@Bev29 said:
Thanks. I do find mixing the political with the personal a tricky juggling act. I think it is probably best to follow the rules and issue a warning note as a first step,
I understand your desire to do the right thing but there’s nothing in “the rules” about warning notes. In fact, a Notice To Comply is a warning note: if you don’t comply with the by-laws the EC may apply to the CTTT to impose a fine. That’s a warning, not a fine.
Allowing the aggrieved owner to vent at an EC meeting on a motion to issue a Notice To Comply is a legitimate way of giving them an opportunity to express their irritation while testing the boundaries of what the owners find acceptable, even if there are clear breaches of by-laws.
Whale’s suggestion that the outcome of such a motion might be to issue a warning letter is also fine because that’s just correspondence and has no legal standing under strata law beyond that.
As discussed elsewhere in this forum, I am gradually coming to the view that the rigid enforcement of by-laws is not necessarily good for community building. Each community should be allowed to set its own boundaries that reflect the current community’s standards, not necessarily the letter of the by-law. And if by-laws become inappropriate or unworkable, then common sense would dictate that they should be changed eventually.
Communities should not be restricted by by-laws that only a few people like, that were drafted by different people at a different time dealing with a very different world. If there is an occasional (acceptable?) lapse, so be it. The “thin end of the wedge” theory doesn’t really hold since the CTTT is supposed to consider each case on its individual merits.
But, allowing for the evolution of community standards in this way, the by-laws should be reviewed every five years or so. Provided there is open and free discussion of issues, this is perfectly achievable and there are other avenues of complaint for those who feel aggrieved.
There is a discussion elsewhere on this forum about a scheme that is trying to interpret a “pets only with permission” by-law as a ban on pets. If that is the prevailing view of the community, then they really need to change that by-law.
By the way, I note my last point on the subject of flexibility in by-laws – the Christmas lights that are in clear breach of at least two by-laws – has not attracted any response from posters who were pro-rigid enforcement.
Is it just the Christmas spirit extending to my feeble thinking or have I actually won an argument (for once)?