Check with your accountant or financial planner. In some instances, it would make a lot of sense. In other cases, no.
I don't agree with the rationale of the article, though. Yes, your decision whether to buy or not to buy at all can be influenced by the financial condition of the condo association, the likelihood of an earthquake, etc. But, to take the example of a condo association in poor financial condition. Any special assessments or radical increase in condo fees would be based on your percent of ownership in the entire condo. And that's generally determined by the purchase price of the condo, and doesn't have anything to do with the amount of money you put down. And with an earthquake, your decision should be based on fear of earthquakes, the adequacy of any insurance to rebuild, etc.--again, having nothing at all to do with how much you put down.
The question of how much to put down, your accountant may tell you, depends on a number of factors. First, you generally don't want to tie up all your available cash in an essentially illiquid investment. You should have some emergency cash reserves--some experts suggest 3 months of living expenses, some suggest 6, some have other figures. Plus, if you know you're going to need a chunk of cash in the near future--a new car, or a big vacation, etc., you don't want it all tied up in a condo where you can't easily get to it. That's one consideration.
Another consideration is your monthly mortgage payments, your tax bracket (how valuable are the interest and tax deductions), and whether you could afford monthly payments at "only" 20% down. You need to know what your budget is, and you need to know the value of the tax deductions. To oversimplify a bit, the more you put down, the lower your monthly payments and the lower the tax deductible amount.
Another consideration is purely personal. Some people just like owing less. It makes them feel more comfortable. Only you can address that question.
Another consideration is what you'd do with the money if you didn't put it toward a down payment. Suppose you got a mortgage at 6%. Now, leaving aside the tax consequences and the future value of money (both things that you should consider), if you said, "I'm going to take the rest of the money and put it into a savings account at 2% a year," then the "better" use of your money would be to reduce your mortgage. On the other hand, if you said, "I have an investment opportunity that I know will return 12% a year," then the "better" use of your money would be the 12% investment opportunity.
Along somewhat similar lines, none of us has a crystal ball about what property values are going to do. But the less you put down, the more leverage you have. And that's good if the market goes up; it's more painful if the market goes down. Example: You buy a $500,000 property and put 20% ($100,000) down. If the value of the property goes up 5%, your property is now worth $525,000. That (ignoring transaction costs of sale) is a "profit" of $25,000 on your $100,000 investment--or a 25% return. On the other hand, you buy the same $500,000 property and put 40% ($200,000) down, and it goes up 5%. The property is again worth $525,000. However, your return on investment--a $25,000 return on $200,000--drops to 12.5%. Please understand: I'm not predicting market directions. I'm just giving an example showing that less down means a greater return in an up market, and greater exposure in a down market.
Again, these are questions that you and your accountant or financial planner can answer, not me. But I do think they're the "right" questions to begin with.
Hope that helps.