Sponsors are exempt from a number of things that Shareholders enjoy:
- Board approval of residents/potential buyers
- Board review and approval of structural changes
- Board review/approval of renovations of ANY kind
... all to the frustration of many a Board, I'm sure.

Let your angry Shareholders know that any "holders of unsold shares" (shares that have never been sold, but reside with the originator of the co-op) have -- usually, depends on the Proprietary Lease -- broad rights, especially financial. And quote them the exact passage in your PL where these rights (and exemptions) are outlined.

This is everyone's problem: why the sponsor...?

My question is:

What is the percentage # of shares that the sponsor still holds in your builidng?

Consider then, this percentage as the amount that you subsidize the sponsor by way of flip tax $ every time a unit sells.

If the percent # shares is still significant, then the policy was ill-conceived. The assessment method of raising funds would have been FAIR and EQUAL for all shareholders.

Sorry, but I'm not sympathetic to the flip tax. Only would consider it if a person were to sell the apartment prior to the first 18 months after buying the unit.

AdC

Its been a while since I was here... anyway..
I manage some sponsor units, (as well as many others), each offering plan outlines the exemptions for the sponsor, some place specific timelines on how ling the exemption is in effect.
I have one building where the sponsor is exempt for any assessments, taxes and fees for the only the first 5 years.... I have another where we have a great sponsor relationship and even though he is exempt, they did agree to contributing to the cause by 1.5% as opposed to the 3% regular shareholders are required to pay.
So, the answer you are seeking is clearly spelled out in the original plan to convert and/or its amendments.

Additionally, you have to realize that eventually everyone pays. with less transfer fees coming in, the shareholder maintenance must be raised to compensate.

On the sponsor side, he may argue that it is because of him you own your apartment in the first place and his exclusion from certain fees such as this are part of the price paid for that privilege.

~AR