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?
