1. Mr. Jones states in his petition, “Beyond the more than $ 1.3 million already spent on "refurbishing" and making partial structural changes in the lobby, an additional large sum will apparently be required for furniture and artwork.” Nothing could be further from the truth!
The truth is that many years ago the ECA Board set aside a budget for the refurbishment project, and this budget includes all furniture and artwork, and the Hartman Design Group has stayed within that limit. This budgeted limit did not include unanticipated construction costs, such as correction of leaking windows and pipes, which needed to be addressed regardless of the renovation. In other words, all of the structural changes, the furniture, furnishings, artwork, etc, are coming out of the budgeted amount. For Mr. Jones to say otherwise – or to lead others to believe otherwise – is nothing more than fear-mongering of the worst kind.
2. Mr. Jones asks that the current “Decorating Committee” be increased from its current composition of three members to, “…to at least seven, and that the individuals added to the committee consist of at least three Association members who have signed this petition.” The committee of three has done an outstanding job of marshalling this project through to (almost) completion. And, just as important, is the fact that all of the other designers with whom the Board spoke, and there were many, said the job as described in the statement of work could not be done for the budgeted amount. It is to the credit of the Hartman Group and this committee that the job was done for the budgeted amount…and in fact, that they could give the Elizabeth so much more than was originally envisioned for the same budgeted amount because the Hartman Design Group
• Took advantage of economies of scale and used its greater purchasing power to get us the best products at the lowest cost;
• Due to its exceptional design and technical expertise was able to give us high quality products at a lower cost;
• Worked hard to bid out work out to many vendors to get us the lowest possible cost; and
• Took advantage of the highly competitive marketplace in the current lagging economy.
To make any changes to the composition of the committee at this stage is not only unwarranted, it is foolish!
3. I think it is important to point out that the last time we renovated, more than 20 years ago, as I recall, we spent more than $2M on the renovation. And, as I recall, there were huge cost overruns. In fact, I have been told that the cost overruns were approximately $200,000!
4. Mr. Jones also states, “…the Board's enthusiasm for the Hartman design firm is not widely enough shared by Association members.” Clearly, he and I speak to different people. Most I meet and speak with every day are extremely enthusiastic about the work done by the Hartman Design Group, and in fact, they all ask the same question: When will the Hartman Design Group begin work on the residential corridors? They cannot wait for work to begin on their floors. One of the reasons that the committee has gone forward to Hartman for a design for the corridors is, once again, to take maximum advantage of the competitive marketplace in the still lagging economy. Based on the number of people I meet who are supportive of continuing the renovation project to all residential floors, I must conclude that the Board’s enthusiasm for the Hartman design firm is widely shared by Association members.
5. Mr. Jones concludes that “….condominium fees will have to be raised substantially yet again, or a crippling assessment will have to be paid by Association members in the difficult financial conditions anticipated for the immediate future.” Mr. Jones unfortunately overlooks the fact that for many years our condo fees were not raised at all, and for many years they were raised only minimally, while our neighboring condos continued to manage effectively, raising condo fees appropriately and adequately funding their reserves. The result is that the other buildings have kept their infrastructure (and interior design) up-to-date, while ours has been neglected. If Mr. Jones is arguing against raising our condo fees, he is, in fact, urging the same irresponsible financial management that got us into this jam in the first place!
6. At the November Board meeting, I am told that Mr. Jones referred to “we” when speaking about his petition, and that he repeatedly refused to reveal who “we” were. I find this lack of transparency to be odd to say the least. Some have speculated that Mr. Jones is the “we” and hoping to get support for his own petition by leading others to believe that he represents a large group.
We are a building of 353 units. It would be strange, indeed, if everyone were to agree on everything. However, what I find particularly alarming is that that people here are not able to disagree respectfully or professionally. They do so in a divisive fashion – by whipping up the uninformed with rumor and innuendo, employing misrepresentations, misstatements and fear-mongering, and circulating petitions.
We have a Board, elected to properly manage our funds and protect and enhance our property values. I feel they are doing a fine job of this. If there are those among us who wish to help, they can make their views known by writing to the Board or speaking out at meetings. If anyone wishes to complain, he/she should at least have their facts right! In any case, if owners feel that any Board member has failed to properly carry out their duties, he/she can vote his/her mind at the upcoming election. Causing disruption, spreading misrepresentation, fear-mongering, or otherwise engaging in divisive actions is not helpful and diminishes the worth of every owners’ property.
If Jim Jones is alarmed, - so am I. I am alarmed at the tactics and strategy used by neighbors who wish to disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment