Earlier this month, a reader of The New York Times asked the newspaper whether their Brooklyn co-op's plans to introduce ID cards for residents were legal. The answer was yes, with fairness conditions. But is it desirable?
The readers' comments section was sharply divided, with some seeing it as a sensible precaution to limit unauthorized access, while one compared it to living in a jail.
Why the Fuss Now?
Some who commented on the article said their condo and co-op buildings were considering introducing ID cards, too. That's mainly because the union representing doormen and porters in New York City had been threatening a strike, although that was called off earlier this month.
Still, residents' ID cards aren't uncommon already, especially in planned unit developments (PUDs), which tend to be large, spread-out communities with lots of amenities, often including pools, gyms, restaurants, stores, and hiking and biking trails. Residents can often need to use a key card to access many of this community features.
Meanwhile, residents of New York City, age 10 and older, can already obtain a city ID. "This municipal ID card connects New York City residents to services, programs, and benefits," says the program's website.
"You're going to need a bigger wallet," as Chief Brody nearly said in Jaws.
The Legal Niceties
As The Times suggested, issuing ID cards to residents and insisting on their presentation in common areas is generally legal. In co-ops, condos and PDUs, rules must be reasonable and fairly applied.
"Even if those rules are strict, they are still likely enforceable, provided that the board acts in good faith and in the interest of the co-op corporation, and the enforcement of those rules does not violate any laws," Moritt Hock & Hamroff partner David S. Fitzhenry told The Times.
Rules might be unlawful if they target or harass particular residents. So, they must be applied consistently, and they must also accommodate the reasonable needs of those with rights in the building, such as family members and lawful roommates.
Fans of the show Only Murders in the Building may remember that, following the death of doorman Lester, the co-op board tried to replace him with a robot. A court might think that its level of spying on residents was unlawful, but buildings are increasingly using facial recognition to control access.
Pros and Cons of IDs
It's tempting to pull out Benjamin Franklin's quote at this point: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But we all trade a bit of freedom for security all the time.
A simple lock on a front door impedes our access to our homes, and free ingress to our property is a form of freedom. But nobody sees door locks as a civil liberties issue.
So, the argument is whether controlling access to a building outweighs the burden of obtaining and carrying an ID card. One might think that much depends on the number of residents and the turnover of those residents.
A building housing several hundred might challenge a doorman's memory, especially if people were regularly quitting their leases (or selling their shares) while others were moving into the building. On the other hand, a small building with 20, 50 or 100 units, whose residents tend to stay for years or decades, should be easier to keep safe.
What's Next?
Of course, ID cards are extremely low-tech. And we'll likely see biometric devices becoming increasingly common in residential buildings, some of which already have them.
These biometrics can include facial, fingerprint, or iris recognition. And devices can be more effective than any human or ID card at controlling access.
But they're also more intrusive, typically logging arrivals, departures, and access to shared amenities, much as CCTV can. Do they trade too much privacy for safety? That's an argument for the near future.
