It's not just any lot. It's the lot right next to the other major centre of our community.

The Ehatare mismanagement is a separate issue. We need to focus on the EM2 issue at hand with a critical mind and clarity, since there is so much at stake.

As with the first Young Shareholder, I am doubtful that the EM board can pull this off given their three recent failures. When the EM is criticized by experts as being awkward and challenging to refurbish due to the heritage building, what happens next? Another heritage building is bought, then a second property with massive complications owing to the subway is bought.

The price tag is absolutely enormous for a new awkward building with a public space for drunken frat boys. The location is very inconvenient. I would not go to the bank to deposit a cheque or exchange currencies there, this would involve a minimum of two hours return trip driving (and not even counting time spent looking for pay parking) during business hours and I live in Toronto! So, I would pull my money out of the bank if they move to Madison. This location would likely also put off our seniors, since the walk from the subway is substantial, as would be car parking.

Another issue is that this is a hugely risky endeavour, given warnings about Toronto's real estate bubble bursting. There are examples of Toronto ethnic community houses failing, such as the Hellenic Center near Warden Costco, that was never completed, but then bought by the Jain community. The Jain house is still not operational, to my knowledge. So thing can and do go sideways in these situations, even if the management has good intentions.

I don't see the vision for EM2 on Madison matching the community use that the current EM does. The lasketiir will be gone, seniors and 905'ers alienated, and it will not be 'our house' - do we really think that an Esto business will occupy the cafe at high rent? A coffee chain such as Second Cup would likely be a tenant who could afford the high rent that the board is saying they will charge.

As for the future ownership of the EM2, it was shocking that Ellen did not have a clear answer at the town hall meeting. Is the lack of an answer due to lack of proper planning? This would be extreme dereliction of duty by the board. Or is the lack of an answer given that night due to the possibility that the actual answer may be very distasteful to the current shareholders?

I do not have confidence in the board, and I don't trust them. I don't think they can pull this off. As such, I am hoping that if EM is sold, shareholders will be offered an 'exit', whereby we can take the value out and put the dollars toward a better managed organization in the Esto community.

In The Wrath of Khan (1982), Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.”

‘The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’ are well known words to any Trekkie and indeed anyone who has simply dropped into that universe to watch a few of the movies. They are synonymous with self-sacrifice and in the context of ‘The Wrath of Khan’ can be perceived as truly heroic. However, what may be true in one beautiful instance, in which an individual gives his life to save his friends, may not be true when extended to a wider context.

When looked at from another perspective, however, the ‘needs of the many’ is not just dangerous; it’s cruel and even frightening. Nyota Uhura addresses this darker side to the Vulcan philosophy in ‘Star Trek: Of Gods and Men’ when she comments that history is ‘filled with groups who have decided that their needs were more important than others. The result: slavery, genocide.’

Another word for ‘the many’ is, of course, the ‘majority’. The majority has a loud voice and loud voices tend to be heard. ‘The few’ is obviously the ‘minority’. The voice of the minority is softer, sometimes so soft it is almost silent but that doesn’t mean that these whispered words carry no meaning. In saying that ‘The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’, it is effectively being argued that it is only logical and right for the majority to neglect the needs of the minority.

In the big wide world ‘the few or the one’ is not a hero bravely sacrificing themselves for the good of their crew, they are the silent sectors of society who are classified as ‘different’ or even ‘marginal’. They have no choice in the sacrifices they make; they are coerced into making sacrifices everyday in the name of the majority and the societal expectations that are forced upon them.

In many instances, the minority is regarded solely in terms of that which makes them different. This separation between ‘them’ and ‘us’ is very dangerous. It can be dehumanising, reframing the ‘other’ as deviant or inferior. This is the basis of emotional and physical violence that can be perpetrated against minorities. Those who happily fall into the standard of acceptability feel somehow entitled to abuse those who, through no fault of their own, fall outside of what is perceived to be ‘normal’.

Even where individual abuse or violence is not an issue the majority who refuses to listen to the needs of the few is still a bully. In an environment where the majority is closed minded and ignorant, they will force their opinions and perspectives upon those who may be ill equipped to defend themselves. If we go back to the example of the ‘The Wrath of Khan’, had Kirk used his power as the Captain of Enterprise to force Spock to sacrifice himself, on the basis of his being alien, the tone of the movie would have been drastically altered.

The biggest battle that we face in our social evolution is the path towards equality and unity, the many and the few need to join together to become the one. Unity alone, however, is nor enough, we have to learn to accept that while ‘we’ should stand together, ‘we’ will always be made up of hundreds of millions unique individuals. Each one of these individuals has their own life, voice and inherent worth.

I realized after I posted my comment that it was ambiguous. My apologies. Going back to Ehatare/Abistamiskomitee days, a person (name not to be mentioned but we can guess who) filed anonymous complaints with many ministries and government authorities. An incredible amount of time was spent resolving these. To Meiusi - I challenge him to build instead of destroy. I am somewhat amused, as he's a wannabe investigative reporter. I am not sure to what end. To me, our community is small. What he styles as conflicts might be viewed as normal dealings by others. While the entities might have dealings, many of us also belong to multiple organizations? Thus, are we all conflicted? I smile at the wannabe investigative reporter.

I don't think Meiusi realizes he is the bull-in-the-china-shop. I don't think he realizes that when he speaks in Estonian, he barely comprehensible. I don't think he realizes he comes across as an a-hole in person and in the written word. His father was very rich and he inherited much. What he did not inherit was his father's business and social skills.

It's unfortunate that the very sensitive subject of selling Esto House for the newest plan has been fraught with some misinformation and speculation. But who can blame Allan and others for coming to their conclusions? They are being branded as talking from an emotional viewpoint and non-factual, while the proposers of the new plan have all the facts and months of behind-the-scenes deal-making. All the volunteers on the 4 boards pushing the new proposal are smart and qualified people, some maybe even friends, though that does not mean their decisions are the best ones. Yes, the Esto house future has been talked about for years, but since I'm not an original EH shareholder the open meeting a few weeks ago was the only one where I and others got well-presented information on the urgent plans to sell out, and the new Madison Ave proposal. The way things were framed it sounds like the Madison lot for sale is an outstanding opportunity that is only available right now, with a "do it or lose it" innuendo. In reality, the new proposal has many potential issues and it seems highly risky not only to get our full community's acceptance, but even to get approved and built to the $18 million estimate. I walked out of the meeting with a great fear (or bad dream), that should the proposal go ahead, only a pint-sized phase 1 might actually get completed before going bust.

And who are the ones who will decide? Yes, the shareholders have the final say, to the necessary quorum to pass (90% minimum?). Although the credit union board has the greatest number of voting shares, it is of course nowhere near a majority (<20%?). Maybe they are quietly hoping that other original EM shareholders, are either dead, their shares lost, or just don't show up to vote. I laud some shareholding organizations who are leaving this important decision up to a majority survey of their members to decide how their organization should vote. Unfortunately, I suspect many other shareholding organizations will not give their own members the same decision-making influence, leaving it fully up to their elected boards to decide. No surprise there…we know that us Estos have had some strong-minded opinionated leaders in our midst, and without them some big things would have never got done!

Should the new proposal pass, I suspect there will not be a lot of "hurraahs" to be heard, and more likely some quiet tears. I heard at the last meeting that when the old Esto house finance committee (including my father) pushed very hard, and maybe even aggressively to get many $50 and $100 shares bought by our parents and grandparents' generations, that today those shares would be worth maybe $4000 each. So, I wondered leaving the meeting, how many who attended would have left a cheque at the door for that amount for a share or 2 in the new proposal? Probably not too many, which gets into the probable success of future fundraising needed to manage the "gap". Some in our community, for whatever reason, don't have not too many nickels in their pockets to contribute, and those who have much deeper pockets often choose not to share for the "community", which leaves the muddy middle to pay for the "gap". I fear that the new EM proposal does not have the same strong vision and dream of decades ago which we would as individuals financially and emotionally support. Maybe we've lived off the coattails of our forefathers too long until our inherited building has bankrupted itself.

Nothing will be done until the shareholders value position is totally sorted out. This gives time for the EM not-at-Madison Avenue crowd to get together and create one proposal they can bring to the table, with the understanding that the current EM is financially unsustainable (or is it?).

I would like Meiusi to provide a list of his financial contributions to any of the registered charities in our community. All in the name of transparency.

The $3 million that was supposed to have vanished was another myth. Anyone who had done their due diligence would have located the funds in Ehatare Foundation. Charities' filings can be pulled on the CRA website.

Still waiting for Meiusi 's disclosure re his donations to Estonian community charities. I have to laugh at him. His lack of disclosure makes me think of Donald Trump's lack of disclosure wrt tax filings.