- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 3 weeks ago by .
-
Topic
-
There is democracy (rule by all), there is oligarchy (rule by the few) and there is plutocracy (rule by the rich).
Strata is being branded as a plutocracy as those who are unfinancial are disenfranchised from the decision making process. Now whether this is oligarchy, the few who are rich anyway, or plutocracy, the rich in general, depends on who is calling it but for the purpose of this post I am going to run with strata is a plutocracy.
If you are too poor then no vote for you.Yes, yes, yes, I have heard the claim the reason for the disenfranchising of the unfinancial is to create an incentive to stay financial but I call “steaming hot load of …” on that. There is no data to support that carrot is even a carrot and even less data to show it is an incentive people take up.
I, as many would, would be happy to owe Local, State or Federal Government money if it meant no longer being able to vote. That would be one way to get of compulsory voting.I have been riding Chanthivong, the Minister for Strata shall we call him, to change the Act so all owners are a part of decision making process regardless of financial status and all I get is empty PR level drivel and as a reply.
There has been a bucket of reforms lately that I see as making it easier to be unfinancial and favoring the unfinancial, it is even possible to be financial by definition yet still have significant arrears if one structures their payment plan right and shifts the “due and payable” dates of arrears. That is another story.Does anyone have a good reason for strata remaining a place where financial status has such a bearing on ones say in the decision making?
Chanthivong doesn’t seem to have one.
-
Replies
-
So here’s a scenario that could happen if the non-financial owners were allowed to vote.
in the building next to mine, a wealthy couple bought up more than half the units over a period of time and gained control of the strata. They then set about renovating common areas with imported Italian tiles, sculptures, fancy light fittings and so on. The other owners all had to finance their share of this with no hope of voting down the extravagance (which only one couple wanted).
Now let’s say the wealthy couple was not paying levies. In your preferred scenario, they could still vote for all this spending without contributing a cent and the other owners would be funding it all.
I accept that’s an unusual situation where one owner controls the strata, but in many buildings you get voting blocks and cartels that work together to control strata. Should they be able to do that and vote for expensive upgrades while not contributing?
I can go more radical that that! How about every apartment has the same voting power but two votes – one for the owner and one for the resident. That way the “double investors” – the people who live in the building – would have the majority votes, the tenants would have a say and the decisions would be made by the people who have to live with the consequences.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
It has only just occurred to me that the system of giving more votes to the people with the highest unit entitlements, and therefore the highest levies, may be one of the reasons that so many older buildings have been falling into disrepair. You can’t get turkeys to vote for Christmas and you can’t get some people to vote for higher levies to pay for repairs when they have the power to save cash by voting against them.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
@thehood – sorry, but your ‘argument’ looks weaker each time I read it.
You’re starting with the premise that financial owners are ‘plutocrats’.
That’s nonsense. These ‘plutocrats’ are just people meeting the financial obligations they agreed to. This is not ‘financial status’. They’re not oppressing the downtrodden or anything like it.
Buildings cost money to run and maintain. The levies are there in the paperwork when you buy. They’re set each year at an AGM where everyone who is meeting their financial obligations gets a vote. If the money isn’t raised…
Payment plans are an avenue for owners who can’t currently meet those obligations. While this is imperfect, and it remains to be seen how the recent reforms will play out, it attempts to support people in good faith.
If you want to make a genuine case for something, ditch the alarmist labels and finger-pointing, and state what you think is right – and why.
Incidentally, note the other provisions in the Act that reduce voting power: being the developer or being associated with them. Why? Because these people really can wield ‘plutocratic’ power.
However there’s no provision for taking votes away from lousy neighbours and pains in the neck.
Now that’s an idea worth exploring.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Having seen plutocracy in action, I can confirm that it does exist although it doesn’t happen in every scheme and when it does, it can be benign, or even positive for the building.
All it takes is for the owners of the largest properties to get together in pursuit of their mutual benefit and the simple fact of their deciding to work as a group gives them an advantage over those who don’t have the voting power and would rely on energising an uninterested, disconnected numerical majority to counter the concentration of votes.
It’s the Golden Rule – those who have the gold make the rules.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.