Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Petterson on October 2, 2011 at 5:58pm

But ideally you'd want to go after the guys that peddle this poison,not the addicts. The guys that sell the harder drugs know full-well what it'll do to people that use it reguarly and they either don't care as they want the money,or they want them to become addicted and begin selling drugs themselves.

Wayne Robert Smith said:

Very true. In my opinion all laws could be boiled down to doing no harm to others. Yet that would oversimplify reality. Some people choose to become professional fighters knowing they might be seriously hurt or could seriously injure others. They do so in the knowledge that the other person in any fight is fully aware of the risks and has made a similar choice to compete for similar reasons. Life is not about eliminating all possible risk but balancing it. If we outlaw everything that is dangerous then we risk turning human beings into carefully tended sheep. Cars kill over one million people every year. Last year nobody died from smoking pot. If harming others is the reason for banning drugs then surely cars should also be banned. In fact one of the major causes of car fatalities is alcohol. Yet alcohol is perfectly legal and nobody is seriously putting forward the idea of a second alcohol prohibition. It didn't work last time so it would be pointless trying it again. As pointless as the current drug war.

 

Most of the harm revolving around the drug trade is directly related to it being illegal. If treated as a health problem it could be more readily addressed and solutions found. Addiction to the harder drugs is indeed a scourge on our nation as it was on China during the Opium wars. However, locking up addicts is not the answer.

Permalink Reply by Ruth Bonnett on January 14, 2012 at 5:30am

Hi  Beverley,

Thanks for posting that one.  This enquiry looks to be a federal government enquiry, into the insurance industry.  Our insurance premiums went up from $82,000 to $99,000 from last year to this year, and now we don't even get flood cover.  We got flood cover for last year's flood, but not this time.Talk about getting less for more.

Another huge cost to unit owners is the caretaking and letting manager (Resident Manager).  Typically, in a building with 200 units, the rental pool is around 100 units.   The caretaker gets paid $250,000 pa to do the caretaking (cleaning and maintenance of common property), and has access to the letting pool which is worth over $350,000 pa. 

This caretaking expense represents roughly 30% of the expense budget (running costs).  Capex is covered in the sinking fund.

For such a big expense, many unit owners are now coming to the realisation that if they allow the Management Rights contracts to expire, they can then renegotiate on terms more favourable to both the owners and the  manager, without a stinking big bank loan to pay off.

Consider this: a good letting manager should be able to manage about 200 properties full time - and that includes driving to each house or  unit.  Why is there usually a full time letting  manager in the office for only 100 rental units? 

And the cost of caretaking can be offset against the benefits of access to a letting pool.

Large buildings such as Carmel by the Sea, Palm Springs, Stradbroke Towers, Mariner's  Reach and others have seen the light.  The owners simply say "No thank you" to extensions when they are requested, so as to allow the contract to expire.  (They are quite simply honouring the existing contract).  Then, of course the owners can go to tender.

From all reports so far, the owners in these buildings are getting better service, for a more competitive price, and the community spirit and harmony has vastly improved when you don't have a manager with vested interests running around protecting his investment.

In a case I am quite familiar with, the manager ran a scheme whereby a close associate of the manager did minor maintenance (for exorbitant fees), and passed the invoices on to the Body Corporate for payment.  When owners started querying the escalating costs, they were publicly and quite harshly defamed/criticised/shot down.  One owner finally had enough when the Body Corporate Manager sent an email to owners that was especially damaging.  Upon a search of the Body Corporate Records, she found that over the previous 2-1/2 years, the 'maintenance' associate had raised over 800 invoices, totalling over $300,000, the vast majority of which should have been done by the manager.  When this misconduct was discovered, the existing committee did try to fix it, but sadly the owners realised that the Manager and the Body Corporate Manager had let them down, and betrayed their trust.  The owners voted to settle in late 2010, and the Receivers stepped in, meaning that even if the owners had wanted to terminate the contract (for quite justifiable reasons including gross misconduct), they can't because Section 126 of the BCCM Act protects the Banks and the Managers and keeps the contract on foot.  Section 126 denies owners their civil rights to bring an end to a contract for good reason. 

I will spend the next few weeks and months campaigning on issues relevant to unit owners, including insurance, unfair contracts such as Management Rights which can't be enforced or terminated, escalating costs, classification, short term letting, hotel groups and how owners can start protecting their rights to the benefit of the whole community.

After all, unit owners pockets fund a dearth of  industries: Body Corporate Managers, Caretakers, Managing Agents, Lawyers, Builders, Plumbers, Air Conditioning Contractors, Consultants, etc and if the costs continually escalate, then both the owners and alot of businesses will start to suffer.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page