Archive for March 28th, 2012

More sad violin.

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

Speaking of stories that tug at the emotions and then make you say, “Wait…”, there’s another one in today’s Statesman.

We previously noted the fire at a downtown condominium. That was January of last year, and the management is still working on restoring the eighth floor (where the fire was). The process is a little complicated, due to building code and insurance issues.

So there’s this older couple who owns a condo on the eighth floor, and who haven’t been able to occupy it yet. The Statesman notes that they’re somewhat upset because they still have to pay the maintenance fee for the condo’s common areas. (That fee, in their case, amounts to $561 a month.)

At first blush, that sounds unfair. After all, they can’t live in their property; why are they being charged a fee? But wait a minute…

  1. Those fees, as noted, are for maintenance of the common areas in the building; the lobby, the pool, hallways, parking areas, etc. The couple isn’t being denied use of any of those areas. Indeed, the manager notes that they’re still fully entitled to all the benefits of property ownership in the complex.
  2. The Statesman quotes their son as stating “It’s been a hardship for my elderly parents, who are on a fixed income. My parents have paid $9,000 in fees that we dispute.” But hang on; they would still be paying the fee if they were living in the condo, so how is their fixed income relevant?
  3. I understand the couple and their son dispute the fees. However, as the Statesman notes, those fees are set in the condo association’s governing documents, and the association has no power to waive them. (That is, unless 2/3rds of the property owners and their mortgage lenders agree to amend the rules.) The lesson here is: make sure you understand the documents you signed. (Second possible lesson: make sure your insurance coverage deals with situations like this.)
  4. Their fixed income might be relevant if they were coming out of pocket for alternative housing while they were displaced. But as I understand it, the condo association (or, at least, the insurance companies involved) are paying for alternative housing while owners are displaced. (If I’m wrong about that, someone correct me in the comments.) If the condo association isn’t paying, it would seem like homeowner’s insurance would cover that as well (depending on how the policy is written). And, the capper…”He and his wife have been living rent-free in a house owned by [their] daughter”.

So they’re not coming out of pocket for any rent. The only thing in dispute is the fees for the common area, which they would be paying no matter what, and which covers things they can still make use of while they’re temporarily displaced.

This is news?

Edited to add: I didn’t think of this until now. $561 * 14 (January 2011 – March 2012) = $7,854. So where does the “$9,000 in fees that we dispute” figure come from?

News of the world: March 28, 2012.

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

I previously noted the indictments of 11 people associated with Yassine Enterprises, owners of a string of downtown clubs.

Today’s Statesman covers a hearing yesterday in the case, and…better start making popcorn, folks, because this is going to be even more entertaining than I expected:

(I note that today’s article lists 10 people as being involved in the case, while previous coverage specified 11 people, one of whom was unnamed at the time. I’m not sure what is going on with that.)

How often do you read a story in the newspaper that tugs at your heartstrings…at least at first? And then, when you think about it, the questions become overwhelming?

There’s a story like that in today’s NYT. Michael Romanelli was a firefighter until he was injured on the job in 1989. He’s been fighting since then for a full disability pension (which would work out to 3/4ths of his salary, tax free) and took out a full page ad in the New York Post yesterday to continue his lobbying.

At first glance, this sounds awful. Guy was hurt on the job, surely he’s entitled to a disability pension, right? I have a lot of respect for firefighters, and frankly I feel awful for him.

But wait a second…

Ultimately, and despite help from politicians of all stripes, he lost his case before the medical board, and he has lost squarely in the courts.

There’s got to be more to the story than the NYT playing the violin here. If he’s been through the system, and been through the courts, and lost his case for a full disability pension (even though the department found him not fit for duty), I have to think there’s something the Times either isn’t telling us, or didn’t look into.

(“He said he had no job, lived on an annual pension of $22,000 and had no money in the bank. “ So is he getting a pension from the NYCFD, just not the full disability one he wants? What would a full disability pension for a firefighter injured in 1989 work out to, compared to the $22,000 he’s getting now? Are there cost of living increases built into those disability pensions? Who are the politicians who became involved in this?)