By Nicole Stone

Early in my career, I worked with a board of directors that insisted on enforcing the rules and regulations strictly as written, without any consideration for whether enforcement was reasonable, necessary, or whether the rule was enforceable.  This board would gather every Thursday at 9:00 am and join me on a walk of the community strictly checking for violations.  While this may at first seem like a great objective, what ended up happening was the snowball effect of wasted time and resources and a general dissatisfaction amongst residents of the community.  

Now you may find yourself asking how this could happen, along with many questions centered around the reasonableness and enforceability of rules and how that was allowed to happen in the first place. 

First, I want to clarify two things: 

1. We are talking about aesthetic rules related to personal design choices in the community as opposed to nuisances or safety issues.  As an example, one of the commonly enforced regulations was that there were no more than three potted plants allowed on a porch or entryway.

2. This was quite some time ago before current legislation or immediate access allowed by technology took over.  Cell phones and email were available but not utilized as they are today and direct access to information about legality and reasonableness was somewhat limited.  All we could do was advise the board of better practices and handle the outcome as it presents.

Why am I using such an old example?

It has been long enough for us to evaluate the lasting effects that this time of enforcement has had on the community.  At the time that I took over management of the community, we would have at least 50% owner attendance at monthly board meetings, which often became hostile.  This of course impacted the board’s ability to properly conduct the business of the association and created an “us vs. them” mentality in the community.  As management, we tried to counsel them on better choices, revising rules and soliciting community input, but that is not the purpose of this article.  Rather, let’s examine the long-term effects this type of enforcement can and has had.

(Note: I no longer manage this community, but it is one that I continue to follow.) 

Reputation of the Community

I am not going to share the unflattering nickname given to this community but, suffice to say, it had one.  Not only that, but I also heard this community called by its nickname by vendors, other management companies, renters in the community, etc.… The lingering reputation of the strong, unreasonable covenant enforcement is still haunting them to this day, some twenty years later.  This influences who buys in the community, who wants to be a resident in the community and creates an environment where there are not strong enough community building strategies that can sway away from this reputation, despite ongoing efforts.

Increased Legal Costs

Now that there is more widely available access to resources for residents, both educational and through DORA and other organizations, the community has experienced higher than normal legal expense costs over the years.  Everything from consultations with counsel, the facilitated review and discussion of rules and regulations updates, responses to homeowner complaints, council attendance at meetings, etc….

Misapplied Focus

Psychology calls it the red car phenomenon, which explains that once our attention is brought to something, we notice that something more and subconsciously overlook others as we look for reasons to justify our interest. In this case, being laser focused on violations over such a period led to missed opportunities to celebrate the good things happening in the community and properly addressing some maintenance items before they grew into bigger problems.  One is likely to agree with me that these two things are of higher importance than esthetic rule enforcement.

Reasonableness

The flowerpot example illustrates the direct effect of this type of rule on residents.  Why does it exist? There is not a fire safety issue that I have been made aware of, nor would a reasonable person be concerned that more than three flowerpots would affect the ingress or egress of the entry or patio areas. Rather, someone along the line decided that more than three flowerpots were “too much” clutter and the rule stuck.  Put four flowerpots out for symmetry on either side of the entry door? Violation. Five flowerpots to line your railing with annual color? Violation. The purpose of the rule originally, while lost to history, had given way to a justification for a command-and-control approach from the board of directors.  The power and authority the rule provided was all that was left.

Resident Wellbeing

No consideration has been given to why residents would want a different option or have a situation that deserves consideration as a variance from the rule.  Rather, rules are rules and will be enforced as written throughout the community.  It is well-known that gardening is therapeutic and provides grounding in a busy world.  Perhaps a rule-abiding resident has need to live in a condominium style community but finds benefit in this activity, they certainly would choose to move into a different community knowing this is the position held by the board.

We could continue to examine additional effects of unwavering rule enforcement in this environment, but I think the message is clear; choosing to strictly enforce existing rules without consideration of the necessity of the rule, a comprehension that situations arise that could require a variance from the rule and resident input serves no one.  It certainly does not make a successful community environment.  Boards in common interest communities would do well to remember that being flexible and accommodating in the long run is better for the cohesiveness and success of the community.

-

Nicole Hernandez has 24 years of experience in the community association industry and has held the PCAM® designation since 2008. A past president of CAI’s Southern Colorado Chapter and national subject matter expert in financial and risk management, she continues to serve through committees in the Rocky Mountain and Minnesota Chapters of CAI.