Burlington condo owners ‘held hostage’ in crumbling
building Part 3
The Hamiltion Spectator
By Teviah Moro
Comments by
readers
By Warren April 07, 2016 09:58 PM
I know this building from the early 80's. Its always been one of the
worse condos in the area. The owners put little $ into upkeep over
"decades" not years hence the price to buy is sooo low... Not sure how
anyone who bought the place even 5-10 years ago are now "surprised"
with the condition of the building today. You get what you pay for and
your place is not worth $60k, its zero. Who would buy your place now
after reading this article ?? The taxpayers are not on the hook for
your bad choice.
By STEVE April 06, 2016 01:18 PM
A few (4 or 5) years ago, my property value statement from the city
decreased from $166,000 to $66,000...in one year!! Neighbours received
similar statements. How on earth does that happen to a building deemed
'safe' by the city?
a crappy, crumbling mess
By Patrick April 06, 2016 12:55 PM
I lived in this building in the late 70's and it was a crappy,
crumbling mess back then. Why people would invest anything in this hole
surprises me. If it had been 'fixed up', that brings to mind the old
saying 'you can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig'.
By Marlon April 06, 2016 12:33 PM
These owners made a bad investment. Although they were encouraged by
Megna, and the city of Burlington likely fast-tracked it, but
ultimately the buyers made the decision to by cheap real estate. Not
that I don't sympathize with their situation, but I don't think the
city (and ultimately the taxpayers) are obligated to bail them out.
$1/2 million in legal fees
By Slavica April 06, 2016 11:11 AM
In response to some of your questions and comments....Please note: The
City is incorrect in its statement about building being up to code.
Please see any of the engineering reports to verify this. We are very
disappointed that the City now seems to respond with a
“blame-the-victim” style of comments. The issues in the building are
structural and not about maintenance. In fact, we had to chip off the
loose concrete on the outside of the building so that none of it could
fall off and hurt someone. Unfortunately, we’ve had to spend half a
million dollars in legal fees over, rather than invest in cosmetic
fixes.
By Sandra April 06, 2016 10:52 AM
@Joseph: The owners and board members don't make a salary.
By Sandra April 06, 2016 10:51 AM
I would never buy a condo. I know of one building where the property
manager was a con artist and used the money in the reserve fund for his
own personal use. There's absolutely no possibility of recovery and
nothing the unit owners can do about it, even though this guy pushed
the the unit owners into what amounts to financial ruin.
avoid purchasing a condominium
By James April 06, 2016 09:31 AM
I remember the first time I was purchasing a home 20 years ago, I was
advised by a friend who worked as a commercial property insurance
underwriter to avoid purchasing a condominium because of the potential
cost to myself if the condominium corporation was poorly managed. After
reading this article, I am glad that I took his advice.
By mike April 06, 2016 08:49 AM
Condo management boards are too often staffed by the most vocal and
cost concious owners who go to any lengths - (up to and including, -
avoiding necessary maitenance and repairs to keep monthly management
fees from rising. That is what happened in this case - so the owners
group is ultimately to blame here. Why would they want to the city to
buy it if the land is so valuable? - just sell it themselves.
By Syl April 06, 2016 08:24 AM
Joe, I have tenants on welfare and my buildings don't look like this.
As an owner, you allowed this to happen. Lawyers and engineers won't
fix it, trades people will. Only $700,000 to fix it, that's a bargain
Burlington, you're hired, when can you start? Ted Griffith show us how
to turn a profit by buying everyone at fair market value, nonsense.
By Joseph April 06, 2016 08:16 AM
The outside of the building looks like no repairs have been made since
it was turned into condos. The Condominium Corporation seems to be the
real culprit. I guess there wasn't any money left from condo fees for
repairs, after the owners & board members paid themselves
six-figure salaries!
By Jimmy April 06, 2016 01:42 AM
If you own a home you are responsible for maintenance. In a condo the
corporation needs to do the same with the condo fees you pay them as an
owner you have to make sure that maintenance is being done. Not one
owner noticed the rusty railings in balconies and suggested painting
before they totally rusted out? Looks like nothing has been done or
looked after for many years, now they want the city, actually tax
payers to bail them out????
the building is structurally sound
By Marianne April 06, 2016 12:39 AM
As the City Councillor for this area, I've been contacted by a number
of residents concerned about information they have recently seen posted
online and repeated in the article above regarding the condo at 2411
New St. I have been assured by staff that the building is structurally
sound now, and not at risk of collapse. I have a great deal of
compassion for the situation residents are in. This matter is currently
before the courts for a resolution. More information
is available here.
By mike April 05, 2016 05:20 PM
Buyer beware, these tenants bought these unit almost 20 years ago
that's a little long to say we were ripped off. Maintenance fees should
have covered repairs but by the look of the building that was not the
case. Can I sue the city or roofer because my 25 year singles only
lasted 14 years? Fair market value would $30,000.
top contents chapter previous next