Multi Owned Property in The Asia Pacific Region Rights Restrictions and Responsibilities 1St Edition Erika Altmann Full Chapter

Multi-Owned Property in the
Asia-Pacific Region: Rights,

Restrictions and Responsibilities 1st
Edition Erika Altmann
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/multi-owned-property-in-the-asia-pacific-region-rights-
restrictions-and-responsibilities-1st-edition-erika-altmann/
Multi-Owned
Property in the
Asia-Pacific Region
Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities
Edited by Erika Altmann and Michelle Gabriel
Multi-Owned Property in the
Asia-Pacific Region
Erika Altmann • Michelle Gabriel
Editors
Multi-Owned
Property in the Asia-
Pacific Region
Rights, Restrictions and
Responsibilities
Editors
Erika Altmann Michelle Gabriel
Tasmanian School of Business School of Social Sciences
and Economics University of Tasmania
University of Tasmania Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
ISBN 978-1-137-56987-5 ISBN 978-1-137-56988-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56988-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017955061
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: LeeYiuTung/gettyimages
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
Like any birth, bringing forth a new collection is not an easy process, but
full of joy. It relies on past experience as well as future hopes and much
advice. We dedicate this book to those who have persevered with the process,
been part of our vision and joy and through sound mentoring, provided us
with the right tools and benefit of experience. To our families, friends,
colleagues, contributors and mentors – thank you.
Preface
Global cities throughout the Asia-Pacific region are being transformed by

population growth, urban densification and the proliferation of multi-
owned property (MOP). While escalating investor and owner demand
for properties within the central precincts of these cities has created an
exuberance around the benefits of apartment living and investment, less
well understood are the substantial rights, restrictions and responsibilities
(3Rs) associated with collective living. From a range of geographic and
disciplinary perspectives, our contributors question the assumptions that
support today’s compact city hype. The collection canvases structural
issues, including established and emerging legislative and policy settings.
It also highlights emerging social inequalities based on housing invest-
ment in complex property forms. At stake is the liveability of major cities
for residents and workers into the future.
This collection brings together new, contemporary research on MOP
in the Asia-Pacific region. The idea for this collection was born out of our
desire to engage with international debates on MOP development.
However, we recognised that much of this debate was informed by the
European and North American experience, with the Asia-Pacific experi-
ence under-represented. We believe that the Asia-Pacific region has a dif-
ferent and valuable story to add to this debate. While there is a significant
amount of research on the MOP experience in the Asia-Pacific region, to
date this has not been presented in a consolidated form that is readily
vii
viii Preface
accessible to a wider audience. To us, this is a major oversight given that

the region is home to some of the world’s most densely populated and
rapidly growing cities in India, Indonesia, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong
and Australia. It is also a region of innovation with vastly different land
practices and cultural traditions.
This collection is valuable in that it brings together contrasting case
examples of historical and cultural ways of living. In comparison to the
highly populated and traditional communal housing arrangements of
past Asian economies, we see an increasing focus on neo-liberalist,
market-based policies and a focus on the rise of an Asian middle class
shaping structural change from communal to individualistic practices.
Cities within the Asia-Pacific region are experiencing significant popula-
tion pressures, which are resulting in pressure for further consolidation
and intensification of property development. At the same time, increas-
ing middle class wealth in Asian countries combined with a relaxation in
property ownership rules, has allowed substantial populations in these
countries to enter into property ownership. The uptake of strata titled
legislation by governments and developers in the Asia-Pacific region is
fuelling the property ownership dream but with an increasing focus on
management, the investor and marginalisation of low-income housing.
Contributors to this collection explore these themes so that the reader
receives a holistic view of what is occurring within the Asia-Pacific region.
This collection will appeal to researchers, teaching academics, post-
graduate and undergraduate students in a range of fields including: soci-
ology; law; public policy; urban studies and planning; human geography;
housing studies; economics, property management and architecture. It
will also be of interest to organisational and management theorists. This
collection offers a glimpse into the rise of a new breed of professional
managers, including those who manage apartment complexes, master
planned communities and gated communities and increasingly, commer-
cial premises.
The University of Tasmania has provided us with the opportunity to
explore urban-based research and has been integral in forging relation-
ships with academics across this dynamic and vibrant region. We invite
you to enjoy our endeavours!
Contents
Part I Rights 1
1 Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities in Context 3

Erika Altmann and Michelle Gabriel
2 The Unintended Consequences of Strata Title for Urban

Regeneration 17
Rebecca Leshinsky, Peter Newton, and Stephen Glackin
3 Termination Legislation: Property Rights or Wrongs? 39

Alice Christudason
4 Impediments to Effective Strata Governance 65

Nicole Johnston and Eric Too
5 City Transition: A MOP Rights Boom in China 83

Zhixuan Yang and Abbas Rajabifard
ix
x Contents
Part II Restrictions 103
6 Conflict Between Private and Public Restrictions 105

Cathy Sherry
7 Environmental Restriction in Multi-Owned Property 119

Erika Altmann, Phillipa Watson, and Michelle Gabriel
8 Urban Renewal and Affordable Housing in Taiwan 137

Chin-Oh Chang and Chien-Wen Peng
9 Restrictions on Pet Ownership in Multi-Owned

Properties 153
Emma R. Power
Part III Responsibilities 175
10 Collective Responsibility in Strata Apartments 177

Hazel Easthope and Bill Randolph
11 Major Repair Work: Whose Responsibility? 197

Ngai Ming Yip and Sanford Y. F. Poon
12 Addressing Conflict Within an Owners Corporation 213

Kathy Douglas and Robin Goodman
13 Efficacy Beliefs and Homeowner Participation 231

Yung Yau
14 Promoting Owner Participation in Management 251

Lisa Wei Gao
Contents
xi
15 Improving Governance of High-Rise MOPs in Malaysia 269

Nor Rima Muhamad Ariff
16 Owner Responsibilities in Mumbai 291

Jeeva Sajan
17 Multi-Owned Properties: Bringing It All Together 307

Index 317
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Development of multi-titled residential development in

Melbourne21
Fig. 2.2 Distribution of multi-titled dwelling units in Melbourne 25
Fig. 2.3 Structural (new balconies and water tanks) and design
retrofit of strata title (6-pack walk-up) building in Fitzroy,
Melbourne29
Fig. 2.4 City of Stonington: distribution of strata title residential
buildings, 2014 31
Fig. 2.5 An example of strata (white) and subdivision blocking the
redevelopment of high RPI dwellings (dark grey) in
Stonnington31
Fig. 3.1 Number of collective sales year-on-year 44
Fig. 3.2 Total number of litigated cases on CS 48
Fig. 3.3 Litigated cases on collective sales – 1999–2015 49
Fig. 13.1 Posited model explaining homeowner participation
in MOP governance 237
Fig. 13.2 Verified model with standardised path coefficients 241
xiii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Profile of strata title residential property in

Melbourne, 2011 23
Table 3.1 Summary of planning process in Singapore 41
Table 3.2 Revised GPR/storey height typology for flats 42
Table 5.1 Major amendments of the Constitution 1982 88
Table 9.1 Model by-laws relating to the keeping of animals 158
Table 9.2 Responsibilities of ‘owners, occupants and other persons’ 160
Table 13.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
(n = 564)240
Table 13.2 Descriptive statistics of all measures after rescaling 241
Table 13.3 Causal effects of different types of efficacy belief 242
Table 14.1 Measurements for the factors of resources and constraints 258
Table 14.2 Demographics of the sample 259
Table 14.3 Logistic regression results 261
Table 15.1 Owner-occupants’ satisfaction with residential satisfaction
dimensions277
Table 15.2 The Pearson’s correlation coefficient results 278
Table 15.3 Summary of SEM results for relationships between
subjective variables on dependent variable of satisfaction
with stakeholders’ relationships 279
xv
xvi List of Tables

subjective independent variables and residential
satisfaction dimension 280
residential satisfaction dimensions and the dependent
variable280
Table 15.6 Testing the intervening effect of dwelling satisfaction 282
Part I
Rights
1
Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities
in Context
An Introduction to Multi-owned Property

The densification of Asia-Pacific cities has been underpinned by substan-
tial growth in multi-owned property (MOP) development, which in turn
is associated with the emergence of complex urban governance structures.
While escalating investor and owner demand for properties within the
central precincts of Asia-Pacific global cities has created an exuberance
around the benefits of apartment living and investment, less well under-
stood are the substantial constraints on individual rights, restrictions and
responsibilities (3Rs) associated with collective living. From a range of
geographic and disciplinary perspectives, our contributors question the
assumptions that support today’s compact city hype. This collection can-
vases structural issues, including established and emerging legislative and
E. Altmann (*)
Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of Tasmania,
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
M. Gabriel
School of Sociology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
© The Author(s) 2018 3

E. Altmann, M. Gabriel (eds.), Multi-Owned Property in the Asia-Pacific Region,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56988-2_1
4 E. Altmann and M. Gabriel
policy settings, as well as illuminating the experience of strata managers,

owners, residents and their agency within these processes. Here we
unpack the rights, restrictions and responsibilities (3Rs) of MOP owner-
ship across the Asia-Pacific region.
At a global level, population growth and urban migration have facili-
tated the growth of mega cities, growth in investment housing across
international borders, and the growth of new industries that support
property management activities. Views of housing and the ontology of
home are no longer intertwined as the former becomes a tradable com-
modity in which renters have a very different set of rights, responsibilities
and restrictions compared to landlords or owner-occupiers. To cater for
the changing demographic market, short-term furnished lets are increas-
ing and attract higher rates of rental return to offset increasingly high
purchase prices in many countries. The ontological security that home
previously provided (Rose 1995) may become harder to establish with
apartment building complexes as a result of the growth in interested par-
ties, decreasing privacy and additional layers of governance. The rights,
restrictions and responsibilities of each party may become more difficult
to establish under such circumstances.
This work fills a gap in the existing literature by bringing together new,
contemporary research on MOP. Unlike existing books in this area which
take an international approach, we focus solely on the Asia-Pacific experi-
ence. We believe that the Asia-Pacific region has a different and valuable
story to add to what is known about the European and North American
MOP experience. The primary value of this collection is that it will bring
together contrasting case examples of historical and cultural ways of liv-
ing. In contrast to the highly populated and traditional communal hous-
ing arrangements seen in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore,
Malaysia and India, Australia approaches apartment living from an indi-
vidualistic view. It is an approach which is increasingly noted and explored
throughout this collection as we probe Eastern perspectives.
We begin with a short discussion on the antecedents of MOP, provid-
ing definitions that are central to each chapter and this edition. The sec-
ond part of the chapter outlines the structure of the edition and provides
a brief synopsis of how each chapter builds upon each other. In our final
chapter we revisit our central idea—to highlight similarities and differences
Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities in Context 5
across law, management and the lived experience across the Asia-Pacific
region with a view to identifying common themes and building a basis for
future action, whether changes to law, policy or education.
Here to There, Then to Now

There has been significant discussion as to where and how current models
of strata titled property ownership developed. McKenzie (1996) traces
the strata title mechanism back to a corrupted version of Ebenezer
Howard’s Garden City in Nebraska, USA. Howard first developed his
view of a garden city at the turn of twentieth century, where work, home
and recreation are co-mingled and easily accessible to all tenants. In his
view, tenants were also key stakeholders in the community. They lived
and worked there, but also owned the community and therefore had
rights and responsibilities within that community, including a say in how
it was run. Howard’s utopian view did not dwell on restrictions that went
with his ideal community, nor was it the first time that similar models of
living had been proposed. Indeed, it is possible that Howard developed
his model on nineteenth century Parisian property models, although
Bagaeen and Uduku’s (2011) work on gated communities suggests that
similar forms of shared living are much older and more prevalent on a
worldwide basis.
Before proceeding further, an outline of the strata title mechanism is
required. Both Everton-Moore et al. (2006) and Johnston and Reid
(2013) provide comparative analyses of jurisdictional terminology used to
describe the strata title mechanism, which includes ‘owners corporation’,
‘bodies corporate’, ‘home owners association or HOA’, ‘common interest
development or CID’, ‘condominium’, ‘multi-owned housing or MOH’,
‘gated communities’ and danweis and the like. It should be noted here that
we exclude stock housing in which property is owned in full by a central
entity with owners purchasing shares and retaining a right to occupy a
specific property within the development. Also excluded are community
estates in which property owners come together with the explicit purpose
of creating a community with commonly held beliefs. Central to our
position, an MOP is based on strata title law with centralised governance
and voting rights, and is comprised of at least two real property lots plus
communally owned real property (Altmann 2015, 215). On registration
of the scheme, each privately held lot is given its own transferable
Certificate of Title. Rights over the communal property (including land)
are outlined on, or attached to, the Certificate of Title for each property.
In Australia, restrictions and responsibilities are sometimes noted,
although these are more often comprehensively outlined in the governing
legislation and associated by-laws. Strata schemes can be as large as a
nested development involving several apartment towers (Townshend
2006). They may involve residential precincts, create vertical suburbs,
involve commercial or industrial property or a combination of these, cre-
ating unique governance issues among landlords, owner-occupiers and
residential or commercial tenants. The way in which these issues are
addressed at the individual, collective and state or country level will
depend not only on history, but also on cultural considerations inherent
to each country and rates of change occurring within those countries.
Australia first introduced the strata title mechanism in 1960 at a state
level to ease pressure on rural land carve-ups and encourage home own-
ership through freehold title mechanisms (Butler-Bowden and Pickett
2007). Home ownership at that time was seen as a social right and a
way for individuals to save for the future, thus ensuring future prosper-
ity. Similar conditions occurred in Hong Kong and Singapore during
the 1990s (Forrest and Lee 2003) and are now occurring in other Asia-
Pacific countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia with a
waning of the focus on poverty, homelessness and social exclusion
(Forrest and Lee 2003). The increased number of middle class and mega
rich in Asian countries, combined with escalating population rates
make strata title an attractive option for home purchase in countries
where land is at a premium. The same cannot be said for Australia’s
housing market. There is an increasing propensity for the apartment
sector, particularly within the central business districts of major cities
and towns, to become investor-driven markets. The ABS (2016) put the
owner-investor figure at just under 70 per cent of all apartments. This
raises issues for voting and p ayment of monies to the bodies corporate
within the apartment sector, both of which impact on the long-term
viability of the schemes.
Over the past 50 years, Australia’s judicial frameworks in strata titled

property have been exported to countries such as South Africa, Canada,
New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei (Easthope
and Randolph 2008) yet no definitive edited collection has been forth-
coming from an Australian or Asia-Pacific perspective until now. The
governance structure associated with this type of development has the
ability to affect significant numbers of people in both their home and
work life since a growing number of businesses also operate from MOPs.
How countries adapt the legislation to meet their objectives varies; for
some, the abuse of individual rights is outweighed by the developer
imperative and guiding policies of the country. Others place more
emphasis on individual rights at the expense of community gains. The
perceived collective nature of Asian societies has led to the sometimes
mistaken belief that society is more cohesive in these countries, or that
they are better at understanding or mitigating against what Olsen (1965)
called ‘the tragedy of the commons’ and collective action issues. Probing
issues of governance within strata titled complexes across the Asia-Pacific
region provides a unique view of what works well in balancing individ-
ual and collective needs across all stakeholders.
Governance encompasses ‘structure, process and practices that deter-
mine how decisions are made in a system and what actions are taken
within that system’ (Easthope and Randolph 2008, 247) and ideally
ensures fairness in the administration of communally owned resources.
To facilitate this, committees of management and systems of voting rights
occur with decisions that are legally binding.
efining Rights, Restrictions

D
and Responsibilities
Previous books and collections addressing housing issues have concen-
trated on the retreat from social housing, market failure or, in the case of
multi-owned property, have addressed governance rights. Blandy et al.’s
(2010) edited collection on multi-owned housing for example, addresses
the issue of property rights, but without explicit linkages to associated
restrictions and responsibilities. Bennett et al. (2005) provide a detailed
discussion of the differences between property rights, restrictions and

responsibilities upon which we draw as the basis for this edition. Rights
are conceptually related to duties owed to an owner by everyone else,
including other owners. Others are expected to respect those rights of
property ownership. However, there are also responsibilities and restric-
tions that come with these rights when they are connected to collective
property ownership. Previous edited books and academic journals often
refer to the conflict and power plays that are inherent when rights are
violated without reference to responsibilities or restrictions which under-
pins such conflict.
Restrictions are duties placed upon a landowner by civil society and
multiple regulating agencies. As governments increase regulatory frame-
works to meet the imperatives of climate change, restrictions increase
(Wallace and Williamson 2005). For example, restrictions may relate to
energy efficiency, better spatial design, standards for privacy or funding
for essential services. Australian laws place hundreds of restrictions on
land activities and uses, and the privatised nature of multi-owned prop-
erty governance places still more upon them. The nature of these restric-
tions is only just coming to the fore as Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong
and other jurisdictions grapple with the concept of ageing buildings that
require demolition, with owners needing to come to terms with the fact
that other people may determine the length of time an individual prop-
erty is owned. Restrictions have only partially been dealt with in previous
edited works.
Responsibilities are less clearly defined than restrictions and rely on prop-
erty use being mutually agreed within the governance framework in order
to ensure that the rights of others within the complex are not violated. They
are sometimes considered to be duties owed to others within the building
complex that ensure the smooth functioning of the complex (Wallace and
Williamson 2005). For example, there is the need to act responsibly towards
other owners in determining how an individual is going to vote on any
given issue. As levies for maintaining the property common to all units
increase, there is a need for owners to act in the long-term interest of
the community rather than in the short-term self-interest of individual
owners. There is also the need to act responsibly towards neighbours.
The adjustment of property owners to ownership within more confined

and compact spaces, attendant noise, smell and privacy issues can be
contrasted to the higher densities experienced in Asian property owner-
ship and the way that a more collective society handles these issues. As
society becomes more individualistic, there needs to be a greater focus
on the responsibilities due to other owners and users of the total build-
ing complex, and indeed that responsibility should be carried forward so
that each stage of the planning, design and construction of the strata
complex holds responsibility to the end users—those that live within the
complex—in mind.
Structure of the Book

To assist readers to negotiate the intricacies between these three pillars of
collective property ownership, this edition is divided into three central
parts. The first part, rights, focuses on important aspects of law, sociology
and management of property rights within an MOP setting. We begin
with Rebecca Leshinsky, Peter Newton and Stephen Glackin’s work which
outlines the unintended consequences of urban regeneration within
Australia. They look in greater detail at the legal and planning rationale
behind the spread of strata titled property, and introduce issues of age and
dwelling type picked up in later chapters where issues of urban regenera-
tion are discussed. This chapter earmarks for later discussion the rights of
owners and the state, and compares the responsibilities each has towards
the other. These issues are expanded upon by Alice Christudason in Chap.
3. Christudason introduces us to Singapore’s experience and the concept
of strata-scheme termination, a growing issue for countries grappling
with urban regeneration. Singapore is often cited as an exemplar for ter-
mination1 clauses and is seen to be somewhat of a trendsetter in this area.
Termination legislation contrasts the unanimous consent among owners
generally required for termination against en bloc sales based on majority
voting rights. As property increasingly is seen as a commodity, developer
rights may take precedence and the smaller number of owner-occupiers
within many complexes may have their right to occupy subjugated to a
majority of investor-owners. We explore this theme from a rights, restric-

tions and responsibilities aspect throughout the collection, drawing on
Taiwan case studies to round out the discussion. There is an expansion of
these issues in Nicole Johnston and Eric Too’s work where the rights of
property developers—who are important enabling agents in urban regen-
eration—are introduced. In their chapter, we see how poor decision-mak-
ing by a property developer can impose a structure which leads to poor
outcomes long after the developer has handed over the site and property
title has been transferred to new owners. Chapter 5 by Zhixuan Yang and
Abbas Rajabifard provides insight into the property boom in China. In
their work, we see how leasehold systems can work in conjunction with
strata title to create an even more complex web of property rights and
restrictions viewed from a current, historical and 3D perspective.
In Part II, restrictions, there is a focus on the aspects of law, sociology
and management of property restrictions. As governments increase regu-
latory frameworks to meet the imperatives of climate change, increased
energy efficiency, better spatial design, set standards for privacy or the
funding for essential services, restrictions increase. Australian laws place
hundreds of restrictions on land activities and uses and the privatised
governance of multi-owned property places still more restrictions on
property owners. We start this section with a legal discussion of restric-
tions by Cathy Sherry who focuses on the breadth of by-law content cre-
ated by committees of management, including bans on animals,
regulation of building materials and styles, and behaviour. These by-laws
are created with exclusive reference to the values of a particular MOP and
sometimes without reference to wider community values. Consequently,
there is potential for them to conflict with public legislation created at
the state or federal level and social norms. Sherry introduces the notion
of ‘negative liberty’. This range of restrictions is expanded upon in Chaps.
7 and 9. In Chap. 9, Emma Power highlights the plight of pets and their
owners within MOPs. Drawing on qualitative research projects with pet
owners from Sydney, Australia, pet ownership and practices within neigh-
bouring apartments are examined. Power notes that while pets can bring
neighbours together they may also serve as a point of tension. The chap-
ter reviews governance in relation to forced pet removal and relates this to
the societal benefits known to accrue from pet ownership. Chapter 7
outlines the environmental restrictions placed on owners and tenants liv-

ing in MOP properties. The focus is moved from owners of property to
encompass all who live or work within the MOP. Based on this empirical
research, major concerns are identified—strength of legislation to facili-
tate energy-efficient design in new builds; capacity for sustainable home
adaptation in private and common property areas in existing develop-
ments; capacity to use private dwellings for energy generation activi-
ties and a dearth of financial mechanisms. Taking up themes from Chap.
6, there is reflection on the mediating role of property managers in the
process of achieving social, economic and environmental goals within
MOP developments. Finally, in Chap. 8, Chin-Oh Chang and Chien-
Wen Peng introduce the reader to the ways the restrictions which have
been placed on developers stymie legitimate urban renewal initiatives in
Taipei City’s Shihlin District. The reader is introduced to the Wang fam-
ily who refuse to move from their apartment home despite the en bloc sale
of the whole property to a developer for redevelopment.
Part III, responsibilities, expands on the law, sociology and manage-
ment aspects of property responsibilities within MOP settings.
Responsibilities rely on property use being mutually agreed within the
governance framework in order to ensure that the rights of others within
the complex are not violated. They are sometimes considered to be duties
owed to others within the building complex that ensure the smooth func-
tioning of that complex. In Chap. 10, Hazel Easthope and Bill Randolph
outline the mismatch between the responsibilities of owners as enshrined
in legislation and people’s knowledge and acceptance of those responsi-
bilities. Examples are given of common tensions that can arise in this
regard, such as people refusing to pay for common property repairs when
they do not affect their own lot. This chapter highlights how the social
convention of owning a home or property, an important step in wealth
creation, is played out within the rights, responsibilities and restrictions
of MOP, leading to owner confusion. Building on this notion, Ngai
Ming Yip and Sanford Poon in Chap. 11, consider the issue of repairs to
common property and the responsibilities that owners have in this regard.
In discussing cases from Hong Kong, the strength of the contract tender-
ing system is tested and found wanting as bid-rigging is discussed. This is
combined with issues of free-riding among owners leading to greater
b urdens being placed on those who act with responsibility. Arising out of
free-rider situations, dispute mechanisms are discussed in Kathy Douglas
and Robin Goodman’s Chap. 12. In the state of Victoria, Australia, a
three-tier dispute resolution system is enacted. Chapter 12 provides an
analysis of the qualitative data gathered between two states, Victoria and
New South Wales, highlighting that committee members are largely
unaware of their responsibilities in relation to dispute resolution and feel
ill-equipped to effectively deal with conflict. Committee members are
shown to need guidance over their rights and responsibilities and assis-
tance with conflict engagement.
The importance of these responsibilities is highlighted in the next four
chapters which have a core focus of improving satisfaction with the living
environment. Lisa Wei Gao’s Chap. 14 traces housing reform in China to
provide an understanding of the determinants of participative behaviour.
While it is generally understood that owners have the right to participate
in the management of their building complex, few take on that responsi-
bility, with figures ranging from around five per cent to 20 per cent of
owners across the Asia-Pacific region. Gao’s research concludes that
Chinese owners of MOP are not sufficiently empowered to deal with
management issues. In Chap. 13, Yung Yau’s focus is on Olsen’s (1965)
logic of collective action which suggests that collective actions are not
automatic. Yau attempts to understand which issues trigger individual
owners to participate in management decisions. He notes that apart from
the perceived value of good housing management outcomes, individual
homeowners’ perceptions of self-, group- and proxy-efficacies are all sig-
nificant determinants of participation behaviour. This theme of manage-
ment issues is expanded on by Muhamad Ariff in Chap. 15 with a
discussion of mismanagement of MOPs. The focus is on Selangor where
a multi-stage random sampling process found that satisfaction with the
building and one’s neighbours improves housing management. We round
out this section with Jeeva Sajan’s research which focuses on the impor-
tance of building relationships while moving to an increasingly on-line
contractual environment. Sajan highlights the Mumbai experience,
although it is important to remember that many multi-national compa-
nies provide management services to MOP committees of management
across national and international borders. The systems adopted in one

jurisdiction to handle contractual matters may well be multiplied across
different jurisdictions.
The final chapter provides a chance to draw the three key parts of this
edition together. It revisits the purpose of this edition—to highlight sim-
ilarities and differences across sociology, law, management and the lived
experience in the Asia-Pacific region with a view to identifying common
themes and building a basis for future action, including changes to law,
policy or education. Societal changes and increasing densification of our
cities have created huge challenges for urban planners and bureaucrats.
The widening gap between rich and poor is increasingly played out
within housing industries with many sections of society becoming
increasingly locked out of the housing market. In some countries, social
action still takes place as demonstrated by the contributions for this edi-
tion. Changes in social cohesion and the economic and financial mar-
kets create a risk for home ownership (Forrest and Lee 2003) along with
associated urbanisation. Within these wider societal shifts, an increasing
number of people gravitate to apartment living and ownership for vari-
ous reasons. At a micro level we see community in action with all the
attendant stressors and tensions. Given that strata schemes were origi-
nally introduced to better provide access to home ownership and thus
provide an element of stability throughout a person’s life, exploration of
rights, restrictions and responsibilities within MOP environments raises
issues about how home ownership and the ontology of home are played
out in this sphere.
Notes
1. Strata-scheme termination occurs when the owners of a complex deter-
mine to extinguish the scheme, usually as a precursor to the building (and
all apartments within it) being demolished. Until recently, these en bloc
sales could only occur when 100 per cent of owners were in agreement
with this course of action, however in an increasing number of jurisdic-
tions this is no longer the case.
References
ABS. 2016. Housing Occupancy and Costs, 2013–14. In 4130.0, ed. Australian
Bureau of Statistics. Canberra: Australian Government.
Altmann, E. 2015. Policy Implications for Governing Australia’s Apartment
Communities: Tenants, Committees of Management and Strata Managers.
In Housing in 21st-Century Australia, ed. R. Dufty-Jones and D. Roger,
121–138. Farnham: Ashgate.
Bagaeen, S., and O. Uduku. 2011. Gated Communities: Social Sustainability in
Contemporary and Historical Gated Developments. 1 vols., vol. 1. London:
Earthscan.
Bennett, R., J. Wallace, and I.P. Williamson. 2005. Achieving Sustainability
Objectives Through Better Management of Property Rights, Restrictions and
Responsibilities. Paper Read at Building Sustainability Accounting in Land
Administration System in Australia, November 9–11, at Melbourne.
Blandy, S., A. Dupuis, and J. Dixon. 2010. Multi-owned Housing: Law, Power
and Practice. 1 vols, vol. 1. Farnham: Ashgate.
Butler-Bowden, C., and C. Pickett. 2007. Homes in the Sky: Apartment Living in
Australia. Carlton: The Miegunyah Press.
Easthope, H., and B. Randolph. 2008. Governing the Compact City: Challenges
of Apartment Living in Sydney. Housing Studies 24: 243–259.
Everton-Moore, K., A. Ardill, C. Guilding, and J. Warnken. 2006. The Law of
Strata Title in Australia: A Jurisdictional Stocktake. Australian Property Law
Journal 13: 1–35.
Forrest, R., and J. Lee. 2003. Housing and Social Change: East-West Perspectives.
1 vols. London: Routledge.
Johnston, N.R., and S. Reid. 2013. Multi-Owned Developments: A Life Cycle
Review of a Developing Research Area. Property Management 31: 366–388.
McKenzie, E. 1996. Privatopia: Home Owner Associations and the Rise of
Residential Private Governments. Vol. 1. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Olsen, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of
Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rose, G. 1995. Place and Identity: A Sense of Place. In A Place in the World, ed.
D. Massey and P. Jess. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Townshend, I.J. 2006. From Public Neighbourhoods to Multi-Tier Private
Neighbourhoods: The Evolving Ecology of Neighbourhood Privatisation in
Calgary. GeoJournal 66: 103–120.
Wallace, J., and I.P. Williamson. 2005. Building Sustainability Accounting in

Land Administration System in Australia. Paper Read at Sustainability and
Land Administration Systems, November 9–11, at Melbourne.
Erika Altmann Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of

Tasmania, Australia. Erika Altmann is a cross-disciplinary property and housing
researcher currently working on a range of housing and health-related projects.
She has particular interests in the management of multi-owned properties and
industry professionalisation.
Michelle Gabriel School of Sociology, University of Tasmania, Australia.

Michelle Gabriel is a Senior Research Fellow in the Housing and Community
Research Unit, University of Tasmania. Michelle has led and collaborated with
colleagues in major research projects relating to energy-efficient housing, age-
ing-in-place and housing affordability. She has published widely on housing and
urban policy issues.
2
The Unintended Consequences of Strata
Title for Urban Regeneration
Rebecca Leshinsky, Peter Newton,
and Stephen Glackin
Introduction
The majority of urban centres around the globe are experiencing persis-
tently high rates of growth. In response to this, metropolitan land use
policies are now encouraging more compact city development, which in
turn is stimulating urban regeneration activity designed to accommodate
greater density of housing and population in established suburbs
(Housing New York 2013; London Plan revisions 2015; Plan Melbourne
2014). Such urban redevelopments are typically of higher yield than
existing properties, and it is not uncommon to see air space above smaller
sites being filled with extra storeys of mid-rise medium density or high-
rise apartments. Innovation in building design and technology is also
facilitating thinner and higher infill redevelopment (Higgins 2015).
R. Leshinsky (*)
RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
P. Newton • S. Glackin
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
© The Author(s) 2018 17

E. Altmann, M. Gabriel (eds.), Multi-Owned Property in the Asia-Pacific Region,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56988-2_2
18 R. Leshinsky et al.
Vertical land tenures have been in existence for centuries (Sennett

1994) with more modern architectural influences originating from the
vertical garden cities of Le Corbusier (1946, 1947), which aimed to free
up scarce land, and the perspectives of Soleri on high-density, self-
sufficiency and multi-level communities (Lima 2003; Christudason
2010).
Over time, these forms of dwelling have attracted various legal gover-
nance models ranging from full building ownership to individual flat
ownership; including a new form of simple proprietorship—strata title
(Sherry 2017). Under the strata title system, an apartment or villa/town-
house in a multi-titled development (MTD) exists in shared ownership
of the development’s common property or services in addition to indi-
vidual dwelling units (Easthope et al. 2014; Leshinsky and Mouat 2015).
Pre-strata apartments were mostly small walk-up rental properties (Pickett
2009; Easthope et al. 2014), with a single building owner or subject to
company title, where owners held shares in the company that owned the
building and land (Sherry 2008).
Strata title was introduced into Australian state law in the 1960s for a
number of reasons. MTD is an appealing planning solution creating pri-
vately owned properties in higher density contexts, especially where land
is scarce. The system provides greater opportunity for home ownership,
allowing the finance industry to cater for more home loans, as well as
freeing up flats from the more cumbersome ‘company share’ process.
New South Wales was the first Australian state to introduce strata titled
tenure. Other states followed suit. Canada, South Africa, United States,
United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia and a number of other countries,
carry somewhat similar systems with some, such as the United States and
Canada, referring to their models as condominium developments (Rosen
and Walks 2015; Harris 2011; Alterman 2010). Indirectly, strata title also
encouraged more compact living and urban consolidation. The much
sought after compact city policy drivers are seeing a new wave of condo-
minium law, including in more challenging locations such as Russia and
China (Lehavi 2015).
Traditionally, Australians have preferred low-density, single detached
housing; and at present, over 70 per cent of the Australian population
The Unintended Consequences of Strata Title for Urban… 19
live in this class of dwelling (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011). Due

to this, building heights in Melbourne and its surrounds have remained
deliberately low, although this has changed progressively to allow for
more (and slightly higher) medium density buildings, encouraged by
the growth in popularity of strata title developments. New millennium
planning strategies have seen inner Melbourne transform quite signifi-
cantly with many more high-rise apartment developments, all the result
of intentional planning and property policy to alter the landscape of
Melbourne’s CBD (Postcode 3000 and its successors), to provide more
diversity of housing and enable more households to reside in multi-
titled developments (Easthope et al. 2014; Cassidy and Guilding
2011).
In the state of Victoria, where there is shared common property on a
building site, such as the use of shared stairwells, driveways and gardens,
the MTD is governed by the Subdivision Act 1989, and the Owners
Corporations Act 2006. The strict legal requirements of these Acts have
stymied urban regeneration in a manner which is the focus for discussion
in this chapter, impacting on the prospects for developing more com-
pact, sustainable and economically competitive cities (Easthope et al.
2013). Also, the governance and dispute resolution processes (part of the
strata system in Victoria) have been criticised for not being representa-
tive of residents’ needs (Leshinsky et al. 2012; see also Chap. 12). Both
of these factors indicate the need for change. Therefore, to accommodate
changing needs, as well as accelerate building renewal, significant reform
to strata title has been implemented in New South Wales, and is being
contemplated for other states, for example, Victoria (Consumer Affairs
Victoria 2016) and Western Australia (Landgate 2015). This is a process
that is ongoing elsewhere: Ontario and Vancouver (Canada), South
Africa and more generally, throughout the USA and Europe (Van Der
Merwe 2015; Lehavi 2015; Harris and Gilewicz 2016).
In Australia, the majority of new housing growth is set to occur as infill
development in urban greyfields and to a lesser extent, brownfields
(Newton and Glackin 2014). Brownfields are abandoned industrial and
commercial sites; greyfields represent ageing and poor performing—but
occupied—buildings that are approaching the end of their economic
lifecycles. The more ubiquitous greyfield sites are located in established

low-density middle suburbs of Australian cities, with good access to pub-
lic transport, jobs and higher-level education and health services.
Typically, these properties are single detached occupied dwellings. But
with the proliferation of strata title over the last 50 years, particularly
in locations closer to the CBD, greyfield suburbs also include varying
levels of multi-unit (strata) buildings. Greyfield properties offer signifi-
cant opportunity for urban regeneration at higher densities, thereby help-
ing alleviate the tension cities face with growing populations, housing
affordability and residential accessibility. Individual sites in greyfield
housing areas typically range between 700 and 1000 square metres in size
and provide opportunities for owners (often ageing residents) to collabo-
rate with neighbours, developers and the municipality, to assemble con-
tiguous parcels of land to create opportunities for new, regenerated urban
precincts.
Pioneering work in the area of greyfields regeneration by Newton et al.
(2011), Newton (2013, 2016) identified the need to create new and
innovative models for greyfield precinct regeneration. It is in this context
that this chapter identifies the need for reform of the strata system, as one
of several critical innovations required in the planning and building pro-
cess to enable delivery of more sustainable urban regeneration in Australia’s
largest cities.
This chapter first describes, from spatial and temporal perspectives, the
development of the strata title system in Australia, with particular refer-
ence to Melbourne. Then it discusses the challenge that Australia’s major
cities are facing in creating more infill housing to enable targets of up to
70 per cent or more of new residential construction to be accommodated
in established suburbs. Following this, the chapter suggests that while
strata title tenure has enabled more intensified development, thereby
facilitating planning outcomes in support of more compact Australian
cities, as it currently stands, urban regeneration is significantly hampered
by complex and restrictive strata title law and governance. The chapter
concludes with a discussion on the unintended consequences of strata
title on urban regeneration and offers suggestions for how strata reform
can stimulate urban regeneration.
he Historical Context for Australian Strata

T
Title
Diffusion of Strata 1960–2015
According to Strata Communities Australia (2011), one in four house-

holds lives in medium and high-density buildings that are predominantly
strata titled. Figure 2.1 puts this in historical context, revealing that there
had only been a moderate level of development of multi-titled buildings in
the nation’s large cities until the emergence of strata title legislation in the
early 1960s. A series of recessions in the period 1974–1991 slowed residen-
tial growth considerably.1 What followed, however, has been a continuous
period of economic, population and property growth, including multi-
unit development. In the post-1990 period, this was stimulated further by
40000
35000
30000
Number of Dwellings
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
35 34
40 39
45 44
50 49
55 54
60 59
65 64
70 79
75 74
80 79
85 84
90 89
95 94
00 99
05 04
20 9
+
00
10
19 –19
19 –19
19 19
19 –19
19 –19
19 –19
19 19
19 –19
19 –19
19 –19
19 19
19 –19
19 –19
20 –19
20 –20
–2
–
–
30
19
Year of Build
Fig. 2.1 Development of multi-titled residential development in Melbourne

(Source: Derived from the Victorian State Department of Environment, Land,
Water and Planning, Housing Development Data (2004–2012) and the Victorian
State Valuer-General municipal rates dataset 2015)
the introduction of legislation, which permitted purchase of apartments

‘off-the-plan’, prior to the commencement of construction. This enables a
significant reduction in risk in apartment construction. Unlike construc-
tion of detached housing, once building commences on a medium density
or high-rise project, it is not possible to stop the building process.
Data derived from the Housing Development Data (DTPLI 2015)
and the 2015 municipal rates dataset from the Victorian State Valuer-
General’s office provides a contemporary snapshot of strata development
across Melbourne’s 31 municipalities (Table 2.1; Fig. 2.2). Strata title is
the dominant type of dwelling unit ownership in the inner city munici-
palities of Melbourne (61%), Port Phillip (64%), Stonnington (43%),
and Yarra (37%), with significant percentages in the next ring of suburbs
(circa 20%). In terms of strata title buildings, the percentage of total resi-
dential stock is much smaller for the city as a whole (<2%). This will
increase due to 48 per cent of new dwellings for Melbourne being multi-
lot (strata) developments (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015a).
Retrofitting Established Suburbs
There is growing pressure to accelerate and scale up the retrofitting of the

ageing housing and urban infrastructure in the established suburbs of
cities in Australia, as well as internationally (Durham-Jones and
Williamson 2011; Hudson and Marvin 2016; Dixon et al. 2016; Roberts
et al. 2016). Most of the population in Australia is concentrated in five
major cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide). These
locations are faced with increasing population and demographic changes,
and metropolitan strategic plans for these cities are promoting urban
consolidation to curb urban sprawl. Projected urban intensification
requires the provision of over 4.3 million new dwellings by 2031
(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015b), with 556,565 for Greater
Melbourne alone (Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning 2015).
In this respect, a fresh approach is required for city planning and devel-
opment capable of delivering more compact, sustainable cities—a
continuing and intensifying urban development theme for over half a
Table 2.1 Profile of strata title residential property in Melbourne, 2011
Total Strata Strata as Strata as Strata as
Total residential Strata Strata land % of % of % of
Total lots dwellings land (ha) buildings units (ha) buildings dwellings land
Banyule 51,186 50,107 5090 606 3053 86 1.2 6.1 1.7
Bayside 38,941 41,036 2946 943 5215 110 2.4 12.7 3.7
Boroondara 59,592 71,102 4764 1919 15,152 233 3.2 21.3 4.9
Brimbank 75,618 73,530 9965 750 3137 178 1.0 4.3 1.8
Cardinia 37,033 33,457 122,689 173 499 3914 0.5 1.5 3.2
Casey 103,196 96,599 35,768 366 1303 1037 0.4 1.3 2.9
Darebin 59,365 64,023 4323 1344 10,004 129 2.3 15.6 3.0
Frankston 60,548 58,756 11,171 520 2420 163 0.9 4.1 1.5
Glen Eira 49,697 60,030 3049 2249 15,580 224 4.5 26.0 7.3
GTR Dandenong 58,756 59,271 11,055 1112 5625 160 1.9 9.5 1.5
Hobsons Bay 37,694 38,399 5313 768 3432 75 2.0 8.9 1.4
Hume 71,282 67,513 46,876 610 1698 308 0.9 2.5 0.7
Kingston 66,439 68,564 7715 1589 8731 219 2.4 12.7 2.8
Knox 65,050 61,929 9541 306 1309 55 0.5 2.1 0.6
Manningham 46,226 45,369 9888 299 1797 126 0.6 4.0 1.3
Maribyrnong 28,431 34,871 2509 955 8036 111 3.4 23.0 4.4
Maroondah 48,635 46,441 5077 419 2192 71 0.9 4.7 1.4
Melbourne 16,470 84,809 2757 1235 51,759 131 7.5 61.0 4.7
Melton 48,319 45,079 49,595 101 409 512 0.2 0.9 1.0
Monash 73,520 73,291 6494 1052 4830 107 1.4 6.6 1.6
Moonee Valley 43,292 49,775 3390 1177 9119 111 2.7 18.3 3.3
Moreland 62,167 68,980 4044 1771 12,890 178 2.8 18.7 4.4
The Unintended Consequences of Strata Title for Urban…
M’ton Peninsula 98,368 97,073 66,906 638 2320 2136 0.6 2.4 3.2
Nillumbik 24,037 22,421 41,005 71 316 237 0.3 1.4 0.6
(continued)
23
Table 2.1 (continued)
24
Total Strata Strata as Strata as Strata as

Total residential Strata Strata land % of % of % of
Total lots dwellings land (ha) buildings units (ha) buildings dwellings land
Port Phillip 22,835 64,907 1438 2849 41,421 261 12.5 63.8 18.1
Stonnington 30,948 55,848 1977 2139 24,219 220 6.9 43.4 11.1
Whitehorse 66,102 66,337 5178 712 4825 120 1.1 7.3 2.3
Whittlesea 71,699 68,484 46,106 230 1098 471 0.3 1.6 1.0
Wyndham 76,705 73,760 50,408 344 1409 249 0.4 1.9 0.5
R. Leshinsky et al.
Yarra 28,134 44,526 1426 1212 16,428 110 4.3 36.9 7.7
Yarra Ranges 65,558 62,073 240,232 385 966 2103 0.6 1.6 0.9
Total 1,685,843 1,848,360 28,844 261,192 1.7 14.1
Source: Derived from the Victorian State Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Housing Development
Data (2004–2012) and the Victorian State Valuer-General municipal rates dataset 2015
Fig. 2.2 Distribution of multi-titled dwelling units in Melbourne (Source: Derived

from the Victorian State Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning,
Housing Development Data (2004–2012) and the Victorian State Valuer-General
municipal rates dataset 2015)
century (United Nations 1987; OECD 2012)—during which time the

array of challenges facing cities globally has only accelerated in magnitude
and impact (Newton and Doherty 2014). This new logic for sustainable
urban development has been labelled green urbanism and on a macro level
it incorporates the three arenas of any city: greenfields, brownfields and
greyfields (Newton 2013). Within each arena there is an array of sustain-
able urban design principles for property development that need to be in
play. Under compact city planning policies greenfield development is
required to represent a much smaller component of any metro strategic
plan compared to that which existed in the twentieth century. Urban
infill is a key focus and there are significant targets for redevelopment of
housing and infrastructure in established suburbs. This incorporates the
brownfield and greyfield areas of cities. With urban redevelopment, the
configuration and complexity of land ownership is critical, and represents
perhaps the greatest risk factor for the property sector. Less so for brown-
field sites, where ownership is typically concentrated in fewer hands, and
associated built assets are typically unoccupied. The greyfields by com-
parison, are a more complex arena from the perspective of regeneration
(Newton 2010; Newton and Glackin 2014). Their attractiveness lies in
the fact that they are located in the inner and middle suburbs in Australian
cities with significantly greater access to jobs, public transport, education
and healthcare than the more recently developed low-density car depen-
dent outer suburbs. They also have housing with the greatest redevelop-
ment potential, but almost universally occupied—with multiple property
owners. The existence of strata title ownership in these areas adds a fur-
ther level of complexity in their redevelopment.
Research to date has identified several key barriers for the effective
redevelopment of established inner and middle suburbs of Australian
cities. A number have to do with urban planning and the manner in
which land uses are allocated to particular areas, and the zoning regula-
tions that are assigned to direct the type of development municipal gov-
ernments are attempting to attract (or discourage). Others have to do
with building codes and legislation that dictates what type and scale of
property development is permissible on a particular site. Residential zon-
ing continues to influence what type and scale of housing can be built,
and where, in Australian cities. In turn, this dictates how land can be
subdivided horizontally. The most pervasive residential zone in Victoria
(Neighbourhood Residential) precludes medium density development;
favouring detached housing or subdivision of traditional ‘quarter acre’
lots into a maximum of two parcels and associated dwellings. More
intensified forms of residential development require vertical subdivision
of a site that is supported by zoning and strata title legislation that per-
mits a land parcel to become the site for a multistorey complex—extend-
ing to high-rise apartments (Sharam et al. 2015). High-rise apartment
development is excluded from both Neighbourhood and General
Residential Zones in Melbourne.
Current zoning notwithstanding, significant opportunities exist for
current property owners in greyfield areas to play an important role in the
scale and speed with which the built environment in their neighbourhood
can be regenerated—especially if they can engender a collective interest
among neighbours to redevelop at precinct-scale (compared to the cur-

rently dominant piecemeal knock-down-rebuild) (Newton and Glackin
2014). For those residing in strata property, however, there is an added
layer of complexity to collective action. Restrictive strata title law and
governance, which requires a unanimous resolution of unit owners to
modify common areas in strata buildings or redevelop the entire build-
ing, currently hinders such efforts in Australia.
trata Title as a Challenge to Urban

S
Regeneration
Strata title in Australia has traditionally required a unanimous vote from
lot owners to progress renewal/redevelopment of sites. This stifles rede-
velopment of those buildings suffering from significant physical and
technological obsolescence and with growing maintenance costs. Precincts
of poorly or unmaintained strata title buildings will, collectively, promote
blight and stymie urban regeneration and strategic planning for urban
consolidation. In inner city areas where there is a concentration of older
two- and three-storey properties, there is opportunity for more intensi-
fied and sustainable regeneration. In practice, under the current Australian
strata title system, any intensified redevelopment can succeed only if a
strata title building is owned by a single owner desiring such change, or if
all unit owners agree to the change. Even with agreement for change, the
extent and cost of any change is also a challenge, as is the securing of
finance to effect any modifications and the obtaining of necessary plan-
ning and building permissions. In fact, nothing will change without
foundational modifications to the architecture of strata title law in
Australia, namely removing the threshold for unanimous resolution
requirement to renew or redevelop a building.
Other countries have adopted procedures that allow schemes to be
terminated with less than the unanimous support of owners (see
Christudason, Chap. 3). New Zealand allows for cancellation of a strata
scheme by special resolution agreed on by a majority of owners. Most
states in North America have a procedure for dissolving a homeowners
association, with some states allowing for a less than unanimous vote.
Singapore is an interesting and rather unique case study with collective

sale in operation. Under this system, a majority consent level of 80 per
cent or 90 per cent is required and this is dependent on the age of the
development. For a development that is ten years or more, the consent of
unit owners with at least 80 per cent of the shares value and total area of
all the units is required for a collective sale to proceed. Where the devel-
opment is less than ten years of age, the consent level sits at 90 per cent
(Teo Keang Sood 2010; Christudason 2010). It is important to note that
these regimes carry important transparency provisions, thereby offering
protection to the minority dissenters against any harassment to force
compliance.
Under the NSW reforms to its strata title regime, 75 per cent of owners
can agree to end their strata scheme (see Easthope and Randolph,
Chap. 10). By establishing a process for collective renewal and sale, property
owners are empowered to realise the full potential of their strata building
and to make their own decisions in a more democratic and transparent
fashion. The shift from unanimous consent to majority consent is quite a
significant change and is a derogation of the property rights of minority
owners who may have no desire to sell their units, which carry freehold
titles (Sherry 2015). The reform to strata law in NSW contains quite strict
watchdog provisions to facilitate protection of any owners who may be
taken advantage of (particularly elderly and disabled owners).
For Western Australia a termination process will be introduced
whereby a 75 per cent majority vote will be required for schemes of four
lots or more. For two- and three-lot schemes, a majority of owners is
required (one owner for a two-lot and two for a three-lot scheme). In all
instances owners are to be protected by a State Administrative Tribunal
review and a majority vote will not be given effect without a Tribunal
review, which will assess procedure and fairness to all owners. The
Tribunal’s decisions may then be appealed in the state Supreme Court
(Landgate 2016).
The Minister for Consumer Affairs has announced that Victoria will
also be reviewing its strata title laws to align itself with the changes being
implemented by other states. It is anticipated that the threshold for
renewal/redevelopment will also support a 75 per cent majority to termi-
nate a strata scheme (Consumer Affairs Victoria 2016).
he Unintended Consequences of Strata

T
on Urban Regeneration
The critical issues with strata title and urban regeneration are twofold:
Building Level Retrofit Many inner-urban strata dwellings are reno-

vated on a unit-by-unit scale, and depending on the interest of the indi-
vidual owner-residents, a whole-of-building structural retrofit is currently
uncommon (see Altmann et al., Chap. 7). Figure 2.3 illustrates one
instance, where, structurally, north-facing balconies were added and
Fig. 2.3 Structural (new balconies and water tanks) and design retrofit of strata
title (6-pack walk-up) building in Fitzroy, Melbourne (Source: Professor Nigel
Bertram (Monash University)
rainwater tanks were installed, while interiors and external landscaping

were altered to generate greater liveability and amenity.
While this represents a significant alteration to the building (in a now
sought after high socio-economic status area), it must be pointed out that
it represents less than the aspirational standards one would have for a
more complete contemporary retrofit. What this indicates is that regard-
less of the affluence of owners, building scale retrofitting is tempered by
feasibility, both in terms of achieving complete agreement from the (to
use the resident architect’s terms ‘typically conservative’) municipal coun-
cil and the financial trade-offs between a structural retrofit versus knock-
down-rebuild which would largely be a function of a site’s feasibility for
significant intensification.
In the public sector however, where buildings are owned by local or
national governments retrofitting can be more easily accommodated, as
illustrated in the range of outcomes evident from the Nation Building,
Economic Stimulus Plan (NBESP) Social Housing Initiative (Murray
et al. 2013).
Precinct Scale Regeneration It is now recognised that for Australian cit-

ies to be able to achieve compact city objectives of 70+ per cent of net
new infill housing development in the future, more innovative precinct-
scale residential regeneration needs to occur. The distribution of existing
(and likely future) strata title buildings in an area can pose a significant
barrier to lot consolidation, necessary for the building of greyfield pre-
cincts. This is particularly so in inner municipalities such as City of
Stonnington (Fig. 2.4). Here, it is evident that not only are there signifi-
cant opportunities for retrofits of individual strata titled buildings, but
the existence of ageing strata titled buildings adjacent to private hous-
ing—all with high redevelopment potential (viz. where land represents
more than 80 per cent of property values), has significant implications
for the prospect of larger scale precinct regeneration (Fig. 2.5). As dis-
cussed earlier, and in relation to both scales of redevelopment (building
or precinct) the difficulties lie in the (current) restrictive unanimous
resolutions in the strata title governance processes required to effect
change.
Fig. 2.4 City of Stonington: distribution of strata title residential buildings, 2014
(Source: Derived from the Victorian State Department of Environment, Land,
Water and Planning, Housing Development Data (2004–2012) and the Victorian
State Valuer-General rates dataset 2015)
Fig. 2.5 An example of strata (white) and subdivision blocking the redevelop-
ment of high RPI dwellings (dark grey) in Stonnington
In respect of the amendments to the NSW strata legislation to allow

the majority to decide on renewal/redevelopment of a building, Sherry
(2015) voiced concerns that this would have the consequence of empow-
ering private citizens and not the government to compulsory acquisition
of other people’s homes. She further queried the public benefit for such
acquisition and compensation because urban renewal and consolidation
are absent from the law reform provisions (Sherry 2015). If all owners do
benefit in some way perhaps this is where the question of compensation
lies. For tenants, strata title confers no advantage on security of lease
compared with those renting detached housing.
Ownership of a strata apartment necessarily involves limits on indi-
vidual owner’s rights, and that may include losing one’s home to free up
other residents to capitalise on a property development opportunity.
However, it could be asked why those privileged enough to live in free-
standing houses doing the least for urban regeneration are exempt from
this utilitarian obligation (Sherry 2015). Strata title legislation should, of
course, never take the property of one citizen and give it to another for
the sole purpose of that other citizen making a profit. The possibility of
that occurring is an anathema to any functioning democracy (see Chang
and Peng, Chap. 8).
Notwithstanding Sherry’s (2015) forthright yet valid concerns regard-
ing fairness and equity for the minority, which in its own right is an
unintended consequence of reform to the unanimous requirement for
strata title renewal, there may also be real opportunity for lot owners to
work together to realise individual, group and neighbourhood benefits.
A further advantage for removing a unanimous vote for strata
renewal/redevelopment might allow for older strata sites in greyfield areas
themselves to be more readily regenerated as the precinct housing and
infrastructure life cycle progresses.
Conclusion
In conclusion, strata title had, as one of its original intentions, to create
more varied options for compact living in established suburbs with their
attendant amenity. Strata title, as it is currently structured with individ-
ual lot ownership is not conducive to urban regeneration and intensifica-

tion. However, when operating under a more efficient and effective
governance structure, together with smart planning, innovative use of
sustainable building products and good quality design, it can bring the
type of intensification and outcomes that can alleviate some of the stress
Australian cities are facing from unsustainable levels of resource con-
sumption and emissions, climate change and surging population growth.
The strata title system as it currently exists must change to allow for an
easier and faster system to facilitate renewal/redevelopment of obsoles-
cent buildings, paving the way for much needed intensified regeneration.
This is true of older inner city areas as well as for Greyfield sites. Some
inner city suburban areas, such as City of Port Phillip and City of
Stonnington in Melbourne, may not desire too much more density. Here,
a type of ‘offsets’ system might operate, similar to the transfer develop-
ment regime in the United States (Pruetz 2016), to shift densification to
greyfield areas which offer the amenity and infrastructure to accommo-
date higher residential densities.
As was the situation in the early 1960s, strata, if reconstituted, can
again be well positioned to be an effective planning and property tool in
greyfield suburbs to provide for real and meaningful change.
Notes
1. See further, http://markthegraph.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/dating-
australian-recessions.html.
References
Alterman, R. 2010. The Maintenance of Residential Towers in Condominium
Tenure: A Comparative Analysis of Two Extremes—Israel and Florida. In
Multi-Owned Housing: Law, Power and Practice, ed. S. Blandy, J. Dixon, and
A. Dupuis, 73–90. Surrey: Ashgate.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011. Australian Bureau of Statics Census of
Population and Housing. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/
home/tablebuilder. Accessed 27 Sep 2015.
———. 2015a. Building Approvals, Australia, Jul, cat. no. 8731.0, Canberra.
———. 2015b. Household and Family Projections, Australia, 2011 to 2036, cat.
no. 3236.0, Canberra.
Cassidy, K., and C. Guilding. 2011. Management Models and Differential
Agency Challenges Arising in Australian Multi-Titled Tourism
Accommodation Properties. Tourism Management 32 (1): 1271–1281.
Christudason, A. 2010. Share Value as Determinant of Strata Owners’ Bundle
of Rights in Collective Sales in Singapore. In Multi-Owned Housing: Law,
Power and Practice, ed. S. Blandy, J. Dixon, and A. Dupuis, 91–109. Surrey:
Ashgate.
Consumer Affairs Victoria. 2016. Consumer Property Acts Review Issues Paper No.
2: Owners Corporations. Victorian State Government 2016. https://www.
consumer.vic.gov.au/resources-and-education/legislation/public-
consultations-and-reviews/consumer-property-law-review/issues-paper-2-
owners-corporations. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning. 2015. Victoria in
Future: Population and Household Projections, Greater Melbourne (2GMEL)
Factsheet. Victorian State Government: Melbourne.
Dixon, T., M. Eames, M. Hunt, and S. Lannon, eds. (2016). Retrofitting Cities
for Tomorrow’s World. London: Wiley.
DTPLI. 2015. Housing Development Data. http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/plan-
ning/plans-and-policies/housing-and-residential-development/housing-
development-data. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
Dunham-Jones, E., and J. Williamson. 2011. Retrofitting Suburbia. Hoboken:
Wiley.
Easthope, H., J. Warnken, C. Sherry, E. Coiacetto, D. Dredge, C. Guilding,
N. Johnston, D. Lamminmaki, and S. Reid. 2014. How Property Title
Impacts Urban Consolidation: A Life Cycle Examination of Multi-title
Developments. Urban Policy and Research 32 (3): 289–304.
Easthope, H., S. Hudson, and B. Randolph. 2013. Urban Renewal and Strata
Scheme Termination: Balancing Communal Management and Individual
Property Rights. Environment and Planning A 45 (6): 1421–1435.
Harris, D. 2011. Condominium and the City: The Rise of Property in Vancouver.
Law and Social Inquiry 36 (3): 694–726.
Harris, D., and N. Gilewicz. 2016. Dissolving Condominium, Private Takings,
and the Nature of Property. In Rethinking Expropriation Law II: Context,
Criteria, and Consequences of Expropriation, ed. B. Hoops, E.J. Marais,
H. Mostert, J.A. Sluysman, and L.C.A. Verstappen, 263–297. The Hague:
Eleven Law International Publishing.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Aseeton
kaksintaistelu
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Aseeton kaksintaistelu

Romaani Suuresta Lännestä
Author: Charles Alden Seltzer
Translator: Paavo Kesäniemi
Release date: November 16, 2023 [eBook #72136]
Language: Finnish
Original publication: Jyväskylä: K. J. Gummerus Oy, 1926
Credits: Timo Ervasti and Tapio Riikonen
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ASEETON

KAKSINTAISTELU ***
ASEETON KAKSINTAISTELU
Romaani Suuresta Lännestä
Kirj.
CHARLES ALDEN SELTZER
Suomentanut
P. K. [Paavo Kesäniemi]
Jyväskylässä, K. J. Gummerus Oy, 1926.
Ensimmäinen luku.
Huolimatta innostaan päästä kolmipäiväisen matkansa päähän,

lauhtui Josephine Hamiltonin mieli jonkinverran siitä rauhasta, minkä
junan pysähtyminen aikaansai. Syvä äänettömyys muistutti miltei
avaruuden hiljaisuutta ja kohtaloonsa alistuen vaipui Josephine
peittojen ja pielusten nojaan, jotka avulias junapalvelija oli hänelle
varannut.
Hieman sotaisen katseen loi hän kuitenkin osastonsa akkunasta.
Ulkona näkyi tummanruskea, kuolleennäköinen seutu, tasainen ja
synkkä erämaa, puuton ja autio. Niin pitkälle kuin hänen silmänsä
kantoivat, ei näkynyt taivaanrantaa ensinkään. Hänestä tuntui kuin
sellainenkin olisi pitänyt näkyä jossakin, ja hän koetti tunkea
katseensa vaakasuoraan etäisyyteen säilyttääkseen aivojensa
tasapainon. Mutta aivan huomattavan lähellä näytti tummanruskea
maa yhtyvän kuparinkarvaiseen taivaaseen muodostaen harson
tapaisen autereen. Tarkatessaan vakaana outoa luonnonilmiötä,
huomasi hän, että harson muodostivat kiiltävät hiutaleet, jotka
hiljalleen leijailivat maan ja taivaan välillä — tomua, ajatteli hän,
runottoman käytännöllisesti.
Ja kuitenkin loistivat hänen silmänsä ihastuksesta, sillä näky oli

majesteetillisen kaunis. New Yorkista lähdettyään ei hän ollut nähnyt
mitään siihen verrattavaa. Hän painoi kasvonsa ruutua vasten ja
katseli innokkaana ilmiötä.
Vähän myöhemmin kaikui hänen korviinsa yksityisiä, kaukaisia

ääniä, jotka suljettujen ovien läpi kuuluivat vaimennettuina —
askeleita, ihmisääniä, vasaran kumahtelua metallia vastaan,
koneesta tulevan höyryn pihinää ja ovien pauketta.
Mutta hän ihaili yhä harsoverhoa. Hän huomasi, että sen värit
hitaasti vaihtuivat. Kullanväriset soihdut loimusivat kilpaa
kimallelevien läikkien kanssa nousten ja laskien, suurentuen ja
pienentyen keskeymättömässä liikkeessä ja värit olivat niin
sopusointuisia ja herkullisia, että ne olisivat kelvanneet parhaimman
taiteilijamestarin kankaalle kiinnitettäviksi. Hän ei huomannut
katselleensa sitä kylliksi, ennenkuin hän näki erään häpeämättömän
näköisen miehen röyhkeästi katselevan häntä radan viereltä aivan
hänen akkunansa alla. Kostonhimoisena veti hän uutimen akkunan
eteen ja harmin tuli leimahti hänen silmissään.
Ollen kahdenvaiheella kutsuako junapalvelijan luokseen,

tiedustellakseen pysähtymisen syytä, seisoi hän hetkistä
myöhemmin kehystetyn peilin ääressä ja järjesteli muutamia
vallattomia kiharoita tummanruskeassa, runsaassa tukassaan, jota
hänen naisystävänsä Idän yliopistossa aina olivat kadehtineet.
Peilistä kuvastuivat hämmästyttävän sievät kasvot. Leuka saattoi

ehkä näyttää hieman pelottavalta sille, joka ei kyllin kauan ollut häntä
tarkannut huomatakseen hänen somat huulensa, joissa piili ilmeinen,
ankaran siveellisyyden vartioima leikillisyys. Hänen jättämänsä
vaikutus oli pikemmin henkistä kuin ruumiillista laatua.
Vaikka hän epäilemättä oli tietoinen viehättäväisyydestään, ei

hänen kirkkaissa, ilmeikkäissä silmissään ollut rahtuakaan
turhamaisuutta hänen katsoessaan kuvaansa peilissä. Näytti siltä,
kuin hän ei olisi antanut yksinomaan ruumiillisen kauneuden pettää
itseään. Hänen harkitsevat silmänsä tunkivat syvälle, ikäänkuin
etsien sielua, joka henkevöittää ruumiin.
Hetken perästä kääntyi hän taas akkunaan. Häpeemättömän

näköinen mies oli mennyt. Hän nosti uutimen ja katseli taas
moniväristä verhoa, joka näytti riippuvan junan ja kaukaisen
taivaanrannan välillä.
Hän näki matkustajien kulkevan ohi akkunan — miehiä ja naisia.

He olivat menossa junan takaosaan päin. Muutamat juttelivat ja
nauroivat, mutta hän huomasi, että kaikki olivat kiihtyneitä. Eräs
mies, joka kiirehti akkunan ohi, otti kaulastaan valkoisen
tärkkikauluksen. Hän työnsi sen taskuunsa ja pyyhki hikeä
kasvoiltaan jo ennestään kostealla nenäliinalla.
Miehen näkeminen herätti Josephinessä tietoisuuden siitä, että

hänen osastonsa oli hyvin kuuma. Hän avasi parhaaksi oven
kohdatakseen kahden miehen katseet, heidän kiiruhtaessaan
käytävää pitkin puhuen ja nauraen. Heidän silmistään näki, että he
olivat poikamaisesti huvitettuja siitä asiasta, joka hoputti heitä
rientämään. "Lehmäpaimenia", kuuli hän toisen heistä sanovan
heidän sivuuttaessaan hänen osastonsa oven. Hänestä tuntui kuin
mies olisi kohdistanut sanansa hänelle jonkinlaisena
personattomana huomautuksena, että hän oli keksinyt jotakin, joka
saattoi kiinnittää hänenkin mieltään.
Oliko sitten lehmäpaimen hänestä mielenkiintoinen. Tuskin. Hän

otaksui luonnollisesti näkevänsä paljonkin lehmäpaimenia, tultuaan
matkansa päämäärään, Betty Lawsonin karjatalolle, joka Bettyn
kirjeistä saadun vaikutelman mukaan sijaitsi jossakin Willetin takana
olevissa koskemattomissa erämaissa. Mutta mitään mielenkiintoa
hän tuskin oli huomannut —
"Ethän luule, että he todella aikovat hirttää hänet?" kuuli hän

äskeisen äänen kysyvän käytävällä. "Se ei näytä —"
Oven sulkeminen tukahdutti lopun äänestä, mutta miehen sanojen

merkitys kiusasi Josephineä siinä määrin, että hän asettui ovelleen
jäykän näköisenä kuulostamaan.
Hetkeksi jäi hän siihen seisomaan, hämmästyneenä,

epätietoisena, mielessään toistaen kuulemiaan sanoja
"lehmäpaimenet" ja "hirttää." Ne tuntuivat hänestä vakuuttavilta, sillä
sanat olivat jollakin tavalla yhteydessä keskenään ja hän muisti, että
Bettyn kirjeessä kerran oli viitattu lynkkaukseen, vaikkei hän
varsinaisesti voinut palauttaa mieleensä, miksi hän sen oli maininnut.
Joka tapauksessa oli kirjeen lukeminen aiheuttanut hänessä
jonkinlaisen loukkaantumisen tunteen, vaikka hän jo ennenkin oli
tiennyt, että sellaisia asioita kuin lynkkaus, tapahtui Lännessä. Ero
oli siinä, että tiedon tullessa suoraan Bettyltä, sanat näyttivät saavan
läheisemmän ja samalla surullisemman sävyn, kuin miltä ne
tuntuivat sanomalehtien lyhyissä sähkösanomissa.
Tuntui uskomattomalta, että sellaista saattoi tapahtua Amerikassa,

että sellainen tapahtuma voi sattua juuri nyt, aivan hänen
lähettyvillään. Ja kuitenkin, ajatellessaan sen seudun julmaa
ulkonäköä, jonka läpi hänen junansa oli kulkenut viime päivät, ja kun
hän muisteli niitä suunnattomia taipaleita, jotka jäivät kaupunkien
välille, toinen toisensa perässä, ja itse kaupunkien tyhjänpäiväistä
asua, tuntui hänestä olevan ilmeistä, että paljon sellaista saattoi
näillä mailla tapahtua, josta yleensä tunnustettu laki ei voinut tietää
mitään.
Hän huomasi, että syntyi uusi hiljaisuus, mutta se oli syvempi ja

jollakin tavalla juhlallisempi kuin äskeinen, muutamia minuutteja
sitten junan pysähtymisestä aiheutunut. Hiljaisuus vaunussa näytti
tulleen merkillisenä enteenä, aivan kuin se, joka käy uhkaavan ja
odotetun onnettomuuden edellä. Ja nyt hän tiesi mitä matkustajien
kiiruhtaminen junan peräpuoleen merkitsi.
Hän pani päähänsä Bettyn käytettäväksi suositteleman

huopahatun, pukeutui kepeään matkatakkiinsa, paiskasi osaston
oven kiinni ja kiiruhti vaunun rappuja alas.
Näytti siltä kuin hän olisi ollut viimeinen junasta poistuja, sillä
hänen perässään ei tullut ketään ja kaikkinielevä hiljaisuus korosti
hänen liikkeittensä kuulumista hänen astuessaan vaunusta
rataviereen.
Hänet valtasi outo kiihko, joka pohjautui pelonsekaiseen

uteliaisuuteen ja vastenmielisyyteen tulla todistajaksi tapahtumaan,
joka tulisi julkisuuteen, mutta hän kiiruhti junan takaosaa kohti, jonne
hän näki muittenkin matkustajien kokoontuvan.
Ei kukaan näyttänyt huomaavan häntä, kun hän yhtyi muuhun

joukkoon ja hän livahti sopivaan väliin ja tunki eteenpäin kunnes oli
tilaisuudessa näkemään, mikä oli saanut matkustajien mielenkiinnon
heräämään.
Siinä oli monta mielenkiintoista esinettä. Seitsemän kappaletta,

ollaksemme tarkkoja. Noista seitsemästä oli kuusi lehmäpaimenia.
Siitä ei saattanut olla epäilystä. Sillä vaikkei Josephine koskaan ollut
nähnyt lehmäpaimenta, tunsi hän, ettei hän voinut erehtyä.
He olivat ryhmässä rautatien vieressä olevalla pienellä kentällä,

noin pari, kolmekymmentä jalkaa viimeisestä vaunusta ja oli selvää,
että he olivat olleet siinä jo ennen junan pysähtymistä, sillä
Josephine huomasi lähellä nuotion hiipuvan hiilloksen, josta vielä
savu laiskasti tuprusi. Siellä täällä, hajallaan, oli satuloita ja peittoja.
Vähän matkan päässä oli useita hevosia, jotka söivät
vihreänruskeaa nurmea.
Josephinelle olivat satulat, peitot ja hevoset merkityksettömiä

seikkoja. Hän näki ne, mutta hänen mielenkiintonsa oli kokonaan ja
lopullisesti keskittynyt lehmäpaimeniin, sillä heistä piti tulla
päähenkilöt siinä murhenäytelmässä, jonka hän hengessään oli
nähnyt sinä silmänräpäyksenä, jona hän oli kuullut noitten kahden
miehen keskustelun junasillalla.
Hän tarkasti heitä innokkaasti, kiihkeästi, paheksui heitä yhtä
paljon kutakin, selvästi osoittaen vastustavansa heitä ja
halveksijansa heitä aivan yli hyveellisyyden määräysten.
Eräs aivan lähellä häntä seisova nainen puheli kookkaalle

miehelle, joka oli puettu ruskeaan, pehmeään takkiin, matkalakkiin,
ryppyisiin housuihin sekä tohveleihin ja jolla oli lihavat, sileät kasvot
ja pilkalliset, itsekylläiset silmät ja jonka huulet hyväilivät paksua
sikaria.
"Eivätkös he ole runollisen näköisiä?", huomautti nainen.
"Hm, hm", röhki mies epäillen. "Saa nähdä — ehkäpä. Riippuu

asianhaaroista."
Josephine ei kuunnellut hänen selvityksiään "asianhaaroista."

Hänen mielestään lehmäpaimenet näyttivät kertakaikkiaan
roistomaisilta. Hän ei voinut ajatella, että runollisuus saattoi viihtyä
pistoolien mustien naamioitten takana eikä niitten matalalla
riippuvissa koteloissa, ei hän myöskään voinut kuvitella, että heidän
rohkeitten, häikäilemättömien kasvojensa taakse saattaisi kätkeytyä
sitä, johon miestä puhutteleva nainen viittasi.
Sillä Josephinen valtasi ennakkoluulo. Miehen vaununkäytävässä

lausumat sanat "luuletko heidän todella hirttävän hänet" olivat
etukäteen luoneet mielikuvan, joka oli täydessä ristiriidassa niitten
opetusten kanssa, joihin hänet koko elämänsä aikana oli totutettu —
mielipiteitä, jotka jyrkästi paheksuivat kansanjoukon harjoittamaa
väkivaltaa. Ja jokainen teloitustapaus, joka ei ollut lain mukaan
toimitettu, oli näinollen vääjäämättömästi laiton teko.
Josephine oli vakuutettu siitä, että nyt kyseessä oleva hirttäminen
oli laiton. Hän ei epäillyt, että hirttäminen tapahtuisi, sillä sillä aikaa
kun tuo suuri ruskeatakkinen mies puhui, olivat hänen silmänsä
löytäneet todennäköisen uhrin.
Tämä istui pienellä kummulla lehmäpaimenten takana. Hän oli

lakitta ja takitta. Hänen tukkansa oli epäjärjestyksessä ja hänen
otsassaan oli haava, josta vuotanut veri oli hyytynyt. Hänen likaiset
kasvonsa ja pitkä parransänkensä tekivät hänestä roiston näköisen.
Hänen kätensä olivat sidotut selän taakse ja vaikka hän irvisteli
häijynilmeisesti matkustajajoukon kyselyihin, tunsi Josephine häntä
kohtaan todellista ja syvää myötätuntoa. Hän oli varma siitä, ettei
vanki voinut olla yli kahdenkymmenen — viisikolmatta korkeintaan.
Varmaankaan ei vanhempi. Ja kuitenkin odottaa tuossa sellaista
loppua! Ja ehkä aivan viattomana! Keitä ne miehet olivat, jotka
rohkenivat tuomita hänet — tuomita sivuuttamalla lailliset muodot?
Hän oli katsellut lehmäpaimenia kokonaisuutena. Nyt,

kiivastuttuaan, alkoi hän tutkia heitä yksitellen, mutta niin
pahansuovasti että se sulki häneltä kaiken mahdollisuuden edullisen
vaikutuksen saamiseen heistä.
Neljää heistä selvästi ja kieltämättä harmitti ja vaivasi matkustajien

toimeenpanema kysely. Viimemainitut osoittivat selvästi erikoista
mielenkiintoa asiaan, seikka, joka tosin sanattomasti, merkitsi sitä,
että lehmäpaimenet heidän mielestään olivat harvinaisuuksia; jotka
he rinnastivat intiaanien, korkeitten vuorien, erämaitten,
kalkkarokäärmeitten, sarviniekkojen kilpikonnien, skorpionien ja
muitten seudulla tapaamiensa nähtävyyksien kanssa ja joita
myöhemmin muistelivat ja vetivät esille merkillisinä erikoisuuksina.
Nuo neljä koettivat peittää harmistumistaan. He kohtelivat
kokoontuneita matkustajia huonosti salatulla paheksunnalla ja
pilkallisin hymyin, joka kuitenkin oli niin heikkoa, että suuttumus
selvästi kuulsi sen alta.
Josephine arvasi pian, että nuo neljä saattoi jättää

huomioonottamatta, huolimatta heidän rohkeasta ilmeestään,
ahavoittuneista kasvoistaan ja heidän huomattavan suorasta
katseestaan — ja heidän suurista pistooleistaan. Paitsi ympäristöä,
joka oli toinen, olivat he vain samanlaisia nuoria miehiä, jotka
palkkaa vastaan olivat lainanneet ruumiinsa toisen palvelukseen,
kuin Idänkin miehet, kuten maataloudessa esimerkiksi rengit. He
tekivät sen, mihin heidät käskettiin.
Josephine ei tarvinnut pitkää aikaa löytääkseen lehmäpaimenten

joukosta johtavan sielun, miehen, jolla oli ne ominaisuudet, jotka
itsestään nostavat hänet johtajan asemaan.
Hän istui litteällä kivellä vähän matkaa muista. Hän nojasi hieman
eteenpäin, kyynärpäät polvia vasten ja kädet ristissä. Hän oli
työntänyt suuren huopahattunsa takaraivolle ja tarkatessaan
matkustajia hämmentymättömin, lujin katsein, kiilsi hänen silmistään
hyväntahtoinen leikki, johon sekaantui hieman halveksumisen
sekaista ilkamoimista.
Hän oli pitkä, saappaat jalassa ja pistooli vyöllä. Saappaat olivat

pölyiset ja niitten pehmeät kärjet kuluneet. Housut, jotka verhosivat
hänen pitkiä sääriään, olivat kuluneet ja kärventyneet. Hänen
harmaassa villapaidassaan oli pitkät hihat ja ne olivat napitetut
tiukasti ranteen ympäri. Kaulan seutu paidassa oli avara ja sitä
korvasi sininen kaulahuivi.
Mutta se ei ollut miehen ulkonäkö, joka herätti Josephinen
huomiota, vaikka hänen harmitellen täytyi myöntää, että hän oli
kaunis.
Se oli jotakin muuta tuossa miehessä — jokin erikoinen

turvallisuuden ja rauhallisuuden tunne, joka säteili hänestä ja joka
kuului kokonaan hänen olentoonsa, aivan kuin hän olisi ollut
tietoinen voimasta, käskyvallasta, jota hän saattoi osoittaa
omaavansa silloin kuin halusi.
Sellainen oli Josephinen ensi vaikutelma hänestä. Ja se pysyi

kunnes mies, katsellessaan matkustajia mies mieheltä, siristi
silmiään hieman ja niistä loisti veitikkamainen vakavuus. Silloin
Josephine oli vakuutettu siitä, että tuon voiman ja käskyvallan takana
piili häijynilkinen pirullisuus.
Josephine vihasi häntä. Miehen hitaan katseen pysähtyessä

hetkiseksi häneen, jäykistyi hän ja rypisti silmäkulmiaan. Jos mies
lienee huomannut sitä, ei hän ainakaan sitä näyttänyt. Katse solui
hitaasti eteenpäin muihin matkustajiin kohdistuakseen.
"Siinä miehessä on luonnetta", kuuli Josephine ruskeatakkisen,

kookkaan miehen kuiskaavan vieressään olevalle naiselle. "Voit
selvästi nähdä, että nuo muut tuntevat itsensä hieman levottomiksi
meidän keskeyttäessämme heidän aikeensa, mutta tuo mies ei ole
millänsäkään. Se poika on yhtä rauhallinen ja syvämietteinen kuin
ennenkin. Pyhä Yrjö! En tahtoisi olla hänen tiellään!"
Josephine tunsi äkkiä syvästi halveksivansa tuota kookasta

miestä, joka ei sen paremmin osannut arvostella edes oman
sukupuolensa edustajaa. Eikö tuo kookas mies huomannut, että
toinen oli vain verenhimoinen paholainen, joka tuossa iloitsi ja
mahtaili tilaisuudesta, jossa saattoi näyttää voimaansa onnettomaan
kurjimukseen nähden, jonka hän ja hänen toverinsa olivat aikeissa
hirttää.
Siinä seisoi paljon matkustajia. He olivat asettuneet puoliympyrään

vaunusta alkaen radan yli menevää polkua pitkin siten, että aivan
lehmäpaimenten ryhmän kohdalle muodostui säännötön, mutta
selvästi huomattava mutka — varovaisuutta tai ehkä pelkkä sattuma.
Oli kuuma. Poroksi kuivunut polku aivan hehkui tukahuttavia ilma-

aaltoja ja useimmat matkustajat pyyhkivät hikeä kasvoiltaan
nenäliinoillaan.
Josephine ei huomannut kuumuutta. Kylmä raivo oli vallannut

hänet, suuttumus, joka kokonaan kuoletti ruumiillisen pahantunteen,
suuttumus siitä, että hän näki matkustaja-joukon tylsästi alistuvan
hirmutapahtumaan, joka oli aivan ovella ja jota varmastikaan ei
viivytettäisi toteuttamasta heti junan lähdettyä. Paikalla oli ainakin
sata miehistä matkustajaa eikä yhdelläkään näyttänyt olevan
rohkeutta käydä tapausten kulkua muuttamaan.
Hän siirtyi hieman eteenpäin tietoisena siitä, että niin pian kuin hän
puhuisi, tulisi hän kaiken keskipisteeksi, kuten puhuja lavalla. Hän oli
myös varma siitä, että hän joutuisi arvostelun esineeksi, ehkäpä
pilkankin. Mutta hän oli sittenkin päättänyt sekaantua asiaan.
Mutta ollessaan juuri avaamaisillaan suunsa, kuuli hän äänen

puhuvan:
"Meidän tulemme on sammunut, arvoisat naiset ja herrat. Toivon,

että huomaatte, että emme olleet odottaneet seuraa
aamiaiseksemme, muussa tapauksessa olisimme antaneet sen
savuta edelleen. Muutenkin on ruokavarastomme verrattain pieni. Te
näytätte kaikki kovin nälkäisiltä! Eikö junassa enää ehkä
kuljetetakaan ruokaa?"
Se oli hieno puhe. Matkustajilla oli nälkä — seikkailun nälkä,

kaiken sellaisen nälkä, mikä vain pystyi keskeyttämään
matkustamisen väsyttävää yksitoikkoisuutta. Ja heidän kasvoillaan
kuvastuikin kiitollisuus hetken oudosta jännittävyydestä ja miehen
ystävällisestä äänensävystä, jonka heidän häpeämättömän
uteliaisuutensa vuoksi olisi odottanut olevan tuiman ja raa'an.
Niin, puhuja oli sama mies, joka istui litteällä kivellä,

lehmäpaimenten johtaja. Hänen äänensä oli ollut matala ja
arvoituksellisen vakava ja siihen oli sekaantunut pilkallisen naurun
sävy. Ja hänen silmänsä loistivat kirkkaina.
"Enkös sanonut sinulle!" kuiskasi ruskeatakkinen, kookas mies.

"Tuo poika on terävä. Hänellä on aivot pääkopassa."
Kookas mies vastasi äskeiseen puheeseen. Toiset matkustajat

ilmaisivat mikä milläkin tavalla ilonsa lehmäpaimenen puheen
johdosta, yksi naureskeli, toinen kuiskutteli jotakin ja kolmas
nyökäytti hyväksyvästi päätään. Mutta ruskeatakkinen kääntyi
suoraan lehmäpaimenen puoleen.
"Junissa ei tarjota sellaista ruokaa, kuin meillä tässä on tarjolla."
"Hyvä", virkkoi toinen, nauraen leveästi ja työntäen lakkinsa vielä

enemmän takaraivolle niin, että kiiltävän musta tukan tupsu tuli
näkyviin, "poikia ei oikein maita ruoka nyt juuri, olkoon se sitten
saatua tai ostettua. Muutamat heistä saattaisivat tulla suorastaan
myrkyllisiksi, he kun ovat sitä mieltä, että näin suuren, nälkäisen
joukon läsnäolo heitä jossakin määrin häiritsee."
"Se ratkaisee asian", naurahti kookas mies. "Asia on selvä.

Omasta puolestani pyydän anteeksi."
"Tervetuloa vain", sanoi toinen ystävällisesti. Hän katsoi muihin

matkustajiin siristäen kiiluvia silmiään, ja hieno hymy karehti hänen
huulillaan, kun hän huomasi, että matkustajajoukko työntäen toisiaan
rupesi valmistamaan peräytymistään.
Mutta vaikka Josephine oli tietoinen siitä, mitä lehmäpaimenen

sanojen alla piili hänen kehoittaessaan matkustajia kiinnittämään
huomiotaan vähemmän henkilökohtaisiin asioihin, ei hänellä ollut
vähintäkään aikomusta peräytyä — ainakaan ei ennemmin kuin oli
tehnyt edes yrityksen pelastaa mustatukkaisen miehen takana
istuvan kurjimuksen hengen.
Hän astui esiin tungoksesta ja huomasi heti, että kaikkien

matkustajien huomio kääntyi kokonaan häneen, ja samalla myös
mustatukkaisen lehmäpaimenen tutkivan vakava silmäys.
"Mitä aiotte tehdä tuolle miehelle?" kysyi Josephine viitaten

vankiin, joka pilkallisesti nosti ylähuultaan kuullessaan kysymyksen.
"Arvatenkin tarkoitatte Les Artwellia?" sanoi mustatukkainen mies

hitaasti. "Sekö se toikin teidät kaikki tähän ympärillemme? No niin.
Olette siis arvanneet asian. Me aiomme hirttää hänet."
Toinen luku.
Mustatukkaisen miehen ääni oli lempeä. Mutta Josephinestä
tuntui, kuin olisi tuo lempeys ollut vain pinnallista, ja että sanojen alta
uhkui raudankova taipumattomuus, joka ei luvannut paljoakaan
toiveita hänen välitysyrityksensä onnistumiselle.
Mutta sensijaan, että olisi hämmästynyt, tunsi Josephine outoa

taistelunhalua ja katkeraa suuttumusta, joka oli kokonaan
henkilökohtaista ja jolla ei ollut mitään tekemistä hänen aatteittensa
kanssa, kaikkein vähimmän sen aatteen kanssa, joka alunperin oli
saanut hänet sekaantumaan asiaan.
Josephine oli täydelleen unohtanut, että hän oli ryhtynyt estämään

hirttämistä sen vuoksi, että se oli omavaltaista ja laitonta. Hän oli nyt
vain intohimoisen harmistunut siitä taipumattomuuden sävystä,
minkä hän oli ollut huomaavinaan mustatukkaisen miehen äänessä.
Hän tahtoi saada hänet taipumaan! Häntä halutti astua hänen
ohitseen ja vapauttaa vanki. Hän halusi näyttää hänelle, ettei hän
voinut noudattaa mielihalujaan, vaikk'ei lain voima tuntunutkaan
satojen mailien päässä!
Mutta hän ei kuitenkaan antautunut noitten villien, alkuperäisten

mielihalujensa valtaan. Ja hän tiesi mikä peloittava vaikutus
mustatukkaisen miehen silmissä oli. Jollakin erikoisella tavalla nuo
silmät jäähdyttivät häntä, kehoittivat häntä olemaan tutkimatta tuon
pinnallisen ystävällisyyden alla olevaa tekstiä. Hän tunsi, että jos hän
yrittäisi noita alkuperäisiä mielessään pohtimia keinoja, joutuisi hän
varmasti tappiolle. Ja häviötä hän ei olisi voinut kestää koko
matkustajajoukon silmien edessä.
Hän näki jotakin muutakin mustatukkaisen miehen silmissä —

rehellistä, rohkeaa ihailua. Lisäksi näytti tuo ihailu puhuvan. Se näytti
sanovan, että Josephine oli erittäin rohkea nuori nainen, joka ei
pelännyt astua joukosta esiin asettuaksensa vankia puolustamaan.
Toisilla ei ollut sitä rohkeutta!
Mutta tuossa ihailussa oli myöskin ivaa. Hänen rohkeutensa oli

raukeava turhaksi. Huolimatta hänen hyvästä tarkoituksestaan
sekaantuessaan asiaan, olisi kuitenkin parasta, että hän painautuisi
junaan ja menisi matkoihinsa.
Hän näki sen selvästi mustatukkaisen miehen silmistä. Mutta

hänpä ei aikonutkaan mennä! Mustatukkainen ei saisi kerskua
teräsmäisellä ystävällisyydellään. Eikä saisi myöskään hänen
ihailunsa häntä luopumaan päätöksestään pelastaa ihmiselämä. Hän
ei sallisi hänen tehdä murhenäytelmästä huvinäytelmää!
Hänen huomionsa miehen teräsluonteesta oli varoittanut häntä

käyttämään kaiken älynsä hänen kukistamisekseen. Hän ei voinut
toivoa voittavansa häntä iskemällä suoraan asiaan. Se tuottaisi
hänelle varman tappion ja nöyryytyksen.
"Mitä tuo mies on tehnyt?"
Hän puhui tyynesti. Hän riemuitsi itsehillinnästään, hän onnitteli

itseään siitä, ettei ollut ryhtynyt puhumaan niin kauan kuin hän oli
kiihkonsa vallassa.
"Hän varasti hevosen, madame."
"Ja te aiotte hirttää hänet sen vuoksi?"
"Se on tarkoitus."
"Kenen tarkoitus?"
"Minun tietysti, madame, meidän kaikkien. Me tapasimme hänet
hevosen kimpussa."
"Tarkoitatte, että tapasitte hänet itse teossa?"
"Niin juuri."
"Kuka sen lain on laatinut?"
"Enpä tiedä, että sitä kukaan olisi laatinut. Luulen, että se on

johtunut tavasta. Emme voi kaikki matkustaa junissa ja näillä mailla
sattuu usein, että ihmisen henki riippuu siitä, onko hänellä hevonen,
vai ei. Tämä on liian suuri maa jalkaisin astuttavaksi."
"Mutta onhan muita hevosia. Eihän tämä mies niitä kaikkia ole
varastanut."
"Siitä ei ole kysymys. Hän varasti yhden ja hän joutui kiinni

ratsastaessaan sillä."
"Milloin saitte hänet kiinni?"
"Viime yönä."
"Täälläkö?"
"Pari mailia pohjoisempana."
"Miksi toitte hänet tänne?"
"Nämä seudut kärsivät vähän puitten puutetta, madame.

Ajattelimme käyttää lennätinpylvästä tarkoitukseen."

Multi Owned Property in The Asia Pacific Region Rights Restrictions and Responsibilities 1St Edition Erika Altmann Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multi Owned Property in The Asia Pacific Region Rights Restrictions and Responsibilities 1St Edition Erika Altmann Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multi-Owned Property in the

Asia-Pacific Region: Rights,

ISBN 978-1-137-56987-5 ISBN 978-1-137-56988-2 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017955061

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover illustration: LeeYiuTung/gettyimages

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

Global cities throughout the Asia-Pacific region are being transformed by

accessible to a wider audience. To us, this is a major oversight given that

Part I Rights 1

1 Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities in Context 3

2 The Unintended Consequences of Strata Title for Urban

3 Termination Legislation: Property Rights or Wrongs? 39

4 Impediments to Effective Strata Governance 65

5 City Transition: A MOP Rights Boom in China 83

Part II Restrictions 103

6 Conflict Between Private and Public Restrictions 105

7 Environmental Restriction in Multi-­Owned Property 119

8 Urban Renewal and Affordable Housing in Taiwan 137

9 Restrictions on Pet Ownership in Multi-­Owned

Part III Responsibilities 175

10 Collective Responsibility in Strata Apartments 177

11 Major Repair Work: Whose Responsibility? 197

12 Addressing Conflict Within an Owners Corporation 213

13 Efficacy Beliefs and Homeowner Participation 231

14 Promoting Owner Participation in Management 251

15 Improving Governance of High-Rise MOPs in Malaysia 269

16 Owner Responsibilities in Mumbai 291

17 Multi-Owned Properties: Bringing It All Together 307

Fig. 2.1 Development of multi-titled residential development in

Table 2.1 Profile of strata title residential property in

Table 15.4 Summary of SEM results for relationships between

An Introduction to Multi-owned Property

© The Author(s) 2018 3

policy settings, as well as illuminating the experience of strata managers,

Here to There, Then to Now

Over the past 50 years, Australia’s judicial frameworks in strata titled

 efining Rights, Restrictions

discussion of the differences between property rights, restrictions and

The adjustment of property owners to ownership within more confined

Structure of the Book

majority of investor-owners. We explore this theme from a rights, restric-

outlines the environmental restrictions placed on owners and tenants liv-

across national and international borders. The systems adopted in one

Wallace, J., and I.P. Williamson. 2005. Building Sustainability Accounting in

Erika Altmann Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of

Michelle Gabriel School of Sociology, University of Tasmania, Australia.

© The Author(s) 2018 17

Vertical land tenures have been in existence for centuries (Sennett

live in this class of dwelling (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011). Due

l­ifecycles. The more ubiquitous greyfield sites are located in established

 he Historical Context for Australian Strata

According to Strata Communities Australia (2011), one in four house-

Fig. 2.1 Development of multi-titled residential development in Melbourne

the introduction of legislation, which permitted purchase of apartments

Retrofitting Established Suburbs

There is growing pressure to accelerate and scale up the retrofitting of the

Total Strata Strata as Strata as Strata as

Fig. 2.2 Distribution of multi-titled dwelling units in Melbourne (Source: Derived

century (United Nations 1987; OECD 2012)—during which time the

among neighbours to redevelop at precinct-scale (compared to the cur-

 trata Title as a Challenge to Urban

Part I Rights 1

1 Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities in Context 3

2 The Unintended Consequences of Strata Title for Urban

3 Termination Legislation: Property Rights or Wrongs? 39

4 Impediments to Effective Strata Governance 65

5 City Transition: A MOP Rights Boom in China 83

Part II Restrictions 103

6 Conflict Between Private and Public Restrictions 105

7 Environmental Restriction in Multi-Owned Property 119

8 Urban Renewal and Affordable Housing in Taiwan 137

9 Restrictions on Pet Ownership in Multi-Owned

Part III Responsibilities 175

10 Collective Responsibility in Strata Apartments 177

11 Major Repair Work: Whose Responsibility? 197

12 Addressing Conflict Within an Owners Corporation 213

13 Efficacy Beliefs and Homeowner Participation 231

14 Promoting Owner Participation in Management 251

15 Improving Governance of High-Rise MOPs in Malaysia 269

16 Owner Responsibilities in Mumbai 291

17 Multi-Owned Properties: Bringing It All Together 307

An Introduction to Multi-owned Property

Here to There, Then to Now

efining Rights, Restrictions

Structure of the Book

lifecycles. The more ubiquitous greyfield sites are located in established

he Historical Context for Australian Strata

Retrofitting Established Suburbs

trata Title as a Challenge to Urban

he Unintended Consequences of Strata

rainwater tanks were installed, while interiors and external landscaping