 166 residents and about 1/3 of them use live trees each year, which in years past created a huge problem.  

We would find trees in hallways, behind buildings, in the woods and just as bad in the trash dumpsters. Renting a dumpster for old trees is very costly so we looked for an alternative. Our property manager suggested a solution which was to use our landscaper to dispose of the trees. Most larger landscapers have to deal with recycling trees and other landscaping foliage.  

Our current landscaper actually offers a service where they come and pick up all of the trees for a small fee per tree and haul them back to their facility where they use a chipper to recycle them.

When all you have to do is move your vehicle…

After 16 years of condominium living it still amazes me how many people have to be push started just to get them to move their vehicles after a winter storm. 

We are not asking them to do any work other than clear off the car and move it so the plows can come through.  Doesn’t sound like an unreasonable request? 

How many single family home owners would like to only have that one little responsibility after a snow storm?

What is even better is when they do finally move their vehicle at their convenience they leave the space full of snow and take one of the spaces which was cleared because their neighbor was responsible – that really sends the sparks flying…

I would love to hear feedback on this issue