A reply to the General Manager, Condominiums Management Authority:

Government housing schemes up against the wall

BY UPALI S. Jayasekera

THE General Manager of the Condominium Management Authority, in his article titled "Management Corporations Concept in State Constructed Housing Apartments" has attempted to make believe that Management Corporations as provide for in the Common Amenities Board (Amendment) Act NO. 24 of 2003 is beneficial to the unit owners of State constructed housing apartments. That is a misnomer.

Once the Management Corporations are formed and registered with the Condominium Management Authority, the apartment owners of Government housing complexes will be virtual tenants under the Condominium Management Authority.

That also amounts to corporatisation and the "owner tenants" of the government housing complexes will be at the mercy of the Authority's Board of Management consisting mostly public servants whilst the "corporation" culture that will be brought in will result in favouritism and discrimination with the so called majority decisions being very often more unfair than being fair.

It is a historical fact that government housing, schemes were the outcome of the necessity to provide housing to the not so affluent middle and lower middle income groups.

Thus those who are either owners or tenants of apartments in government housing schemes do not belong to the affluent section of the society, though a few with high incomes may have bought apartments latterly. The apartments in government housing schemes were sold to the tenants under a Rent Purchase Scheme and as a result the tenants changed to be owners.

The market economy has still not brought about any substantial improvement to their economic status. In fact the situation is worse than what it was. They cannot bear additional expenditure involved in sustaining Management Corporations, as envisaged.

There are rules and regulations that apply to tenants/owners of government housing schemes, especially where condominium property (flats) are concerned.

They have been held in the breach by some and the then Department of National Housing and the National Housing Development Authority that succeeded it failed to implement the rules and regulations, correctly and impartially.

In all housing complexes unauthorized structures have come up and some residents have fortified themselves using vacant land which they are not entitled to. Even if something drops down from an upper floor flat, the fortresses of some are unapproachable.

Putting up buildings on vacant land under check due to State supervision at present will go out of control after corporatisation and the enforcement of the law will go as kissing by favour.

What the NHDA hopes to do is get the owners turned tenants to enter into litigation against their neighbours and bear the costs of litigation in respect of issues the NHDA created through its inaction.

Condominium homes

In other countries, Condominium Property Law is for property developers and new construction condominium homes. There, internal roadways, playgrounds, distribution of electricity and water etc. come under the Management Corporation and as a result condominium homes are expensive.

Condominium homes are priced taking into account all such expenditure as well and those who move in or purchase them are those who could afford that expenditure.

Middle and lower income groups will not go into occupation of such homes, unless affordable. What the NHDA intends to do under the new Act is to rope in the owners of 30 to 50 years old apartments in government housing schemes to be tenants under the Condominium Management Authority using sugar-coated pills.

The people, who bought government flats on the conditions that existed then, are different type of owners. It is not fair or correct to bring them to be governed strictly under the provisions of the new Act. A Management Corporation will turn out to be a virtual "while elephant" to apartment owners.

The apartment owners pay rates and taxes to the local authorities. Hence clearance of garbage, maintaining of sewage and sewerage systems, maintaining roadways, lighting, etc is the responsibility of the local body.

Providing electricity to the households is the obligation on the part of the Electricity Board whilst the National Water Supply and Drainage Board has to provide water service to the homes. It is a right the residents need to enjoy.

The apartment owners pay the Electricity Board and the NWS and DB for such services. The necessity for such service to be supplied and managed by the Management Corporation is therefore an unnecessary exercise which is costly to the apartment owners, in Government Housing Schemes.

The apartment owners even at present maintain their apartments to the best of their ability whilst the common areas of the building are maintained jointly with expenditure shared.

There are a few who may not cooperate but that could be overcome by consultation, consensus and understanding. There has to be an organization and machinery blockwise towards that end. But not Management Corporations registered with the Condominium Management Authority and Gazetted as a Statutory Body.

Clarification necessary

What the General Manager has therefore failed to clarify are:

* Does he expect all government housing complexes constructed several decades back to be brought under the Condominium Management Authority with Management Corporations running the complexes? Will all owners be able to meet the expenditure involved?

* The distribution of water, electricity, clearance of garbage, sewage and sewerage systems, have to be the responsibility of the Management Corporations under the Act.

That is placing unnecessary responsibility on apartment owners and burdening them with high expenditure, which expenditure they can ill - afford. Such expenditure and responsibility will place the apartment owners in economic difficulty and eventually they will be pushed out making way for the affluent. Can that be denied?

* A Management Corporation as a Statutory Body will require funds for the maintenance of an office and staff, which again burdens the apartment owners with further additional expenditure. Can that be disputed?

* One of the reasons that justifies the setting up of Management Corporations, according to the General Manager, is to remove encroachments and unauthorised structures. Is it that Management Corporations are a must to demolish unauthorized structures a encourachment of crown land?

The stopping of the construction structures or encroachments on crown land was the responsibility of the National Housing Department, NHDA and the Common Amenities Board. Have they not failed in their responsibilities?

Why cannot the NHDA and the G.M., CMA at least do now? Why are housing authorities trying to pass the buck, so to say, in regard to moving against the wrong-doers, to the law abiding apartment owners and at their expense?

Very recently a garbage collection structure constructed by a welfare society within a housing complex was demolished by the NHDA on the basis that it was an unauthorized structure. Why cannot the same procedure be adopted in regard to other structures and encroachments as well?

* It has been stated that "those who don't support Management Corporations can be forced to do so." How? Forced to meet the additional expenditures involved? The non - cooperative unit owners could be deprived of the privileges of using 'certain' common amenities - and common elements.

What are the common amenities and elements termed 'certain'? Are they water, electricity, roadways, playground etc.? Doesn't that amount to violation of human rights? The establishment of a police station in every state constructed housing complex may perhaps be also necessary.

* According to the Act as stressed by the General Manager, non - unit owners could form a Management Corporation. Perhaps that again is provision for unauthorized structures in management'.

The law applicable to property developers and new construction condominium homes cannot be forced on the housing complexes constructed by the State decades ago. Any attempt to do so cannot succeed.