Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wayne Robert Smith on October 2, 2011 at 4:40pm

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 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 Beverley Prescott on January 13, 2012 at 6:12pm

Ruth,  this is from Cairns Post in November and I think Cairns is in the same boat as Brisbane regarding units.  I think they are probably more at a disadvantage up here as Insurance companies have ALWAYS used the excuse that we are in a cyclone area. 

In actual fact our damages from disasters up here are less than a lot of what happens in the Brisbane area but for years, the tropics has copped excuse after excuse for rising costs

According to the insurance companies, my son is supposed to live in a flood zone in the Cairns suburb in which he lives - according to the map that someone in Brisbane looks at - never been a flood in that area at any time and never likely.

However, this is just to show that you are not alone with units costs.

I have been to Sandra's unit - she used to live on the Tableland here and I also know the real estate agent mentioned in the story.  She is on ABC radio occasionally as well.

Funny that I am typing here and on TV as I type is a news item saying that owners have been advised to place submissions to have an enquiry about the rising costs.

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.

Permalink Reply by Beverley Prescott on January 14, 2012 at 9:49am

Sounds terrible.  People go into units for ease of living and they cop all that!!.

Body Corporates started off OK I think but looks like they have blown out of all proportion.

When in Real Estate, my husband and I used to look after rental properties and we had a really good rent register with property owners we had looked after for decades in some cases.  My husband physically did all the inspections and we chose tenants carefully (rarely asked for references as they are not worth the paper they are written on sometimes).  I think we got caught once with a bad tenant when I remember we both went and cleaned up the unit for the owner ourselves as he was a friend.  One other time the tenants were leaving a house and for some reason they were in a hurry to go so a cheque for the bond refund was written and duly handed over to the departing tenant'  My husband got in his car and zoomed around to the house, found that the place was not left as it should have been, phoned the bank and stopped the cheque and sorted it out after that.

That was before bonds had to be put into the Bond Authority.

I cannot remember many other drastic problems.  Occasionally had to chase a tenant for rent when they got a few days behind.  We never let anyone get away with much.

However, the days of personal service are gone mostly I would say these days.  Body Corporates are totally different of course and the amount the managers get is phenomenal. 

I hope you can sort something out for everyone's benefit as at this stage, who would really want to enter into such an expensive business of buying a unit and having to cover all those expenses??!!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page