Awnings

Update 20220106

Okay got some answers. Over the last month I’ve learned that Council has asked for estimates regarding the solution I proposed.

Also I’ve learned that no SGM date in sight. So unless we as residents and/or owners act to create a workable solution it’s gonna be a free for all as it currently is. We need a plan and the best people to create one are the people who live here. We obviously can’t rely on the Police or the City to intervene so we need to act on our own behalf, of course within the legal parameters.

I am asking residents / owners to organize, brainstorm and create ideas for a workable solution. Then if 25% of owners sign off on a plan, that can be taken to an SGM/AGM to be voted on. I realize many people are busy and cannot carve out time to do this but for those who can, let’s work together to create a long-term solution that will not cost a fortune.

And of course Scott is integral to this. He is the one who knows most about this building and his input is invaluable. Where would we be without Scott? In deep trouble is where.

Update 20211223

I am asking FSR and council to please:

1. state where in the building bylaws it states one person may call for a re-vote.
2. failing #1 – where in the Strata Property Act Chapter it states one person may call for a re-vote

Update 20211108

Please find:
– my understanding of the Strata Property Act and why a President of Council alone cannot decide to call a re-vote.
– the Strata Property Act Chapter 43, Part 4-51
– the vote was passed to not remove the current awnings

My understanding of the SPA Chapter 43, Part 4-51:

1. That a re-vote can only be considered if less than 50% of the strata’s corporation votes were in count at the AGM.

2. To call a re-vote 25% of the strata corporation votes must make a written and signed request for a re-vote.

3. The president of the council may call the SGM, but they do not make the call for a re-vote.

Update 20211104

President of Council alone called for re-vote.

After many ignored requests for the reason why a re-vote was being scheduled and how many owners requested a re-vote I was told this at the November 01 council meeting:

The President of Council said that they alone decided to call a re-vote. Since this was being scheduled in a Special AGM, I can only believe that both the Strata Council and FirstService went along with this. Even though in my opinion it is unethical and illegal.

When I made an official request for the number of owners who had petitioned for a re-vote I received this statement back from Council via an email from FirstService on October 12, 2021

“Just as one person requesting a revote would be inappropriate, one person saying we should not is also inappropriate”.

To be clear, I never said there should not be a re-vote, I merely asked for information.

But the President of Council is one person and a re-vote was being scheduled due to that one person requesting it.

So I would like to ask Council and FirstService why they considered this appropriate?

Instead of telling me the truth in October, the council chose to gaslight me.

The following statements were also part of the October 12, 2021 email from Council via FirstService.

“There is no favouritism here, the president declined to vote in the last vote to make sure it was clear there were no biases involved.”

But in fact there is favouritism. The President perhaps did not vote but when the vote did not go accordingly, the President alone decided to call a re-vote.

“Strata Council is advising you that you are more than welcome to join the Strata Council if you think that the Strata Corporation is being run inappropriately.”

I did not, at the time, say that the Strata Corporation is being run inappropriately. But I am saying it now. 

Letting the President alone make such a decision, stonewalling requests from an owner for records that are legally bound to be shared and not telling the truth but gaslighting instead are certainly inappropriate behaviours.

¡ Important !

According to the BC Housing & Tenancy Regulations

a record of petition by 25% of strata voters must be submitted to legally call a re-vote

and

records held by Strata Council and the Managing Corporation must be made available to owners.

Bylaws and rules within one week of the request. All other records within two weeks.

In September and October Council and FirstService were asked for the petition record and all records pertaining to the awnings issue.

They have not made any records available.

› Goal

The goal of this page is to find a solution where everyone feels safe entering and leaving the building.

› Factors

1. Safety.
2. The cost of any alteration.
3. Compliance with current laws, with an eye to compliance with future laws / city enforcement.

› City Requirements

Because I could get no information from Strata Council or FirstService I contacted the City of Vancouver directly. I connected with DTES Planning and the Development, Buildings, Licensing Services Centre.

The first department said that they would not support the removal of the current awnings to retractable awnings.

The second department appears to be the one ultimately making the decision. After email correspondence with them, they responded stating their decision is to allow the building some leeway. At this time, the current awnings are not required to act as weather protection. That is the decision. It is noted that some time in the future the city may require awnings that provide weather protection.

› Plan for Solution

I would like to offer a proposal that would follow the guidelines of the decision made and address the factors listed above: safety, cost, regard for future awning compliance.

Phase 1

The glass be removed from the awnings over just the main entrance, leaving the metal framework. Mesh would be substituted for the glass to prevent anything being hung from the metal work and to prevent items being thrown up against the second floor windows.

After a period of time, the result of this awning alteration would be assessed and should it prove a deterrant to people gathering at the main entrance, then discussion could happen around the other awnings.

Benefits of This Plan

1. The building would be in full compliance with the current requirements of the City.
2. Costs would be minimal. The glass would be put in storage, but no removal or storage costs for the metal framework.
3. The metal framework would remain so if the city should decide in the future that the glass be put back, it would be at minimal cost.
4. Doing only the main entrance initially would keep costs minimized while attending to the most important area.
5. Doing only the main entrance initially would offer a chance to see the effect that removing weather protection would have on congestion of people around the entrance.
6. If it worked to clear the area, then discussion could open regarding the other awnings. If not, then other solutions to keeping the area clear could be considered.

› Please Note:

1. This is my personal take on the issue.
2. Correspondence and informational records are legally required to be kept by the strata council and the management corporation. And owners have a right to view these records. This is not happening at 138 East Hastings.
3. I am keeping this as brief as possible to avoid confusion but am happy to make any further information available.
4. I believe if we have all the records and information, we can find a safe, practical and forward-thinking solution.

But first, the record of petition that called for a re-vote on this issue must be produced. 

Addie

20211029. Upddated accordingly.