EXPROPRIATION!

Our letter to the Board of Directors and Members

*****

Dear Members & Directors:

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 15, 2010 re: Unit Allocation. Suffice to say that we find both the letter and the conditions stated therein very troublesome and totally unacceptable. This is not to suggest, however, that we are rejecting Unit XXX out of hand - we are not nor have we ever done so.

Nevertheless, the tone of your letter is brutal. It is demeaning, intimidating, and threatening. Such bullying is not acceptable anywhere in Canadian society and is against the law. It is quite out of place in any cooperative and especially in one we've called home for the past 20 years.

We raised our three children here. We have never been late with our housing charges (rent). We have participated regularly and tried to live up to both the spirit and the intent of the Bylaws and the seven Principles of Cooperation. This is the worst kind of bullying behaviour by those charged with the administration of my cooperative as it threatens my family's home without cause or reason. This is appalling behaviour from anyone, and especially so coming from those who administer a co-op and, presumably, pride themselves on their work in the cooperative sector.

As for the demands in your letter, they are quite unacceptable for several reasons, including:

1. The unreasonable demand for a reply by March 18, 2010, a mere two days hence.

2. Your letter stated that we must move by April 1st (two weeks from now). You also stated that the co-op would consider extending the move until April 15th. You stated that we will lose our Membership Rights in Seventy Days (May 31, 2010) if we do not comply. This is a completely ILLEGAL manipulation of the 70-day legal notice . The co-op cannot force a member to move within the 70 day notice. A member has a full 70 days within which to move.

3. Unit XXX presents safety hazards due to the obvious foundation leaks. The leaky basement could easily lead to electrocution. In addition the resulting damp basement supports molds which affect the health of occupants. The basement foundation must be repaired by qualified professionals.

4. A leaky basement puts all of our possessions stored there at risk of damage for which we would therefore have to try to claim insurance. I wonder how the insurance company would view the co-op's actions in refusing to repair the foundation?

5. The unit is now more than 20 years old. Heating ducts have not been cleaned in all that time and present a health hazard. The heating duct work must be cleaned.

6. The tile kitchen/hallway/powder room flooring is over 22 yrs. old, well past it due date. It is unsanitary and an eyesore. It needs to be changed.

7. Please note that my wife is having an operation in mid April and is unable now or for a period after her operation to move anywhere. As you know, I also have significant health problems and flexibility must be applied in any move to another unit.

Furthermore, you did not indicate in your letter dated March 15, 2010 which repairs, if any, have been done in Unit XXX. A request for the key to Unit XXX was emailed to you earlier this morning and receipt of the key would be appreciated at the earliest opportunity.

We thought and hoped that the election of a new Board last year would end the abuses, the tricks, manipulations and secrecy. We hoped it would lead to a new period of openness, trust and cooperation. Unfortunately, it appears that we were wrong as the abuse continues. Threatening to evict us on May 31, 2010 is absolutely despicable!

We hope, trust and expect a reply at your earliest opportunity.

'As Is'

Rusted Out Bathroom Sink

Basement Water Intrusion

Basement Water Intrusion

These are some of the photos we took of a unit which was offered to us. We were told that the unit was fine 'As Is', that it just needed a bit of cleaning.

Units are being rented out in our co-op 'As Is' in order to increase our cash flow and give the perception that the co-op is blossoming once again. 'As Is' may entail a little more than a member had bargained for. We have major mould problems in the co-op. Paint cannot mask this on-going problem. Carpets are mere sponges for cigarette smoke, pet accidents and are plain unsanitary. Vents should be professionally cleaned before members move into a unit.

On a management note, are inspections of units being done? Are units even being professionally cleaned? Are repairs being documented? The co-op has a responsibility to maintain units in a state of good repair. It is deceiving to foist sick units unto unsuspecting co-op members. Surpassing the 'Best Before' date on linoleum, carpeting, bathroom fixtures and windows is not in the best interests of the co-op and its members.

A Question of Minutes

Whatever happened to the Minutes of the Meeting held on March 16, 2009 wherein the Board of Directors resigned? And where are the Minutes of the two Special Meetings which were held to consider evicting certain members? They simply disappeared.

Why?

All Members Meeting - February 22, 2010

Where is the AMM package? We just received the notice of the meeting. We should have received the Audited Statements for the year ending March 31, 2009, the Minutes from the Meeting held on April 15, 2009 and information from The Agency concerning the financial status of our co-op. How can members be expected to comment on the details of the operation of our co-op without having had the chance to peruse those documents?

The Squeeze

We received notification from the co-op indicating that they had revised subsidy calculations for those members receiving OW/ODSP to allow them greater credits for their utility costs. This revision is based on a CMHC estimation and not on individual member's utility bills. If a member feels that the credit is not in keeping with their actual utility costs, the member may submit copies of their utility bills for a 12-month period. The co-op will also ask other members in the same unit size to submit their bills so that a proper comparison can be made - all of this on a voluntary basis. The problem with this approach is that not all units of the same size are the same - some are in worse shape than others. Also, one must factor in how many people live in the unit and how many hours per day the members are at home. To potentially wait for volunteers to submit copies of their utility bills before a greater credit can be granted for one's own utilities, is a stonewalling tactic to me.

The above approach is more or less in keeping with a bulletin from CHF Canada dated October, 2008, instructing co-ops to abide by the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision in the case Iness vs. Caroline Co-operative Homes. While CHF stated that same-size units should be given identical credits, they also stated that if members could demonstrate higher utility costs for their particular unit, they would receive additional credit. This is technically different from our co-op's position, in that members would perhaps have to wait for other members to volunteer their energy costs before allowing that member a greater credit.

CHF also stated in their bulletin that members must be allowed an insurance credit for their personal belongings, should they have such a policy. Our co-op has chosen to ignore this credit.

My concern is that the watering down of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision in the case of Iness vs. Caroline Co-operative Homes will soon be purposely driven into the ground.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

From our Family to Yours

AUTUMN

Leaves - Such a wonder!