Co-Ops with Sponsor Units

I don't think it matters unless you don't like living with renters, who might flout coop rules with impunity. There was a NY Times article about just this sort of situation, check their Real Estate section.

Where is the apartment? In Manhattan and the Bronx, sponsors MUST sell apartments when they become available. That didn't used to be the rule for Brooklyn & Queens (different circuits) but it may be now. Financing in a building less than 70% sold is very, very difficult right now. Noneviction plans are dead, though there are still old ones that will live on nearly forever.

Also...if the sponsor still owns enough units to have a controlling amount of shares, the coop board (if there is one) won't be able to get anything done without the cooperation of the sponsor. Since his interest in the building is as a landlord and not an owner occupant, he may have a different vision for the building than individual owners and be in a position to block any improvements etc the board and owners feel are needed.

Most co-op offering plans have provisions where the sponsor loses control of the board after x years, even if the sponsor still owns enough shares to swing board elections.

The building went co-op in the 80s. For whatever reason the sponsor has apartments which he continues to rent and the co-op board appears to be ok with that. So given those facts, should I have any concern?