The costly refurbishment of the lobby, in light of competing needs (e.g., windows and doors), represents a sad failure on the part of the last two Boards to take decisions that would have balanced those needs in order to benefit the entire Elizabeth community. Spending on lobby refurbishment was lavish, reckless, and financially irresponsible. The recent piano purchase was the crowning decision emblematizing the poor judgment and unbridled selfishness behind a string of recent decisions. If the Board wanted to begin with lobby refurbishment, it might have done so in a more-modest way, and at reasonable cost. More resources would now be available.
At a dire time, both in the land and The Elizabeth, we hear the Board bandy about terms—loans, special assessments, fee rises—to address our current financial state. (And some members even talk of options that will cause the least hardship to residents. Such lubricous discourse draws smiles, and suggests the image of a fox shedding tears over the carcass of the hen it has just killed. Alas, what have we come to!)
And at this late point, as was pointed out more than once at the last Board meeting, there is no margin to address contingencies, or unexpected events. Project options now on the table ignore that. Both boilers, for example, are ancient, with the likelihood of one failing at any moment very real. And boilers are costly. And on it goes.
The Board now favors prioritizing refurbishment in the towers, while delaying other projects. No surprise here, for the Hartmann Group is poised and ready, with the Refurbishment Committee—and some on the Board—champing at the bit. And again, we have every reason to anticipate a costly refurbishment, bric-a-brac and all.
But why, let’s ask, need we continue to spend at a reckless pace? At the last meeting, Scott Murdoch, when pressed for an explanation of figures by the Board, said that he was only trying to “slow down the spending pace.” And in this same vein, an owner resident of our community recently sent a letter to the Board suggesting a one-year moratorium on projects—on spending. Such a moratorium would allow a reserve build-up as well as time for tempers to cool. Meanwhile, more-judicious (and less-greedy) thinking can bear on what projects to pursue.
And then once projects do resume, I would favor first tackling infrastructure, and especially doors and windows. I agree with Karren Alenier: the benefits to all are much greater with this as priority. I think Karren's analysis well demonstrates this.
At a dire time, both in the land and The Elizabeth, we hear the Board bandy about terms—loans, special assessments, fee rises—to address our current financial state. (And some members even talk of options that will cause the least hardship to residents. Such lubricous discourse draws smiles, and suggests the image of a fox shedding tears over the carcass of the hen it has just killed. Alas, what have we come to!)
And at this late point, as was pointed out more than once at the last Board meeting, there is no margin to address contingencies, or unexpected events. Project options now on the table ignore that. Both boilers, for example, are ancient, with the likelihood of one failing at any moment very real. And boilers are costly. And on it goes.
The Board now favors prioritizing refurbishment in the towers, while delaying other projects. No surprise here, for the Hartmann Group is poised and ready, with the Refurbishment Committee—and some on the Board—champing at the bit. And again, we have every reason to anticipate a costly refurbishment, bric-a-brac and all.
But why, let’s ask, need we continue to spend at a reckless pace? At the last meeting, Scott Murdoch, when pressed for an explanation of figures by the Board, said that he was only trying to “slow down the spending pace.” And in this same vein, an owner resident of our community recently sent a letter to the Board suggesting a one-year moratorium on projects—on spending. Such a moratorium would allow a reserve build-up as well as time for tempers to cool. Meanwhile, more-judicious (and less-greedy) thinking can bear on what projects to pursue.
And then once projects do resume, I would favor first tackling infrastructure, and especially doors and windows. I agree with Karren Alenier: the benefits to all are much greater with this as priority. I think Karren's analysis well demonstrates this.
