In fact, the sheer volume of addressing nearly 70 items on the agenda, many of them major, including a blatantly unfair vote to approve an application for an extra deck for another unit, in less than 3 hours provides an indication of the lack of deliberation.
The first page of this example can be viewed by clicking on the image below, and then clicking on the back arrow to view the response that follows.
In this post I try to respond to the chair's declarations, paragraph by paragraph, to the best of my ability.
4-star Introduction
The framed box published in the center of page 1 of the minutes contains the first misrepresentations:
**** The issues raised by the Owners of Unit #409 will be addressed in these Minutes and no further correspondence will be issued to them.
Issues we raised remain unaddressed. YEARS later. Resolutions to decide on said issues, many of which have been outstanding since 2001, were not made, discussed, or voted on by council. In fact, the members of council were not even given access to my correspondence or any reasonable opportunity to address the issues contained in it, and our efforts to raise the issues were effectively quashed by an extremely manipulative and overpowering chair.
The next misrepresentation is the claim that "no further correspondence will be issued to them". Such an avoidance tactic is not only a probable violation of duty, but oppressive correspondence containing further misrepresentations, which probably should not have been issued to us, was in fact issued to us.
It is not only the factual misrepresentations that we object to. An introduction of this nature circulated in the official permanent record fits into an insidiously disparaging pattern that we believe cultivates a false impression and negative attitude toward us, one that contributes to a hostile environment for strata living.
Enclosing this kind of negative misrepresentation within a framed box, and adding emphasis with 4 stars, published in the center of the front page, makes it just that much more troubling.
Next 2 sentences:
The guest Owners had 18 items to address with Council; some were old issues that have been dealt with by the previous Council. Many of these items concerned landscaping.
Implying that landscaping matters were "old issues" that had been "dealt with by the previous Council" is the next misrepresentation made in these minutes.
Examination of the minutes, as well as the landscaping itself, particularly around unit 409 show that our landscaping issues had not been dealt with by the previous Council. The fact that essential trees were arbitrarily cut down and destroyed without a vote, without authorization, and without need, by a person who said he had the right to take action against others, and the strata manager who prepared these minutes quietly paid the tree cutters and stump grinders and left the common property effectively vandalized, particularly around unit 409, which has been in the most unreasonable state of bare dirt and virulent weeds for more than 4 years and counting, has still not been addressed. With regard to the cost of the damages, I asked at the meeting what would be the price for the tree replacement. Nobody seemed to have the slightest idea, not even the strata management who prepared our strata budgets, and no action was taken to claim compensation for the damages under the strata's directors and officers liability insurance, or otherwise.
When I asked the same question of the next council, Trevor Neuman said that he estimated it would cost $15,000 to replace a single mature tree and that mature trees are not always available or viable for transplant. Although all of this was excluded from the minutes, based on the information he provided, the cost could be 2 million dollars higher than it should have been, or than was in the special levy budget; so our landscaping issues have persisted for years and the related damages and crushing costs of reinstatement have still not been addressed.
In fact, if our building is an average example of the 17 buildings in the complex, I estimate the number of trees that had to be cut down for the building envelope scaffolding to be only 30 to 50 trees, not over 150. I don't see how this could an "old issue" - particularly when the limitation period for the strata corporation to take remedial action against Al MacLeod and/or Joan MacDougall for their actions had not expired, and I don't see how any of these issues could be said to have "been dealt with" at any time.
Item #1 - Landscaping
The minutes claim that:
The Owners wanted to point out their concerns regarding the landscaping and that it be maintained at a “reasonable standard”. The Owners were encouraged to see Trevor Neuman in Unit #223, who has volunteered to oversee the landscaping reinstatement and has been working with the landscape architect. One of the issues raised is their desire to talk directly with the landscape architect and by volunteering to assist the Owner of #223 they would be able to contribute to the planning process. Subject closed.
We think Item #1 contains the 3rd, 4th, and 5th misrepresentations in these minutes.
Let's say the 3rd misrepresentation is the statement that we wanted to "point out" our concerns regarding the landscaping - we didn't want to point out our concerns - we had already done that in several previous letters to council, which we expected they had read - we wanted resolutions, assumed by the chair if necessary but voted on by council, and the chance to witness and respond to any corresponding discussion or debate during deliberations on the issues we had raised.
The 4th misrepresentation is the statement that we would be "able to contribute to the planning process". I volunteered repeatedly, but was not allowed to contribute. Owners, including myself, tried to serve on a landscaping committee, but in spite of our efforts, and contrary to the misrepresentations published repeatedly in the minutes, there effectively was no landscaping committee. My requests, both verbal and written, to schedule a meeting with Trevor were persistently rebuffed and refused the same as my previous attempts to participate on any landscaping committee, obtain copies of landscaping documents, or work with any "landscape architect." In fact, I was strictly prohibited from having any contact our landscape architect.
Naturally I am concerned that just before said landscape architect quit he advised a meeting of owners that the strata never informed him of the restrictive covenants that run with the land, or of our history of geotechnical issues with the slope.
The 5th misrepresentation is that the subject of landscaping is "closed". At the time of writing this it was nearly 3 years after the so-called hearing, and unit 409 was still surrounded with bare dirt and virulent weeds, with no "landscaping reinstatement" of our trees and plants, much less landscaping "maintained at a reasonable standard". As the cut trees were not reinstated their roots decomposed and suddenly buildings sank, suddenly breaking underground pipes left the common property peppered with patched pavement all over the complex, and problems with all kinds of doors further added to costs and our loss of enjoyment and geotechnical security. As more and more trees are destroyed contrary to section 71 of the Strata Property Act and the cycle of unreasonable neglect begins again the issue of landscaping is anything but closed.
Item #2 - Structural Damage from 2003
The minutes state that:
The Owners continue to insist that flooding in their unit, due to a burst Crane toilet tank, resulted in structural damage to their unit and the floors are not level and the doors do not close. Morrison Hershfield, Heatherbrae Construction and a restoration company previously investigated these complaints and did not find them valid. No written report was received. The Owners were advised that Council would be willing to consider having a qualified expert that was agreeable to both the Owners and the Strata Council on behalf of the Owners review these concerns and that if their opinion was concurrent with the previous opinions the Owners would agree to close this issue once and for all. The other suggestion was that if the complaints were not considered valid by the expert then the Owners would pay the cost for the expert's site visit and review. The Owners declined and further discussion, and any potential resolution, was tabled; this issue will be deferred until the new Council is elected at the upcoming Annual General Meeting.
As we see it the 6th misrepresentation in these minutes is in the claim that our complaints are not valid.
This undermines our credibility and clouds the fact that no insurance investigation or reasonable proposal was made to satisfy the strata corporation's duty to repair the water damage to unit 409. Furthermore, we have no knowledge as to what advice strata management has requested from experts with regard to our complaints or what investigated and not valid are supposed to mean with regard to the structural damage to the floors and doors in our unit.
What we do know is that when the strata corporation's engineer, Tam London, finally investigated he confirmed in writing that that the warping in unit 409 was consistent with water damage.
We also know that generally accepted practices through the strata agency and construction industries that twist the plain language meaning of words like "structure" "privacy" and "votes" for their own convenience do not change the word of law and the intention to give broad remedial interpretation, not doubletalk, industry jargon, and expanded or restricted meanings that could easily have been stated if so intended.
It is our position that:
- Water damage is covered for repairs at full replacement value under mandatory strata corporation insurance.
- The strata manager chairing this meeting did not make an insurance claim for these repairs before the time limit expired.
- Our complaint is that repairs to our unit were limited to cosmetic surfaces only and the major repairs to the damaged fixtures and structures were promised but never completed.
- The strata corporation has an ongoing duty to repair insured water damage and the structure of the buildings.
- The strata corporation made inappropriate proposals that would shift its obligations onto us.
- Resolution of this matter has been tabled since 2003.
- We have been advised that if we tried to sell our unit it would be listed as a "fixer upper" and we would have to sign a disclosure statement to the prospective purchaser confirming the unrepaired damage to the fixtures and structure.
I will continue with page 2 - paragraph by paragraph - and stop at page 3 - for now.
http://www.elimina.com/insights/
