Common Property: Beware of the Foxy Proxy

When asking how do such terrible things happen in a strata corporation one often has to look not much further than the proxy for an answer.

We have been shocked at how power-trippers have been able to repeatedly gather up piles of blank proxies from unsuspecting owners and vote in the worst people and the worst decisions. Please do not allow your proxy be the one that lets the fox back into the chicken coop or supports illegal acts.

Know the truth about the track record of who you are giving your proxy to and exactly what they are doing with it. This is not easy to do with this strata corporation's history.

*****************

It was not the owners at large who destroyed the original landscaping.
It was more like:

Mr Mac, Mr Slack, and Mr New - taking turns leading strata "down the garden path" while destroying hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars worth of trees and landscaping

one incompetent nephew - hired instead of an arborist or landscape architect, without providing a resume or references

one angry underfunded gardener - smothering the ground cover with overgrowth and dead leaves, whacking the trunks of trees, exposing their roots, and cutting off their tops, poisoning the earth, and leaving weekly supplies of slugs and weevils, and

strata managers - who cut cheques and diverted funding from landscaping budgets to special interests and management budgets - year after year

Owners voted 75% to approve the Building Envelope Rehabilitation contract, which included the following PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS:

At commencement of work protect all fences, trees, shrubs, and landscape elements from incidental damage
Identify in advance any fencing and landscaping element that will prevent the timely undertaking of the work
The Owner will make arrangements for removal and reinstatement
Every attempt shall be made to preserve the existing mature trees
Identify the trees that will interfere with the timely undertaking of the work
The Owners will make arrangements to trim and/or strap these trees whenever possible

I tried to identify in advance whether the trees in front out unit 409 would be interfering with anything, and the answer was any trunk closer than 8 feet. The trunks of our trees were more than 8 feet from the building.

The number of trees cut down during the building envelope project, as well as the minutes, reflect no arrangements to trim or strap trees as specified, and so many were cut down so suddenly one day that it was too late to save more than a few by the time I got home and called the city.

In 2005, I told Mr. Slack's nephew how important these trees in front of Unit 409 were and how they were specifically preserved throughout the building envelope project.

In 2006, Mr. Mac had these same trees down in disregard of the Coquitlam Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw 2169, Restrictive Covenant Z123809, the voting requirements of the Strata Property Act, and strata bylaw #4's rules against destruction of common assets and interfering with the use and enjoyment of common property by others. Mr Mac tried to blame it on Mr Slack's incompetent nephew, claiming he told him to do it.

We believe that Mr Mac acted deliberately and maliciously in full knowledge of how cutting these trees would harm us and and in particular how much pain it would cause to me personally.

Stumps were repeatedly ground or dug out throughout the complex, while this one was left at our front entrance for 3 years.

This lonely bush was left untrimmed in front of our unit as an unsightly example of what had once been beautiful green landscaping of a quality similar to Coquitlam's "Street of Dreams" neighbourhood.

This bush in front of unit 409, the most pest infested plant in the complex for the most years, was left at our front entrance while the other healthy bushes were torn out by the roots

The cladding on this hydro kiosk, which originally matched the cladding on the building envelope, was excluded from the remediation and left filthy black in front of our unit for years

We are convinced that Mr. Mac acted illegally, without authority, beyond his jurisdiction, and in malice, when he had these trees in front of our unit's windows cut down in February 2006, because:

I had told him how important the trees were to our personal enjoyment and property value
I had told him about the geotechnical issues
the minutes show there was no emergency or vote by the landscaping committee, council, or owners for these trees to be cut down
these were mature trees that were not interfering with pipes, our pavement was perfect, and their roots were so well established that there was comparatively little future risk
there was no arborist report or evidence that these trees posed a danger of any kind
these trees were in a designated tree cutting permit area covered by restrictive covenants
Mr. Mac acted while we were out of town on vacation and before Coquitlam or anyone else had a chance to stop him
he emailed me afterward and indicated that he had the right to take action against others, including specified targets.

Section 4.1 of our Strata Bylaws provides that a resident must not use the common property or common assets in a way that causes a hazard, or unreasonably interferes with the rights of others for enjoyment, or is illegal.

Section 4.2 of our Strata Bylaws provides that a resident must not cause damage to the common property or common assets.

Section 4.4 provides that an owner shall indemnify and save harmless the strata corporation from the expense of any replacement rendered necessary to the common property or common assets by the owner's act or carelessness to the extent that such expense is not reimbursed from the proceeds received by operation of any insurance policy.

Our view and property value was predictably damaged, our building sunk as the roots decomposed, and the devastating effect on us was, and is, foreseeable and obvious - if not criminal.

It costs an estimated $15,000 to replace a single mature tree. This cost is multiplied by each tree that was wrongfully cut down. Some jurisdictions award triple costs for punitive reasons and recognition of the survival issues. We think that if council enforced the bylaws regardless of potential criminal charges the strata's directors and officers insurance would have covered the costs to replace all of these trees.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NEWS04/803080377/1004/NEWS03&template=printart

In 2003 I told Mr. Mac how much I thought our property value increased when we hung mirrors that reflected the truly beautiful leaves of the trees in front of our unit from everywhere we sat.

We still have the mirrors.

But not the leaves.

The only thing we see that is green now is the paint on our walls.

Comparative landscaping reports were requested and received by Ben Abbot, but destroyed, preventing the landscaping committee from reviewing them. When Mr. Slack's nephew and Mr. New's company were hired trees and shrubs were removed in a shocking wave of destruction

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS RUN WITH THE LAND

Restrictive covenants Z123808 and Z123809, both run with the land and are registered in the Land Title Office against the title of each unit. Trees were planted for geotechnical stability.

Cutting down more than half of trees and tearing out most of the bushes without the required 75% vote of owners created significant risk and loss of enjoyment and property value. As roots have decomposed since 2005 our building has sunk twice, pipes have been bursting all over the complex, pavement and walls have been cracking, new decks have been sinking, new doors have been sticking, and drains have been rushing with water in a most alarming way.

Strata property legislation requires significant changes to the use and appearance of the common property to be approved by a 75% vote of owners;

It also requires that decisions be voted on by council and recorded in the minutes;
Our strata bylaw 4.1 prohibits use the common property or common assets in a way that unreasonably interferes with the rights of other persons to use and enjoy the common property or is illegal;

Trees around our unit were cut without the required Coquitlam tree cutting permit;

Trees around were cut throughout the complex without detailed landscaping plans, specifications of plant materials, surface treatments and screening, and an itemized written statement signed and sealed by a registered Landscape Architect as to the estimated true costs of the proposed landscaping works as required by the Restrictive covenants, which run with the land.

Section 71 of the Strata Property Act, Restrictive Covenants, the building envelope contract, and our bylaw prohibitions against destruction of enjoyment and property were also ignored.

SECTION 71
THE STRATA PROPERTY ACT
(in effect since July 1, 2000)

Subject to the Regulations,

the strata corporation must not make a significant change in the use or appearance of common property or land that is a common asset unless the change is approved by a resolution passed by a 3/4 vote at an annual or special general meeting,

or there are reasonable grounds to believe that immediate change is necessary to ensure safety or prevent significant loss or damage.

We would like to know what it would take to get the strata Council to obey the law and reinstate the birch trees around our unit and other damaged locations to restore our property.

Mr Slack still has essential trees next to his deck
and Mr. Mac has extra trees and an extra deck
while we no longer have any essential trees
nor even a functional deck.

We had reasonable enjoyment when we bought here
AND WE WANT IT BACK
We would like to have back all that has been taken from us.

Common Property

Monday, February 16, 2009

Beware of the Foxy Proxy

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts