The more I think about this, the more I realise that the whole system is perfectly imperfect. Some strata schemes will consider community engagement as a major component of their lives, others – especially those dominated by investors – will see the balance sheet as the prime and possibly only consideration.
The important factor in this is that the owners get to choose their committee at the AGM and the committee sets the course on how the scheme will be managed. The problem is that no one standing for committees (that I have ever seen) provides any kind of information about what their priorities would be.
So I suppose it’s then up to the owners to ask candidates for election what their priorities are and then vote accordingly. And maybe a smart and brave owner (who will be hated for prolonging the agony of an AGM) could turn the meeting into a kind of impromptu hustings by asking each candidate what their priorities are – cash or comfort?
And it would be handy if prospective purchasers could get a sense of the kind of community they were buying into – financially rigorous above all or community minded, albeit with a weather eye on the levies.
Otherwise, you get the committee you deserve, rather than the one you want.