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