I wanted to write to share my thoughts with you on the current visitor ID policy. I was moved to do so by a recent comment on this blog that the ID policy is a “pain in the ass,” but that "policy is policy." I cannot argue with this statement. But an equally true statement is that “policy is not law,” and it stands to reason that there must be some bounds on management’s ability to unilaterally impose new policies.
As I understand it, and as it has been explained to me by more than one attorney, while management does have some authority to enact and enforce community rules, that authority is not unlimited. We each have a contract (lease) with management, and that contract lays out the threshold community rules must meet to be binding on tenants. Assuming your lease reads the same as mine, unilateral changes to community rules 1) must be reasonable, 2) must be non-discriminatory, and 3) must not substantially alter the arrangement between the leaseholder and management. A few brief notes on each point:
1) While there is no universal definition of reasonableness, I would suggest that, at minimum, a “reasonable” policy must a) have a substantial likelihood of achieving its stated objectives and b) have benefits that outweigh the costs. Since a person with any imagination whatsoever could easily get into the building without showing ID, I don't think it can be argued that the policy even achieves the objective of requiring visitors to show ID, much less any objective related to building security. Furthermore, many seem to agree that the costs are too onerous for residents to justify any marginal benefit. For these reasons I do not believe the policy qualifies as reasonable under this definition.
2) Discrimination may be defined as "the granting of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes.” Even when the policy is enforced by the concierge, it has been well documented that guests coming in through the parking garage are effectively exempted from the ID policy. In this context, then, the “favored class” are those who are able to get a parking space in the building, and the “disfavored class” are those who are not. I do not think possession of a parking pass is a “reasonable distinction” that should dictate whether or not your guests should have to show ID, do you?
3) Finally, I would argue that the ID policy does substantially alter the arrangement I have with management because it asserts that they have the unqualified right to monitor, register, and even restrict the guests I bring into my home without any reasonable basis to do so. While I respect those of you who do not find it to be invasive, offensive, or embarrassing, this policy is a substantial departure from what is required at every other apartment building I have ever lived in, visited, or even heard of. Management’s request that I comply with this policy is a request for a substantial change in the arrangement I have with them as defined by my lease, and I honestly would not have signed any lease which included this policy as one of its terms.
One final note: for those of you who still question whether we are bound to comply with this policy under the terms of our leases, consider the fact that management too seems to believe that we are not. Why else would they ask residents to sign a separate form acknowledging and agreeing to abide by the visitor ID policy?
This is the kind of resource we need. Someone who actually knows and understands whats going on. I'm not sure what this means for me though. I'd prefer not to subject my guests to have to show their ID (which I have thought from the beginning was both weird and ridiculous).
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely fantastic to see. I love the initiative, consulting with attorneys, and the analytical reasoning behind your points. How can these statements be brought up to management?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the last statement. What separate paper stating this have the residents been asked to sign? I moved in June 2009, before the visitor policy was implemented, and have not been asked to sign anything since (I assume my lease is now month to month). So am I exempt from the visitor policy since I signed nothing?
You're right TJ, I should check the blog more often. This is really interesting (and helpful). This had been one of my biggest complaints-so stupid that we have to have our guests undergo a TSA pat down. I heard it was because a girl was attacked in the elevator last spring-but there are cameras in the elevators now so that solves identifying people in the elevator I guess. I'm moving out of here soon anyway, but this information is useful should I bring a guest in and concierge tries to ID them. Lord help me if concierge chases my guest to the elevator asking for ID!
ReplyDeleteSo the ID thing is pretty inconvenient at times, but I honestly thought the policy was enforced because some random person followed a resident into the building, into her unit, and ended up assaulting her (or possibly his/him).
ReplyDeleteWell, if you think about it, it doesn't make much sense to ID visitors of residents as long as a resident vouches for them. I think it's more logical for the concierge to check that people entering have keys if they piggyback in, like I think a couple already do/did. Or make the dial directory in the entry way work so visitors can be buzzed in remotely. So does anyone know if that can be programmed to cell phones, since most people don't really have landlines anymore...?
I believe a cell phone will open the door.
ReplyDeleteThe argument which management makes to justify the ID policy is always supported by two incidents:
ReplyDelete1) a non-resident/non-guest-of-a-resident followed someone in the front door after a Nats game, got in the elevator with a woman, and pulled a knife on her. As I understand it, she thankfully was not physically harmed.
2) a drunk guest-of-a-resident ran a guys head through the wall and he had to go to the hospital.
While these two incidents do raise serious security concerns, neither of them would have been prevented by the ID policy. How, then, can management use them as justifications for a policy that would not have prevented them? It's baffling.
I'm amazed by the attention and anger this policy has created for some. I'm completely fine with this policy, which is repeated in several buildings around DC for which my friends live, such as Avalon at Gallery Place (rentals) and Madrigal Lofts at Mount Vernon Triangle (condos). They aren't limiting WHO can come into the building (i.e. discrimination), they just want to be able to associate which guest is with which tenant in the event that another legal/criminal issue arises...such as the fight on the 7th floor, assault in the elevator etc. I think the policy is two-fold that it provides some security for other tenants from rampant strangers roaming the halls (because if you come in via the garage, you are with a tenant anyways as the elevators require keys) AND gives legal protections for management should an issue arise with a guest.
ReplyDeleteAnd, quite frankly, I haven't heard anyone on this blog suggest an alternative process that gives some accountability of who is in the building and some responsibility to the tenants for who they all to come into our shared community. Wonder why the Jefferson has the "frat pad" stereotype associated to it, but Axiom and 909 don't. Think about it.
Anony 3:24 is correct.
ReplyDeleteJay,
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with the fact that you're fine with this policy. A few points, though:
1) If you check the policy, they are in fact saying that they can limit who comes in the building for any reason they choose.
2) There is a camera in the front entrance as well as in the elevators. If they can identify someone who has engaged in illegal/criminal activity, then they can identify the resident that escorted them in from the video. If they cannot identify the person who engaged in illegal/criminal activity, then there is no way they could identify the resident that escorted them in from an ID log book.
3) Your statement that "if you come in through the garage, you are with a tenant anyways" is inaccurate. A non-resident/non-guest could "tailgate" into the garage and the elevator just as they do at the front door. I have been told by management that this has occurred.
4) Again, the ID policy does not "provide some security for tenants from rampant strangers roaming the halls." It is the guest escort policy (with which I have no issue) that prevents strangers from entering the building, not the guest ID policy. In fact, requiring the concierges to check IDs makes it MORE likely that a non-resident/non-guest will sneak in because the concierge is too busy checking IDs.
5) Here is my alternative:
- 100% guest escort OR photo ID from unescorted guest (about which resident has notified the concierge)
- actually enforcing this policy
- if management is still concerned about strangers entering the building or other security matters, then they should hire a security guard and not leave our safety in the hands of a concierge
CantWaitToMoveOut,
ReplyDeleteAfter I brought in a guest without him showing ID, a form was slipped under my door with a note asking that I sign it and return it to the office. When I met with management to discuss, the person I met with apologized and said that they should have given it to me before I moved in. They seemed to think that I am bound by the policy even though they forgot to tell me about it and have me sign the form. I disagree.
The attorneys I met with were at the DC Landlord Tenant Resource Center:
http://www.dcbar.org/for_the_public/programs_and_services/landlord_tenant.cfm
Has anyone lived in any other JPI/Gray Star properties or spoken to anyone to know if the visitor policy is something mandated from the corporate level or if it's up to each individual property?
ReplyDeleteJay you have clearly never invited a guest over, never had a guest stay more than one night, and never had to go downstairs multiple times if you have more than one guest. This guest policy is annoying, lame, and won't solve anything.
ReplyDeleteAn alternative would be escorting your guests (no ID policy), or if management thinks safety is that bad they need to hire a 24 hr security gurd. The ID policy wouldn't have stopped that weirdo from tailing that girl, wouldn't have stopped that fight on the 7th floor, and doesn't address the fact that all guests entering through the garage are free from having to be ID'd.
Jay. The axiom has the same problem. I'm not sure about the 909. What they don't have is a blog to point it out.
ReplyDeleteThere really do need to be some logical, realistic adjustments made to the guest policy.
ReplyDeleteAnd anony is right - people can tailgate into the parking garage just as they can tailgate into the front of the building and skirt around concierge. I also have found that concierge pays little attention to the ID's they look at, so why the extra step anyway? I also feel as though it creates tension between concierge and the tenant/guest as concierge is constantly pestering people for their ID's (making guests and tenants feel annoyed).
I am fine escorting my guests and not having them sign in, or, I am fine having my guests sign in and being able to walk to my unit unescorted. But not both. Both is really just too much.
This guest policy sucks!
ReplyDeleteGuests entering through the garage won't be a problem next week thanks to management shutting it down for the week. And a very merry thank you to management for all the notice. I do hope we'll be compensated for this incredible inconvenience. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteUm, where the hell is everyone going to park next week?? Suggestions?
ReplyDeleteAh DFT, clearly I must be a hermit and never have guests over. That must be it...I wish I had as many friends as you. Puh-leeze, of course I've had to do those things and while mildly annoying, I'll take them over a 24hr security guard that raises the cost of my rent to pay for.
ReplyDeleteJay, I think you are missing the point. Your argument assumes that the ID policy is a legitimate substitute for a security guard. This is not the case. What we are saying is that the ID policy serves little to no purpose. The cost of a security guard is a different matter, but one worth discussing if management and residents believe there is a real security problem. Enacting draconian policies that serve no purpose other than to create a FALSE sense of security and an unnecessary burden for residents is counter-productive.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, though, I don't think personal attacks on either side are productive. So let's all please try to focus on the substance of the issue and not engage in a back-and-forth of irrelevant and unproductive attacks.
ReplyDeleteWho said it would cost more to us in rent to have a security guard?
ReplyDeleteThis policy needs to go! andx2 on the parking issue coming up on monday... I work at night and am in the apt all day sleeping. juess ill be paying for a parking spot that I cant use for a few days.
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks to whomever took the time to place the cards on every door. Until the other day, I was unaware this blog ever existed.
ReplyDeleteI too think the ID AND escort policy is ridiculous. I came to this building 3 times prior to moving in...once to see the place, second to fill out my application and thirdly to sign my lease and pay my first mo rent. Never was I told of this policy until the day I came to sign my lease which was 1 wk prior to me moving in. I had no choice but to sign and therefore "agree" to the new policy because I had no where to go had I refused. I had long since turned in the vacate notice at my last place and there was no turning back. Had I known when I viewed the units or at the very least when I came to apply, I may not have chosen this building for that alone. So, for the lawyers out there, would that be considered "under duress" or something of that nature?
Secondly, I am ok with the ID policy or not having to show ID if I am entering with my guest. However the guest escorts drive me crazy. I have been out of college for quite sometime and this is clearly NOT a college dormatory. It is down right embarrassing if I have a business meeting or function at my home, that my guests have to show ID and be escorted individually. Not to mention all of my guests that have encountered a particular concierge have all commented on how rude and obnoxious that concierge was to them...not allowing them to fully enter the building and approach the desk prior to being yelled at for ID and having the guest log shoved at them. I've witnessed this rudeness first hand while waiting for packages with other residents and their guests.
So is there anything we as residents can do to have this policy changed? Furthermore, I have been approached several times to host an event in one of the rentable areas (pub room, rooftop) but have refused to do so due to the policy. No company would be happy to know they are missing out on money due to something so silly as a visitors plicy. Does anyone think a letter writing campaign to Greystar with the loss of potential revenue angle will affect any change to this policy?
I think we should start by contacting Patty Holt and Melanie Martin to give them a chance to change the policy. But if that doesn't work in a short period of time, I think your idea of an email campaign directed at the other people on the email list on this blog (Greystar CEO, COO, etc) is really the only way we have to go.
ReplyDeleteIn the interim, if you want to address the issue of your being required to sign the guest policy form that other tenants weren't required to sign, you might try raising this issue with management. If they don't address your concern, then you might consider filing a complaint with the DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. If management is applying this requirement to sign the form inconsistently and/or arbitrarily, they might be able to help you.
Their website is:
http://app.dcra.dc.gov/services/inspections/housing_complaints.shtm
Their phone number is:
(202) 442-4400
To Anon @ 10:32:
ReplyDeleteThe pub room (and maybe rooftop) party policy is quite different from the guest ID policy. You have to make a guest list that is given to the concierge prior to the event. You do not have to escort your guests to the pub room (not sure about a rooftop even, though). In my experience, I rented the pub room for an event and I wasn't even required to escort guests that weren't on the list.
A letter writing campaign may work, but I'd suggest if you want to make a difference, come to the tenant association meetings.
The "guest list" doesn't just apply to the rentable public spaces. I was informed that If I had more than two guests I would have to provide a list to the front desk. The guests were still required to show ID and I still had to escort them. I was pretty annoyed with this and confused as to the purpose.
ReplyDeleteJust now reading the thread. Some good points and some non-points made. All of the "justifications" or "explanations" listed here don't really qualify the need for this ID policy. Escort your quests and reference the many, many cameras if necessary, or, have guests sign in and be able to walk to whatever unit.
ReplyDeleteSnake - with your comment at 10:51 - the policy for those rooms wouldn't mitigate a fight, right? So why the policy? Why the extra work?
It seems that there are several, not very well thought out policies put in place. Notifications and memos to tenants also follow this trend of not very well thought out (case and point, the car situation and garage work).
An email campaign might help with this. Enough voices articulating a rational explantation as to why this policy should be re-worked may do the trick. In reading the few posts above, it even seems like there are a number of add-on policies to the overall guest policy (multiple guest and pub room guest lists, etc).
ReplyDeleteI did though, see a sign posted downstairs in the mailroom about a revised holiday guest policy. TJ, perhaps you could scan and post that memo on the blog so others can see it? It may be helpful to those concerned about having guests over during the holiday season.
Revised holiday guest list? OMG, what's next? I agree w "snakegriffen," we should start a letter writing campaign! The vistor policy should be one or the other NOT both. If I buzz someone in and they sign in, it's pretty obvious I know I have company.
ReplyDeleteTo snakegriffen....I was told upon signing my lease (and being "forced" to sign the visitor policy) that making a guest list for a party in the pub room, etc in liu of escorting visitors was solely up to the discretion of the concierge on duty at the time of the party. The leasing agent also told me that other residents had complained of this, citing that if they are hosting a party, how can the be expected to leave every few minutes to escort a guest. But at that time, the policy still stood. However, I did witness the concierge using a guest list for a party in the pub room last might so I guess that policy has changed too.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the tenant meetings, I would love to come but didn't know they were happening nor when they were being held. When and where are the meetings? Should I keep checking this blog for the next one? Is there a posting area some place in the bldg that we can check for meeting times? I rarely go through the lobby so I have no clue what's going on there.