What Sounds do Llamas make (in Apartments) ???

I don’t know what sound a Llama makes in an apartment but Dimitry Nikolau does.  And you can too by clicking here.

Over the years I’ve seen and heard of some strange animals being kept in apartments but never a Llama ... until now.

Apparently Dimitry Nikolua has been keeping his pet Llama (called Fantik) in his Moscow apartment for the last 10 years.  It’s pretty weird but the story gets weirder.

Dimitry was a bear tamer (you know circus like) but gave that work away when he started his family.  So, to ease things he bought a pet llama.  Unfortunately, the llama was shot by thieves in his garden so Dimitry moved to an apartment, got another llama (Fantik) and has lived there with his family ever since.  Dimitry says he is looking for a kangaroo as his next pet.

I wonder a bit about the noise, smell and chaos in that place.  And about the llama shooting thieves.

Neighbours refused to comment on Dimitry, Fantik and their antics …

Francesco …

All About ISTM ...

The Institute of Strata Title Management Limited (ISTM) is a not for profit organisation that represents strata stakeholders in New South Wales.

Members comprise strata managers and others who work in strata management businesses, strata suppliers from tradespeople to professional advisers, students, strata schemes and former industry figures who are ISTM Fellows.

ISTM was established in 1984 by a group of strata managers and lawyers and has grown to over 1300 members since then.  All key NSW strata figures are members and supporters (including me) and it has a range of sponsors from across Strataland.

Some of the key activities ISTM undertakes include –

• Education of strata managers, suppliers and committee members
• Lobbying government on key issues
• An annual convention
• Publishing a bi-monthly newsletter
• Regular information and networking events
• An annual business benchmarking survey
• Enforcing a Code of Ethics for members
• Hosting an informative website

One of the more useful services ISTM provides is the Find a Strata Business and Find a Supplier Business services which you can find through these links.

ISTM’s a great organisation that works hard through its board, executives, sponsors and volunteering members to benefit the whole strata sector.

So, if you’re not an ISTM member you should join.  And, if you are an ISTM member get more involved.

I did and I liked it ….

Francesco …

Do we need a Strata Terminator ???

How do we deal with ending strata schemes when there is disagreement about it ? 

Strata termination has been debated now around the country for almost 10 years without an outcome.  And, from my perspective, there’s no clear direction and no serious interest in implementing any strategies.

Maybe we don’t need a system ?  Maybe any system will be as good as any other ??  Or, maybe we just need someone who has the guts to terminate strata schemes and ask questions later … like a Strata Terminator ??

In this post I explore the ideas, issues and difficulties faced with strata scheme termination.

All Australian states have legal mechanisms to end a strata scheme if all the owners agree and by Court order when the circumstances warrant it even if all the owners do not agree.  Unfortunately there is no guidance in the strata laws about the criteria that should be considered (or not) in making a decision about scheme termination and there are no cases that assist much.

The existing system is fine

So, one view is that we already have a system, it can work if used and we just have to use it and when we do the Courts will tells us when (and why) it is appropriate to end strata schemes and when it isn’t.  Over time we will have a workable system and the clever lawyers amongst us will design processes and templates that are easier and easier to use.

My thoughts are that this is a perfectly acceptable approach that will (over time) give us a good outcome.


The only drawbacks are that it will take a while and the first litigants will bear the major cost of clarifying the law (but they could be subsidised by government, industry groups or consumer groups).

We need a lower vote and tribunal involvement

However, many groups (including the Property Council of Australia and the NSW Government) want to introduce a non-unanimous vote for strata termination … so that even if some owners oppose termination it can still happen.  There are various proposals about how this could happen and the main issues on which they differ are –

• What vote is enough (the range is from 60% to 90%) ?
• Should a termination proposal be approved by a Court or Tribunal first ?
• Should owners who oppose termination have rights to challenge the decision ?
• How should owners be compensated (and on what measures) ?

Many people have advocated the Singaporean system that has been in operation for about 15 years (and where strata laws are similar to NSW) which involves Tribunal approval and supervision of termination schemes.

My thoughts are that the vote level is less critical than many imagine if the system also involves Court or Tribunal approval/supervision.  After all, whether one, two, three or more owners oppose termination is less relevant than the reasons why it should (or should not) happen.

I also believe that requiring Court or Tribunal approval reduces the value of having a lower vote threshold and makes the process as complex and uncertain as the existing system since we still won’t know what the Court or Tribunal will or won’t approve (and why).

Who gets paid what

When the strata scheme is terminated it’s net assets (the value of the whole property and any money left after paying all liabilities) should be split between the owners (and their mortgagees) but it’s not clear in any of the current proposals how that split should occur.

I think there are a few options.

1.  Owners get the net assets according to their unit entitlements.  It’s the way the strata system is designed now and is certain and predictable.

2.   Owners get equal amounts.  This is probably unfair but it does incentivise those who have the least financial gain otherwise from termination.

3.  Owners get the amount or share that was agreed in their vote to approve the termination proposal.  This may not be equal or according to unit entitlements and seems fair since it’s approved and therefore agreed.  But the owners who opposed the vote may be discriminated against and/or will be unhappy.  (For instance, it could be that they opposed the vote because of the proposed payment to them.)  It also suffers the problem that unless the net assets are known when the vote is taken the actual amount owners receive can change (and be lower) causing hardship.

4.  If the strata scheme is being redeveloped as part of the termination owners get what they negotiate with the developer.  This appears fair since it involves open negotiations and allows the developer a commercial profit.  But it has the possibility of the perverse outcome that the owners who agree last will get the best premium and highest value for their property … so it’s better to hold out than agree early.

5.   Owners who approve termination get what they agreed to and owners opposed are paid the fair market value of their property with rights to dispute the value along the lines of existing compulsory acquisition schemes for land.  Any balance is the developers if htere is redevelopment or shared according to unit entitlement if not.  This hybrid approach means agreement is agreement, the opposing owners have a judicial process and there is a possible windfall to developers or owners.

My thoughts are that it is inevitable that that those who disagree about the amount they are to receive on strata termination will be the hardest to deal with and it’s better to eliminate the profit potential of opposition by giving them standardised compensation.

Kicking people out  

Assuming everything happens as agreed or ordered, how are owners (and/or their tenants) who still won’t, don’t or can’t leave removed ? 

Property possession orders remain difficult to get and may involve separate legal action at the end of the termination process. 

What do you do with the contents of the lot ?  What do you do with old and infirm people ?  And, what do you do when there simply isn’t anyone in the lot ?  Just imagine the evening news that night !


So, it all seems very difficult.  And, whichever way you go there’s going to be legal challenges.

Where’s Arnie when you need him ?  In a different place and time, we’d appoint a one man Strata Terminator who’d get agreement (one way or the other) and make sure people were out, stayed out and the building was gone.

But seriously ... I’m interested in your views on this topic and will actively canvass those and post them in future blogs.  


So, let me know your thoughts and ideas.

Francesco ….

When Crime Pays … or Graffiti for Fun & Profit !

You may have realized I’m very interested in graffiti … and that’s for many reasons.

But, what I didn’t realize was that graffiti can make you money too.

Unless you’ve lived in London you probably have never heard of Bansky.  But, Banksy is a secretive London graffiti-ist who has transcended the criminal tag and become an artist. 

His conventional artwork (signed and on paper) has been selling for high prices through a gallery.  Last year Brad Pitt and Angela Jolie piad $200,000 for one of his prints.

What’s more interesting is that some of his graffiti has also been sold.

A picture of an artist in old-fashioned clothes spray-painted on a wall in London's Portobello Road, Notting Hill sold on eBay last year for £208,100 ($452,950) after attracting 69 bids. The buyer must pay for a replacement wall if they want to take the purchase home.  Luti Fagbenle, who owns the property on which the graffiti is sprayed, said he sold the image because "I can't really justify owning a piece of art worth as much as it is".

If you are in Melbourne you can see some of Banksy’s work hidden behind two rubbish bins at the entrance to a narrow city lane.  It’s a ghostly image of a man wearing a heavy coat and an old-fashioned diving helmet and was painted on the wall about five years ago during his only known visit to Australia. But since it’s painted on the wall of a heritage-listed building it’s not likely to be sold.

If you want to see more of Banky’s work check out his website.

Francesco …

Why are there so many Apartments Here ? Or … 40 Steps to Higher Density in Sydney

There’s a lot of apartments in Sydney these days and everyone in charge talks about building more and more.

But, interestingly the urban planning strategies that were put in place to increase densities all failed to meet their objectives and targets.  So, we could (and should) have more apartments.  That sounds good to me.

I posted about a great summary of planning approaches in Sydney last month (see Planning to Fail … A Short History of Urban Densification in Sydney). 

Now I’ll highlight the 40 steps that got us to where we are now (decade by decade).

Pre War

1.  The dense built form of the nineteenth century changes to low density suburban development

2.  Motor cars enable longer travel distances

1940s

3.  Sydney’s first strategic plan (the County of Cumberland Plan 1948) proposes more compact urban spread which doesn’t happen as Sydney grows

1950s

4.  Sydney keeps growing wider and flatter

1960s

5.  Sydney Regional Outline Plan 1968 continues earlier approach and assumes very little (if any) population change

6.  Allows 3 story flats in residential areas

7.  Population booms

1970s

8.  OPEC oil crises in 1973 and 1978 creates pressure on less travel and densification

9.  Whitlam’s post 1975 ‘New Federalism’ limits capital to NSW governments for infrastructure which goes to coal and aluminium sectors instead

10. Reinforces policies that reduce public infrastructure (road, rail, open space, etc) costs

1980s

11.  Regional Environmental Plans for dual occupancy in 1980 and 1981 did not promote much development

12.  Replaced with policy targets of 12,000 medium density dwellings per year for Sydney in 1983 (at the time it was actually 7,554 dwellings)

13.  Dual occupancy policy was revisited in 1987 by widening blocks it applied to

14.  Increasing opposition to medium and high density development by suburban residents and councils who refused developments and/or implemented restrictive Development Control Plans

15.  The 1987 housing price booms sees property prices double in 2 years due to immigration to Sydney and housing shortages
16.  Affordable housing emerges as a policy issue

17.  Metropolitan Strategy 1988 proposes concentrated zone development

18.  Town Houses and Villa Houses Policy 1989 replaces the 1982 strategy proposing re-zoning by councils to allow more medium density

19.  Local councils resist rezoning and only limited changes occur

20.  At it’s peak multi-unit approvals represented 34% of new dwellings in 1998 and 35% in 1989

1990s

21.  Limits to sewage run off stops development in the Hawkesbury-Nepean area

22.  Green belt concerns stop development in the South-West corridor

23.  Pyrmont-Ultimo targeted for higher density because of the concentration of government owned land in City West Plan 1992

24.  Control of planning under City West Plan centralized to state government and community consultation occurs

25.  Federal Government’s Building better Cities Programme announced in 1991

26.  Metropolitan Strategy 1995 adopts Victorian targets of 15 dwellings per hectare for Greenfield development (in 1996 new development was only at 10 dwellings per hectare)

27.  New Labour government in 1995 ends dual occupancy and town house and villas development policies

28.  Councils asked to prepare (by September 1996) urban densification strategies but most don’t do so

29.  Landcom directed to sell outer suburban holdings for redevelopment and to acquire and amalgamate inner city land

30.  Green Square, Newington and Rhodes targeted as high density development zones

31.  Sydney CBD development grows under local council’s City Living Policy with 3:1 floor space ratios for residential towers

Post 2000

32.  Ongoing conflict between state planning authorities and local councils with mixed results (councils win in Balmain, Kur-ing-gai and Leichhardt and government wins in Paddington, Rhodes and Green Square)

33.  Premier Carr launches campaign about apartment design with SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Development 2000 and Residential Flat Design Pattern Book 2001

34.  by 2001 55% of all new dwellings were attached

35.  In 2002 and 2003 more price rises occurred due to the lack of new Greenfield housing land

36.  Another Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2005 is released that continues urban consolidation but also plans for new suburbs accommodation 160,00 dwellings

37.  Significantly higher density along Parramatta Road and Redfern-Waterloo doesn’t occur

38.  Gentrification trends with inner city and city ring suburbs drives prices and quality up .. but keeps dwelling numbers down

39.  Rising interest rates and the global financial crises slows development in 2009

40.  First home owners incentives in 2009 and 2010 artificially keep the high density development active

And, now a draft new Sydney Metropolitan Strategy has been released to set the agenda to 2031.

So, it’s a sad story of attempts since the mid 1960s to get high and medium density development all over Sydney that have led to some significant development but failed to meet targets at almost every step due to local opposition and political pressure.

Will it be any different in the next decade and will Sydney achieve it’s planning objectives ?

Francesco …

Is There Ever Common Ground with an Insurer ?

Like many of you, I’m not a great fan of insurance companies.

But they’re absolutely essential to strata and the specialists in that area of insurance actually work hard to make their products better suit strata stakeholders, improve the services they provide, influence changes in law and operational practices and educate stakeholders.

The largest Australian strata insurer is CHU who’ve been around for over 30 years.  If you haven’t heard of them before … then where have you been ???  Either way, you can find out more about them here.

But, what I’m more interested in is that CHU publish a regular newsletter of insurance and other matters affecting strata schemes, owners and managers and have been doing so for a long time.  Issue 36 has just been released and you can get a copy from CHU here or my website here.

Read the latest issue (and some back issues) and support the good guys at CHU.

Francesco …

Graffitti for Lovers

In case you still think that graffiti is destructive and only the work of anti-social and angry people … here’s some love and caring in graffiti on a wall.

This young man asked his graffitist friend to paint this on wall to propose to his true love.  Including a YES-NO checkbox for her answer.   

How romantic, novel and urban ?

PS - See checked YES as you can see.

Francesco …

Tokyo City in 323 Seconds

Strata creates high density cities and Tokyo is one of the highest density cities.

So, here’s a visual journey and views of Tokyo city in time lapse compressing a few days into 323 seconds called Floating Point by Samuel Cockedey.

floating point from Samuel Cockedey on Vimeo.

Enjoy.

Francesco …

The Future of Conveyancing … in a Webcast

In case you didn’t already know the Australian state governments have been working together for the past decade to develop a co-ordinate electronic titling and land transfer system.

This will fundamentally transform a paper based and procedurally complex system (that is also very slow) into a seamless modern system.  It is also likely to make land transfer faster, safer and cheaper which is great news for everyone involved in the development, sale, management and ownership of real estate.

Up until recently that development was being done by the National Electronic Conveyancing Strategy (NECS) headed by Simon Libbis, but in January 2010 authority for the project has been transferred to the newly established National E-Conveyancing Development Limited (NECD).

A lot of material about the processes and strategies can be found at the NECS website.

But, more excitingly a webcast is on tomorrow, 20 July 2010 at 12.00 noon (AEST) by NECD to provide an update on NECD’s plans and progress to date (including the opportunity to post questions).  It will run for about 30 minutes and is open to everyone.

Find out more at the NECD Webcast site.

I’ll be watching so why don’t you too ?

Francesco …

Oh La La ... means Strata in French

Since it’s just been Bastille Day (click here to find out more about Bastille Day) we should learn a about strata Gallic style.

Of course France is a codified law country (unlike Australia) so the way strata laws work is quite different.  Based on the Law No 65-557 of 10 July 1995 and Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1965, it has been amended by the SRU Law of 13 December 2000 and ENL Act of 13 July 2006.

This law replaced laws made in 1938 that provided mechanisms to manage shared and separately occupied buildings that emerged in the 1860s.

It’s called copropriete and is different to co-onwership of land in that the concepts of building division, separate ownership of separated parts and common ownership of shared parts apply.

Buildings are divided into units, public areas and special areas (public areas reserved to only some owners).  Each owner is allocated a share which is based on the proportionate value of the their unit to all the other units.

There are rules that apply to all owners as a contract and the shared expenses are paid by owners according to their share.  The only exception are expenses justifiably incurred collecting owners unpaid expense which are payable in full by owners.

An annual budget must be prepared and approved (any expenses not in the budget must be separately approved) and accounts must be kept on an accrual basis.

Decisions are made by owners meetings where each owner can vote (but an owner is always limited to 50% of the votes no matter how many lots they own).  Decisions can be by simple majority vote or two thirds vote depending on the matter.  In some cases a one third majority to a simple majority without more.

Running the strata scheme is done by a union (like a committee) that owners can volunteer for.  And, management can be given to a trustee (from the owners) or a professional trustee and the trustee has strict obligations and duties.

The French courts can make orders in relation to strata disputes including appointing a manager and terminating the strata.  There are also special detailed provisions for the redevelopment of strata schemes.

There are nearly 7,600,000 strata lots in France (30% of them in Paris) and the largest strata scheme is Grigny in Essone which has over 5,000 lots.  So it’s a bigger sector.  But 70% of strata schemes have less than 30 lots and almost 30% have less than 10 lots.

So, whilst it’s bordeaux, steak and pommes frittes rather than beer, steak and chips …. it seems that strata is strata wherever in the world you happen to be.

Au Revior.

Francesco ….

Where does all the Crap Go ? A Short History of Sewage Treatment in Sydney

It’s the unspoken by-product of living in buildings.  And, strata schemes produce more of it than other buildings.

But, where does all that crap go in Sydney ?  How did we get to that position ?  And, what effect/s does effluent disposal have ?

The 1880’s & Sewage Farms

The story begins in the mid 19th century when urbanisation and population growth meant that cities all round the world had to confront sewage disposal in an organised way … not letting it just run into creeks, rivers, dams and the sea.  The thinking and strategies about this were largely led by the English (and Australia followed closely) and between 1850 and 1890 sewage handling and treatment developed quickly.

Interestingly, because the cost of building and running pipelines was high at the time much thinking was being directed towards sewage farms.

In 1882 in Sydney 309 acres were resumed by the government at the northwestern end of Botany Bay for a sewage farm.  It was administered by the sewerage branch of the Roads and Bridges Department and was modeled on a similar sewage farm in Adelaide which covered 470 acres.

In 1887 the Botany Sewage Farm collected about 1.5 million gallons of sewage each day.  Sewage was channelled to irrigation beds at different levels with filtration drains and then the effluent eventually went to the Cooks River. The cultivated land produced cabbages, turnips, lucerne and sorghum which was sold or consumed by pigs and cows raised on adjoining land.

It was reported in 1890 that lucerne had grown "beyond expectation" and the effluent water, which was analysed by the Government Analyst every quarter, was purified satisfactorily.

Sewage flow increased rapidly each year to 3.25 million gallons per day by 1900 and by 1908  6.75 million gallons per day was flooding the land so badly that crop growth was declining and eventually abandoned.

And public sentiment was turning away from sewage farms in favour of other sewage treatment options.  For instance, a government report stated that the sewage farm gave off "exceedingly disagreeable and offensive odours’’.

The farm closed in 1916 when sewage was piped to the coastline and into the sea instead.

1900, A Royal Commission & Chemical Treatment

By the turn of the century we had a British Royal Commission into Sewage Disposal (1898-1915).

This led to a period when chemical treatment was proposed instead.  That involved collecting sewage, treating it and converting it into a sludge that could be used for fertilizer. 

When the need for sweage treatment in Parramatta reached levels needing serious action no-one could agree about a sewage farm or treatment plant.  A referendum of rate-payers in 1898 resulted in 349 people voting in favour of a sewage farm scheme and 111 voting against it.

The situation was never resolved and decades later Parramatta's sewage was piped to the coast and into the ocean.

However, chemical treatment was tried for a very short time at North Sydney because ocean disposal was too expensive and the disposal of raw sewage into the Harbour was no longer acceptable.

So it was proposed that sewage be chemically treated and discharged into Middle Harbour at a place later called Folly Point.  That involved screeing the sewage, adding lime and sulphate of iron mixed, allowing it to settle in tanks so that sludge coulmd be removed and the clear effluent would be intermittently filtered through 6 feet of sand before being discharged into the bay.   The sludge would be made into sludge cake using filter presses and then burnt in furnaces.

Although the North Sydney sewerage works began operating in 1899, there were not enough tanks, the cost of lime for precipitation, sludge pressing and fuel for burning the sludge was too great, and there had been trouble with the sand filtering.  Within 2 years the sewerage works were abandoned.

1910 & Some Septic Tanks

Septic tanks had been in use since the 1860’s but it was not until the 1880’s that it was discovered that hat organic solids liquified under such conditions because of the anaerobic action taking place so the problem of sludge did not exist.

So, when the chemical approach at North Sydney didn’t work all the tanks were converted to open septic tanks in 1902 with the effluent from them still going onto the sand filter beds. This approach worked so well that the Water Board reported that the success of the experiments with septic tanks and cultivation beds justified the whole of Sydney's sewage being treated in this way.

But there were also complaints about the smells arising from the North Sydney tanks from nearby residents and from boating people.  For instance, at a public hearing in 1905 witnesses described what they saw at Folly Point as "an abominable nuisance" and reported that many of the ladies on the wharf at the time were made sick by it.

Additionally the sand filters were becoming less effective and eventually it was also decided to divert the sewage from Folly Point to the sea.

The 1920’s & Pumping to the Sea

Despite the experiments, by 1920 almost all of Sydney's sewage was being piped to the coastline and dumped into the ocean at three main outfalls; Bondi, Malabar and North Head.

That situation continues today with adjustments to the filtration methods and extensions of he outfalls further out to sea to stop drift back to the coastline and beaches.

Remember swimming at Bondi with a westerly swell in the 1970’s. 

Yuck !!!

Today & Back to the Beach

So, all us strata dwellers in Sydney have another thing in common with each other (and the house dwellers) … Our crap (no matter what kind, where from, or when created) all goes to the same place – the Pacific Ocean.

See you at the beach on the next warm Sydney day.

Francesco …

Acknowledgement to Sharon Beder and her article From Sewage Farms to Septic Tanks: Trials and Tribulations in Sydney, Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, Volume 79 (1993)