|
HORRIBLE ORDINANCE – REALLY?
By
Jan Bergemann
Published
September 27, 2013
When
the Broward County Commission recently passed a new ordinance (2013-29)
– actually an addition to the Broward County Human Rights
ordinance – certain attorneys and board members had all kinds
of bad things to say about this ordinance.
Honestly, I don’t really
know what’s wrong with it. All it does is making the so called
“screening process” more transparent. Wouldn’t you
consider it fair, if potential owners and/or renters are being
told the reason for denial of their application after undergoing
the Third Degree by an “inquisitive” board? I have listened to some taped screening
meetings. Honestly, the behavior of some board members would
have caused me to withdraw my application immediately. Plenty of
nicer places to buy or rent!
The ordinance requires the
association to follow some simple rules – nothing outrageous
about it:
-
If
the application filed has any deficiencies the association
is required to notify the applicant in writing within
fifteen (15) days, specifically
identifying any item on the application that needs to be
completed or corrected.
-
Notification
of applicant of the decision within forty-five (45) days.
-
If the application is rejected, the written notice
must state with specificity each reason for the rejection.
Is that really too much to
ask for?
This ordinance is most likely a push-back caused by the many
complaints the County has received from owners and potential
owners/renters who were upset about the way their applications
were handled.
This ordinance creates a lot
more transparency of the screening process.
The folks who obviously
don’t like this ordinance claim that it might increase the
number of legal fights caused by the screening process. But
obviously screening owners/tenants is already causing a lot of
legal fights. According to recent postings on the Internet some
of these association law firms even have lawyers specialized on
this topic – a clear sign that legal fights over screenings
are a common occurrence. Maybe the opposition to this ordinance
by some law firms is caused by their fear of reduced billing
hours?
“Screening” is not only used for the purpose intended. It
has been used for many other purposes – none of them any good.
Here are some examples why we hear so many complaints from
owners who want to sell or rent and potential purchasers and/or
renters:
-
Some boards and managers are using “screening” to create extra income. Not only do they
charge more than the $ 100 officially allowed, they
regularly deny the first three, four or even five
applications in order to collect more screening fees.
-
Some board members have used screening as a
vindictive tool, punishing owners for not agreeing with
their way of running the association by denying absolutely
“good” applications, causing the owners to take
financial losses.
-
Discriminatory denials covered up by not giving
any reason for denial.
-
Denial of application after 30 days with the
claim that the application wasn’t complete without prior
warning.
-
And the list goes on …
These are the kind of cases that most likely caused a majority
of Broward County Commissioners to vote in favor of this
ordinance.
Would you like to be treated
this way if you want to buy or sell or rent in a community
association? Wouldn’t you agree that a family jumping through
all the required hoops – and pays for the cost – should have
the right to know why they are “personas non grata?”
I have heard the argument:
Why should the board have to tell the potential owner/renter
that their application is denied and why? The contract partners
are associations and owners – not any outsiders. Easy
response: Because boards and managers order these applicants in
front of these screening committees, not the owners of the
home/unit.
Any board that has the right
to screen potential buyers/renters should anyway have a written
list of reasons for denial – distributed to all association
members. It sure protects them – up to a point – from many
frivolous lawsuits – lawsuits that are much easier to defend
if this list is being presented to the court.
But the list for denials
should be real short: Criminal history of applicant or family
members (convicted
felons and sex offenders) and applicants who would automatically
violate the deed-restrictions, for example by age (55+
community) and ownership of pets (in no-pet communities.
Specific deed-restrictions can create more reasons for denials.
Careful about adding the
infamous credit score requirement: Most other countries in this
world don’t have credit scores, so a potential buyer from
another country who wants to pay cash would be rejected? Careful
what you wish for!
The list of reasons why this
ordinance makes sense is going on and on. In my opinion it’s
nothing but common sense being put in writing.
What say you?
|
