The Ethicist: I’m Selling My Condo. Do I Tell Buyers What’s Being Used on the Lawn?
Today, The New York Times Magazine's Ethicist columnist answers a reader's question about whether there's an obligation to disclose the use of toxic landscaping products in a shared outdoor space when selling a home. I'm Selling My Condo. Do I Tell Buyers What's Being Used on the Lawn?I am hoping to sell my condo. I live in a homeowner's association that still uses many toxic landscaping products. These chemicals, while legal, present varying degrees of risk (including cancer) to people and pets, as well as damage to the watershed in our town. Several residents have worked over the past two years, without success, to change the association's landscaping practices. What is my obligation to disclose these harmful products to prospective buyers, especially those with young children and pets? With anything inside the walls, real estate agents advise disclosing as much as possible, but what about significant human-created risks outside the walls? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: It sounds as if you've been part of an effort to persuade your condo association to stop using pesticides, herbicides and other chemical treatments that have become commonplace in landscape maintenance. Pesticides that are sold legally are authorized as safe for use if they are applied according to the manufacturer's instructions and in compliance with the law, which may include a requirement to post warning signs for a defined period after application. (Specific information about pesticides can be found on the E.P.A.'s website.) You and some fellow residents have come to a different conclusion about their safety — fair enough. Your concern for how such substances could affect others and the environment is admirable. Still, unless your condo association has made a public commitment to chemical-free landscaping, buyers will assume the use of conventional lawn-care methods, the sort of thing you'd find in any big-box-store garden aisle. If the association is violating regulations — say, by failing to post required signage — you can push for compliance or notify the relevant authorities. But the association's practices aren't hidden. And when it comes to selling your unit, your responsibility doesn't extend to reshaping a buyer's worldview. By the same logic, a grocer isn't obliged to tell customers about the various pesticides used on conventional produce. Critics of these chemicals are easy to find — and their objections are readily available to anyone skeptical of regulatory assurances. But the use of such sprays is the default setting. We've collectively settled on certain norms: what's permitted, what's typical. Those who dissent should make their case for reform, but disclosure is usually reserved for departures from what is recognized and approved — from what a reasonable person would anticipate. You're free to voice your concerns. You're not required to. A Bonus QuestionMy husband and I separated a few years ago but are only now beginning the divorce process. For the past three years, he has lived in our jointly owned, mortgage-free co-op apartment, paying only the $1,000 monthly maintenance fee. Before he moved in, we rented it out and earned about $1,200 per month in income, after expenses — income that stopped once he took exclusive occupancy. He pays $1,000 a month in child support, which covers about half the cost of our children's food, activities and essentials, but none of my housing expenses, even though the children live with me full time. I've started to wonder whether he should have been paying me something for using the apartment alone, given that I no longer receive any benefit from it. When I brought it up, he seemed surprised and pointed out that he already pays child support, as if that addressed the matter. I see child support and the apartment as separate issues; he appeared to treat them as one. He recently informed me that his elderly parent will also be moving into the apartment. His parent had been living in his wealthy aunt's home and paid rent there, yet no one has mentioned compensating me, even though I still co-own the property. I want to remain on friendly terms, but I don't want to be taken advantage of, especially when this money could help support our children, and I anticipate having to cover the bulk of future expenses like college tuition. — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: You've got this right. His child-support payments are for the children, not a substitute for compensating you for the exclusive use of shared property. To conflate the two is a mistake, both legally and morally. The child support he pays isn't generosity. It's basic decency: the minimum ante required to sit at the parenting table. With his parent moving in, the imbalance grows more obvious. As you note, the parent's own sister didn't waive the rent. You, apparently, are expected to be more forgiving — or more forgetful. The fact remains that your husband is extracting a gift that you didn't offer. Meanwhile, you're the person making a home for the children, day in and day out. You're managing their lives — meals, school forms, sleep schedules, futures. You shouldn't be cast as the unreasonable one for pointing out that he's taken over a co-owned apartment as if it's a family heirloom and you're the fondly remembered second cousin. You're giving voice not to bitterness but to balance. Perhaps it's time for a gentle reminder: If people are living off your share of a valuable asset, they should at least have the good manners not to act surprised when you send the bill. Thoughts? If you would like to share a response to today's dilemma with the Ethicist and other subscribers in the next newsletter, fill out this form.
Readers RespondThe previous question was from a reader who wanted to sell the cryptocurrency his newborn received as a baby gift. He wrote: "My wife and I just had a baby girl. A college friend of ours sent us $175 in Bitcoin as a baby gift. He's a crypto bro and is super into it, while I, on the other hand, am extremely skeptical. My friend said that I can't sell it until her bat mitzvah (when 'it will be at least $1,000,' in his words). I believe that there is a decent likelihood that it is worth $0 in 12 years. Since I am the steward of my baby's money (until she turns 18), do I have a fiduciary responsibility to sell the Bitcoin now since I think it will be worth nothing, or do I have a responsibility to honor my friend's wishes and keep the money in Bitcoin until she turns 12?" In his response, the Ethicist noted: "Your friend didn't leave you a nest egg you're honorbound to protect. He left you a souvenir, a digital gewgaw. You could cash it out right now and buy, say, two sheet ice-cream cakes from Carvel. But his wishes were clear. He asked you to wait until her bat mitzvah. That's the whole gift: a speculative dare wrapped in friendship. Ignoring his wishes could sour that friendship: Price this in. Lying about it to prevent him from finding out could cost you some self-respect: Price that in too. The math seems straightforward. Honor his wishes, keep the peace and let it ride. If it sinks, you can gloat about how right you were all along. That's got to be worth something." (Reread the full question and answer here.) ⬥ If the history of digital coinage is any indication, skepticism has been rife since the late '90s. $175 is not currently a big sum, but it could easily grow to pay for your daughter's college and grad school — maybe with a wedding thrown in. Be careful; put it in a trust and forget it for a while. I think it's a wonderfully optimistic gift. — Philip ⬥ There may be tax implications to a gift of Bitcoin to anyone, including a child. The father should consult a tax professional and keep specific documentation, date of receipt, value at time of purchase, a receipt to establish cost basis and more. He may need to set up a custodial account; the tax professional can advise. — Donna ⬥ The nature of a "gift" is that it transfers all rights, title, equity and obligations to you! You are the steward for your bouncing baby girl, so do what you want. When I was born in 1947, someone gave me a $500 savings bond. My parents gave it to me for my bar mitzvah, and eventually we bought a car. Personally, for $175 —'cause I am a bit of a gamblin' man — I'd keep it and see what happens! — Elliott ⬥ Even though I am against cryptocurrency for many reasons, this seems like a harmless way to possess a tiny amount. I would try to put aside all thoughts of the gift (except for keeping the password safe) until the designated time and see what happens. Maybe it'll be a decent contribution to her college fund. It could be a fun reveal at the bat mitzvah, no matter what. — Roberta ⬥ The purpose of a gift is to be received and appreciated by the recipient. Once the giver has given the gift, it seems unfair to mandate how the receiver uses it. If this were a physical item, you could return it or exchange it for something that better suits you or your baby. I agree that you must consider the gift giver's hurt feelings and the depth of your friendship, but at a certain point, a gift with such strings is no longer a gift. — Nikki ⬥ I recommend ditching the crypto and investing instead in a college 529 account. That way all of your child's investments will be tax-free and in one account. My son's 529 nearly covered four years of college, plus room and board, 18 years later. — Nancy Thank you for being a subscriber Want more? Read past Ethicist columns. If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here. Have your own ethical quandary? Write to the Ethicist at ethicist@nytimes.com.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment