Accessibility

After a fire struck Building 3 within the complex a few months ago, it would have been prudent for the Manager of the grounds to check accessibility to all fire extinguishers. 

For whatever reason, outside extinguishers are located under exterior stairways in the same area where bike racks are installed.  As indicated in the pictures, access to extinguishers is blocked.

Having fire extinguishers under stairs where someone who might be trying to quell a fire could injure themselves against the stairs during dark or smoky conditions is also unreasonable.

Blogs like this shouldn't have to be the prod getting overseers of the premises to remedy serious faults like this.  After the fire, common wisdom would have necessitated a review and correction.

Bicycles themselves are not the fault or the problem.  Having bike racks under stairs is a perfect location for them.  It is where the current fire extinguishers are located that is unsafe. 

Timely relocation of fire extinguishers to areas that allow unrestricted access is a necessary step toward increasing the safety and value of our residences.

Dues payers are getting screwed

...
A constant problem that the Homeowners Association has never addressed is that of people not associated with University Meadows in any way using parking stalls as free parking.

It is common and irritating to come home and find an unknown vehicle parked in the spot assigned to you.

The Association has sent out nasty letters complaining about items on balconies it claims should not be there. The Association's reasoning is that while balconies are not accessible to the public they are still "Common Areas" subject to restrictions arbitrarily decided by the HOA. The HOA will then assess fines against the unit's owner for restriction violations.

And yet, when a vehicle parks in a stall that it is not entitled to, the Association will not take any action against it, even though that certainly is a Common Area. Instead, the HOA says the owner of the stall should call a tow. In other words, it is not the Homeowners Association's problem.

This is unacceptable.

For years people from outside the UM complex or their actual guests have used parking stalls, both numbered and "guest," as ways to get free parking.

For example, when the University parking garage adjacent to the UM complex was being constructed a few years back, construction workers there were observed driving into the "Guest" stalls and getting free parking all day for the several months it took to complete the garage.

Now, with University parking prices skyrocketing, a rising number of people who work or take classes at school are getting free parking by using UM stalls.

Of course, the parking isn't free. Owners of each unit subsidize all the parking on the property, including "Guest" stalls, through their HOA dues to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.

Over the past week, this guy parked his truck (pictured) early every morning in a "Guest" spot and then walked over toward the University Union.



He is getting nearly front door parking and not paying a penny for it. Instead, the Homeowners Association is more worried about what is on a unit's balcony. The owners are subsidizing this guy's parking and the HOA does nothing to prevent it.

There are two fixes for this abuse. Either install all-weather gating at entrances and assign keys for vehicle entry or remove all "Guest" spots and assign the extra stalls to units willing to pay extra for having more than the typical one or two vehicles on the premises.

The first suggestion of installing gating would be more efficacious because without gating non-payers will still be stiffing owners of the spots they pay exorbitant amounts for, parking in any spot they choose.

In the meantime, in fairness to the owners, the same Homeowners Association people who bristle at a balcony violation should also tow vehicles that have no reason being on the property.

University parking prices are predicted to continue to rise. Parking "stowaways" will also continue to rise. It is time the HOA solves this problem.

Bill the HOA

...
The picture below is advanced notice of sealcoating by a company hired by the HOA. Sealcoating of the asphalt lots is all well and good, and a good use of our steep HOA dues.

What is not OK is that the notices were dated and delivered on August 14, only four days before lots are to be closed and work begun on August 18.

The notice states that vehicles that are not moved by then will be towed at owner's expense. This is a problem, and this is where the HOA screws up. A 4-day warning is not long enough for the several hundred residents in this complex.

I was away on a 3-week vacation and just returned. What if there are others right now who are away for extended periods? Summer is the most common time for residents to be away for long periods.

Those who are away may return to find their vehicle moved or damaged and have a bill waiting for them too. This is wrong.

There is no reason why a minimum one-month notice from the HOA can't be part of the plan for resurfacing.

Until a minimum one-month advance notice can be built in to the process for projects like this, the HOA should be required to pick up the bill, not the vehicle's owner.

Units on fire

...

A resident caught this frightening scene on June 3 ... the inferno highlights the danger upper story residents face due to lack of fire exits for them in these buildings.

It appears that at the time this event was being recorded, firefighters had not yet arrived.

In subsequent memos to residents, not one word of concern from the HOA regarding this serious safety issue about the lack of fire exits.

Dumpy

...
With the crash of the economy over the last couple years, one would think the HOA would do what it can to keep home values from sinking even lower ... but apparently not.

Worst nightmare

...
Everyone's worst fears came true like a bad dream about 2 o'clock in the morning last week in the University Meadows complex. A fire broke out and consumed two condo units.

The media reported there were no injuries, while a Sterling Real Estate Management memo dated 03 June 2010 stated that "bodily injury was minimal." Two upstairs units in Building 3 were completely destroyed and six other units suffered smoke or water damage.

On 04 June, it was reported that police are directing the investigation of the blaze as arson until it can be proven otherwise.

Everyone recognizes that minimizing the possibility of fire is important. However, aside from being able to defend against apparent arsonists, a fire here raises serious questions about the safety of the units, especially those on the second and third floors.

There is a serious flaw in the design of the buildings which threatens the safety of residents on the upper floors. The buildings are fire traps for those residents.

This is because when the condominiums were built, the construction provided for only one entrance/exit for units higher than ground level. (Ground-level units have two entrances/exits. The ground floor bedroom window provides a third possible exit.)

The blaze that occurred on 03 June seemed to come from the bedrooms of the second-floor units. The picture below shows the balcony and bedrooms fully involved. Residents in those units at least had a chance of escape down the single outside stairwell leading away from the burning bedrooms.

But if a ground-floor unit catches fire, or if a water heater or some other front-side fire breaks out and blocks escape via the outside stairwell, then second and third floor residents of two units are trapped.

Has this safety flaw ever been addressed by the HOA management? If not, why not? And if it has, what was decided?

Why after all these years are the lives of residents at risk?

Is safety really a concern of the HOA management?

(pictures below taken about 2:20 am and again about 4:00 pm on 03 June 2010; click to enlarge)