The New South Wales state government has undertaken the long overdue task of reforming this state's strata laws, first enacted when just a tiny sector of the population was housed in what became known as the " vertical village ".
Things that were overlooked at that earlier time, such as crowding in small units are likely to be regulated by a strict code of a maximum of two adults to each bedroom, leaving the situation for kids with more flexibility. It is hoped that this will be the weapon to combat what have become defacto boarding houses operating on a " hot bed " basis to gain the maximum return for housing a vast number of people in a very small unit.
The law will be eased to make it easier for those who wish to have some sort of pet. At present some body corporate regimes are fanatical and extend bans far beyond just keeping a dog or a cat. This level of refusal has even extended to a single goldfish in a small bowl. It is likely that this right of rejection will be reversed. A resident will have an automatic right to keep a pet and it will be up to the body corporate to prove that the pet chosen is unsuitable for that type of housing. It would probably prevent someone wanting to keep a mule on an upper floor of a unit development.
One of the biggest points of friction in communal living are those who ignore the parking regulations that apply to common property. Blocked access and parking on spaces specifically allocated to numbered units can lead to actual fist fights and now it is proposed that this parking be administered by the relevant local council. A call for the attendance of a council parking ranger would result in the offender being handed a parking infringement fine, or in extreme cases - the car being towed away.
Perhaps the most contentious change proposed concerns the redevelopment of existing apartment blocks. In many cases a change of zoning law where such a block is near a transport overchange will see a huge increase in land value and some residents may wish to sell to see demolition and the block replaced by a bigger and more modern building, which would deliver a big profit gain for each present owner. At present, that requires the agreement of a hundred percent of those owning units in the building.
Just a single holdout can deliver frustration to the many and it is being proposed that the acceptance level be reduced to seventy-five percent of owners. Obviously, there will be instances where those with a strong reason not to sell will be forced to have their home sold out from under them by the combined vote of other residents. In particular, this will affect those in extreme old age who are not interested in making their fortune but only wish to live their final years undisturbed. It is hoped that the framing of this law will include avenues of appeal that will deliver moderation.
This reframing also seeks to prevent cabals of owners or management agents actively soliciting proxy votes from absentee landlords or disinterested owners to give them absolute control of voting rights and the ability to implement laws of their choosing. In many cases this enables them to order work that inflates the levies charged and brings the running of the building to the level of a personal fiefdom. It may require annual body corporate meetings to be internet connected so that those who would have a problem attending in person are encouraged to view and vote remotely.
The one thing that is absolutely certain is that whatever changes are enacted will not suit everybody. Pity the legislators who have to put together a framework for living which encompasses the wishes of that great diversity of humanity - that is the human race. When the letter of the law is finally revealed, individuals will decide into which category their fate has been decided. Winners - or losers !
No comments:
Post a Comment