And Inflation at 300%.
Tuinwijk zuid inflation triple national rate at 7.5% in the period 2011-2024 while the association organizes celebrations! And celebrations of celebrations, yeah! Why not?
Everyone buying a house in the Tuinwijk Zuid complex (built in 1922 hence over 100 years old) in the southern part of Haarlem has to join the ad-hoc created “Association for the preservation of the monumental complex Tuinwijkz Zuid in Haarlem”, in Dutch: “Vereniging Tot Instandhouding van het complex Tuinwijk-zuid te Haarlem”.
This is an association of owners BUT it is not an “Association of Owners” or VvE (Vereninging van Eigenaars) which is a well-specified, well-known and properly regulated kind of legal entity which follows what is called the “VvE-Recht”.
This (VvE-Recht) is basically its own branch of law, with lawyers specialized into it and an ample jurisprudence, imagine every condo (or almost) in the Netherlands have to follow such jurisprudence.
Instead, the Tuinwijk Zuid association is something following the “Vereniningrecht” or “associative law”, which is normally used for corporations and the like, but also by football club, archeological groups, music ensemble, etc.
It has its own statute, the “constitution” of the association and a so-called “huishoudelijk reglement”, a set of rules basically extending the statute with the advantage that, in order to be modified, members do not have to pay a notary and we all know how “zaunig” the local culture is.
As a member, which is fully understandable, you will be requested to pay a monthly contribution which should go towards the “instandhouding”, the maintenance, supposedly, of the complex: gardens, monumental doors and windows, roofs, etc.
What is in the “etc”?
It is sort of a mistery, as the statute defines a sort of a minimum but nothing else, more on this topic later.
The member’s monthly fee when I joined Tuinwijk zuid in Mar 2013 was 114 €/month which, adjusted for inflation, is equivalent to 145€/month in 2024.
The current contribution is 252 €/month, asked retroactively in March 2024 starting Jan 2024.
This makes an inflation of the monthly contribution of 7.5% yearly, every single year.
Which means that, on top of the national inflation, which averaged a 2.5% in the past 11 years the members of such association pay a “premium” inflation of 5% on top.
Prices, in Tuinwijk zuid, increase three times faster than the rest of the country.
Why, exactly?
Is life so much more expensive, in the “Free Republic” of Tuinwijk zuid?
Does roofing, zinc and trimming plants costs so much more, in Tuinwijk zuid?
Or is it that needed maintenance works were postponed by the “old(er) residents” and simply and rudely dumped on the shoulder of the present ones, a common human sport after all?
Did they enjoy “la dolce vita” at other’s expenses? I mean, it wouldn’t be so “dolce”, otherwise!
And are they still doing so? Because, to mention a recent example (2024): “changing a door” is not exactly “fixing wood rot”.
The statute clearly say to take care of the painting but: to gift a whole new door?
Because this is what exactly happened in 2024: ten lucky residents were awarded new doors, quoted first 10,000 euros/door and then a more modest 5000 euros/piece.
The following ALV, the majority hastily voted a resolution to close this loophole (better, “loose interpretation of past decisions by the board”) of the rules of the association to avoid to replace, in time, each and every door of the complex, around 350 pieces (!!!).
Meaning: they voted against sharing such expense. The doors will need (eventually) have to be replaced.
I voted against this backpedalling and for two reasons:
– I am in favour of centralizing the purchase of 350 doors, which I believe will be better than negotiate each and every single piece! Better price, better terms. And those doors will have to be replaced, sooner or later.
-And for the second reason that 10 of these doors were already “awarded” and we were creating a clear discrimination: the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Yet another one.
The wood rot cerrtainly can impact the aesthetic of the moument, hence it has to be dealt for by the association.
But a new door was, is and will be property of the owner of the unit.
It is basically the gift of a new doors we generously splurge on some people, including mvr. Van Zetten (of course! The politici always know how to let others pay for them) and dhr. Lamers, neighbour and member of the same political party of Prof. Louise, “Haart voor Haarlem”. Not to mention: a brief addition to our glorious board of directors. A story for another time.
I am curious: do they mean themselves, meaning personally, with the “Haarlem” in the name “Haart voor Haarlem”? Who’s the “Haart” and who’s the “Haarlem”, exactly, in this game? Who works for whom?
And, again: why should present members pay for other members lack of care?
Because lack of care it was, if we understand correctly the official documentation: in 2019 the picture of the situation was clearly stated in the relevant minutes of one of the annual meeting, by the person in charge for such technical questions:
“De heer xxxxxxx geeft aan dat het schilderwerk nu volledig is hersteld en men nu uit kan gaan van een nulmeting.”
So, 5 years ago things were perfect, dandy!
Five years later we have to change 10 doors, @ 10,000€ each! OOOPS, pardon, I meant 5,000€, per piece.
Because our board, to add joke to damage, which included a professor of Economics and a director of the Ministry of Finance, does not know how to quote a door without a margin of error of 100%.
And they also do not know that changing substantially the terms of a contract, stipulated in the name of the association, means that they have to rediscuss the very same with the rest of the association. Also a story for a coming article.
This when other happenings, like the cracks on our walls are deemed to be “a problem of each single owner” and trees falling unattended a “fact of life”. Better bring the children home when it is windy outside, this is the way.
All because of a very liberal (and absolutely not partecipated) interpretation of the “splitsakte”, which is not a “splitsakte” but a “statute”, by the way.
This (the “splitsakte”) is the official ( the “akte” part) division (the “splits” part) of competences between the association and each and every single member.
Repairing the toilet? Members’ job. Repairing the roof? Call the association.
Ok, but a “religious” question, hence, follows: who decides the correct interpretation of the statute?
The statute says, art.3 a and b:
“De vereniging heeft ten doel:
- het toezicht houden op en de coördinatie van de voorschriften en bepalingen terzake van het totale exterieur van de tot het complex behorende woningen, de structurele en bouwkundige onderdelen van het interieur daarvan, waaronder met name de indeling als zodanig, de inrichting en het gebruik van de gemeenschappelijke tuinen alsmede de heggen in de privé-tuinen en de muren in het verlengde van de poorten naar de gemeenschappelijke tuinen;
- de uitvoering van het gemeenschappelijk onderhoud van minimaal de gemeenschappelijke tuinen, de poorten en de tuinmuren bij de poorten, van de dakbedekking en het buitenschilderwerk der woningen alsmede van de heggen in de privé-tuinen, ter zake waarvan een onderhoudsfonds zal worden gevormd en in stand gehouden;”
Where do we get this interpretation from?
Which is not in agreement with THIS interpretation, by the way:
The pdf was sent to me by our “handling company”, Munnik Beheer BV (a bookkeeping company specialized in VvE (and not in “Verenigingrecht”, our “helping hand” for the past 15 years. A separate article will follow soon over them and their work for us) then-account manager. But whose hand wrote the “toevoeging”?
Nobody seems to know.
Interestingly enough, the note at the margin indicate that the plastic-made “light cupoles” which are on top of each and every roof are NOT included in the common maintenance.
“Interesting” because, in the budget 2022, that was exactly what WAS, indeed, included as mainteance cost.
Someone got a free cupole? And is someone checking these budgets?
I mean: for REAL, checking these budgets, not just with a smile and a nod to the friends&family?
Another VERY interesting story for another very interesting time, lots to write about around here.
But the replacing of the doors is also not mentioned in such document, whose interpretation seems to be as elastic as some people’s conscience, when interpreting official documents.
Same supplier, worse treatment
And how does using always the same suppliers (Munnik, Stoolvoort, De Groep, etc) caters towards the need of the association? The quality of the last paint job wasn’t stellar, according to some it wasn’t even “good enough”, hence we are certainly not better treated as a “valued customers”, or so it seems.
You would expect that over a half a million euros would buy you at least some serious deadlines but that was not the case, the whole paintjob lasted over a year, months and months after the given end of the project. And many were not satisfied with the result, nor with the timing.
Panem et Circenses
As customary, during the past few ALVs (the association General Meetings) we have assisted to the celebration of the celebration, the board congratulating the organizers of various jubilee/feestje/etc.
Mind you: because of the board decision we have only two hours to talk about everything which has happened in the previous six months and, maybe, a little of what’s going to happen in the coming six.
Again: our usual venue, the Haarlemse Montessori School, will be happy, as per its directeur Armand and for the person who will have to help us directly, to let us stay longer, and we COULD plan the meetings in a different moment, why not meet in the weekend, a nice Sunday afternoon?
In place of Monday or Tuesday evening?
For 3 hours instead of 2, perhaps? With a nice break in the middle, for those who need to use the restrooms.
Instead the impression is that our board members love to see the discussion “lekker beperkd”, nice and short, otherwise maybe people would start truly discussing what’s going on around here.
Hence better set in the agenda the celebrations, and the celebrations of the celebrations.
Some 2000 years ago the Roman emperors thought the very same: how can we avoid the free and serious discussion over the present situation in Rome? Because that could mean troubles. For those in charge, of course.
The answer was “Panem et Circenses”, food and feestjes, a simple way not only to distract the “plaebe” but also to buy the consensus, gratifying the organizer with the chair of some committee, subcommittee or subsubcommittee. And then with the celebration of the celebration, bottles of wine, bunch of roses, etc.
All paid by the association, even by those who never took part to such “happenings”.
And it is strange, it really is, but there are those who never join! Asocialen that they are!
For some very unusual reason there is a lot of subterranean discontent in such a “heavenly” part of town, so weird!
And in the meanwhile important work of control and maintenance do not happen, because “there is no time” or “there is no money” (The association vice president said as much to me in an email) or “this is not up to the association but to the owners”, something which is decided by simply skipping procedures, interpreting the statute/splitsakte in a very liberal manner and voilà!
You are going to contribute to the purchase, painting and installation of someone elses door, because they are such good neighbours but nobody cares for the cracks on your walls, nor the humidity in the very same.
Residents: Are you happy to pay for this state of being? Future residents: would you be happy to join such an association? Let me know.
Leave a Reply