Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
UuemadVanemad
<
1
2
I saw that these three retired professionals provided an interview saying that the house is sound, but I don’t recall them ever producing a report in any detail like the Pinchin report. I also don’t recall them calculating the costs of preservation, and don’t recall them saying that their interview is their professional opinion (although maybe that’s moot if they’re no longer practicing and not putting their license on the line). It’s great that they offered their help but these seem like night and day differences... and what concerns me is not that G. Laikve is expressing his opinion, but that he doesn’t seem to see the difference here between what Pinchin did and what he did.
I'm shocked.
We've been told that staying on Broadview is not a viable option but it seems like if the board didn't blow all this money on consultants working the Madison project, we'd be just fine and there might be any shortfall at all. Yikes!
I also find it interesting that in the latest report from the board, it was mentioned that talks were ongoing with an unspecified donor to cover the shortfall of funds required for the Madison project which raises some questions:
1)
Just how big is this shortfall (I'm guessing much bigger than 1.4 million, would be happy to be wrong)?
2)
Did they look for donors to fix up the Esto House (my guess is no, would be happy to be wrong)?
3)
How does it make sense to sell us the Madison project and tell us that the Esto House isn't viable if the funds required to stay are less than the funds required for the Madison project?
4)
Why is the board filled with people who seem to hate the place and want to everything in their power to get rid of it. Where is their motivation coming from and where does this strong suicide instinct come from?
I remember one board member wrote an article supporting the move saying that the Madison project should be like a "kirss tordil". From all I've heard so far, it seems like instead of a "tort", we unfortunately have a steaming pile of something much less appealing.
We've been told that staying on Broadview is not a viable option but it seems like if the board didn't blow all this money on consultants working the Madison project, we'd be just fine and there might be any shortfall at all. Yikes!
I also find it interesting that in the latest report from the board, it was mentioned that talks were ongoing with an unspecified donor to cover the shortfall of funds required for the Madison project which raises some questions:
1)
Just how big is this shortfall (I'm guessing much bigger than 1.4 million, would be happy to be wrong)?
2)
Did they look for donors to fix up the Esto House (my guess is no, would be happy to be wrong)?
3)
How does it make sense to sell us the Madison project and tell us that the Esto House isn't viable if the funds required to stay are less than the funds required for the Madison project?
4)
Why is the board filled with people who seem to hate the place and want to everything in their power to get rid of it. Where is their motivation coming from and where does this strong suicide instinct come from?
I remember one board member wrote an article supporting the move saying that the Madison project should be like a "kirss tordil". From all I've heard so far, it seems like instead of a "tort", we unfortunately have a steaming pile of something much less appealing.
I have been reading the report on and off during the day.
Seems that Vaino and Jaak are on the right track.
The released report has a paragraph that states.
“Based on Pinchin’s review of the property, conducted on November 17, 2017, the site Building appears to be in satisfactory condition commensurate with its age and in comparable standing to other similar commercial properties in the area. Based on our visual assessment, the Site Building appears to have been constructed in general accordance with standard building practices in place at the times o construction.
Goes on to say (in my own words) that now is the time to get on with the work of upgrading the systems.
So yes Vaino... it is worth "taking it on" as you said. It will be at a much lower cost than the proposed new venue.
Seems that Vaino and Jaak are on the right track.
The released report has a paragraph that states.
“Based on Pinchin’s review of the property, conducted on November 17, 2017, the site Building appears to be in satisfactory condition commensurate with its age and in comparable standing to other similar commercial properties in the area. Based on our visual assessment, the Site Building appears to have been constructed in general accordance with standard building practices in place at the times o construction.
Goes on to say (in my own words) that now is the time to get on with the work of upgrading the systems.
So yes Vaino... it is worth "taking it on" as you said. It will be at a much lower cost than the proposed new venue.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Ingrid Tanner (07:39), Ingrid Tanner (10:01)
The Peter Principle is an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence. The Peter Principle is based on the logical idea that competent employees will continue to be promoted, but at some point will be promoted into positions for which they are incompetent, and they will then remain in those positions because of the fact that they do not demonstrate any further competence that would get them recognized for additional promotion. According to the Peter Principle, every position in a given hierarchy will eventually be filled by employees who are incompetent to fulfill the job duties of their respective positions.
We are seeing this "Peter Principle" in practice with our current Estonian House Board of Directors. The level of short-sightedness, incompetence and callous disregard for the health of the community is embarrassing to say the least.
Time to clean house and start anew. The shareholders should take back the house, fire the current board and elect a new more responsible board who will endeavour to preserve the Estonian House and breathe new life into this heritage site and home of the Estonian Toronto community.
We are seeing this "Peter Principle" in practice with our current Estonian House Board of Directors. The level of short-sightedness, incompetence and callous disregard for the health of the community is embarrassing to say the least.
Time to clean house and start anew. The shareholders should take back the house, fire the current board and elect a new more responsible board who will endeavour to preserve the Estonian House and breathe new life into this heritage site and home of the Estonian Toronto community.
Another theory is that of psychological projection. According to this theory, humans contend with feelings of vulnerability by projecting these traits unconsciously, and thereafter consciously, on to others. This coping mechanism works by directing the feelings of anger or betrayal toward the most proximate target, rather than acknowledging the underlying reasons for the existence of the emotions.
For example, rather than acknowledging that a building has been chronically under-supported both financially and in its usage for decades, this mechanism causes people to attribute the blame to the perceived guile or incompetence of a specific group of people, satisfying the psychological need for a villain. The identification of a villain is important because it allows the afflicted party to believe that removal of the villain is all that is necessary for the underlying conditions to be resolved.
Although psychological projection may manifest as aggressive behavior, it is rooted in defensiveness and serves as a coping mechanism for shifting blame unto others in reaction to perceived or actual slights. The behavior is ultimately counterproductive as it leads to conflict without addressing the underlying issues, and is closely related to the concept of hostile attribution bias, a cognitive bias manifesting as a tendency to attribute benign or ambiguous behavior to hostile intent even when there is none.
For example, rather than acknowledging that a building has been chronically under-supported both financially and in its usage for decades, this mechanism causes people to attribute the blame to the perceived guile or incompetence of a specific group of people, satisfying the psychological need for a villain. The identification of a villain is important because it allows the afflicted party to believe that removal of the villain is all that is necessary for the underlying conditions to be resolved.
Although psychological projection may manifest as aggressive behavior, it is rooted in defensiveness and serves as a coping mechanism for shifting blame unto others in reaction to perceived or actual slights. The behavior is ultimately counterproductive as it leads to conflict without addressing the underlying issues, and is closely related to the concept of hostile attribution bias, a cognitive bias manifesting as a tendency to attribute benign or ambiguous behavior to hostile intent even when there is none.
"underlying reasons...underlying conditions...underlying issues" - there's a difference. Amnesia may be necessary equipment for living. Issues get addressed publicly.
So I guess you are comfortable with the assessment that the Peter Principle applies to you too.
This Pinchin report simply identifies the very modest sum required to update Eesti Maja. $1.4 million or even the inflated (paid consultants are needed?) $1.75 million over 10 years, in a Toronto where the average home sells for $1 million, to be generated from a 5-10,000 Estonian person community as well as an Eesti Maja run as a business is eminently doable. I personally would be delighted to take on the project.
Just reviewed the summary report by PINCHIN
You RENTED a water heater? wow those are so expensive to rent and super difficult to buy out of the contract. Short sighted decision. Again a loan from the bank could have had less costs to purchase it.
The report points out that NO BUDGET for ongoing maintenance of major components of the building. That is like saying we will deal with issues when they fail. The report also mentions LED Lights have not even been considered (again... rebates were available and reduced operating costs after changing to LED lights are significant.)
Code violations... wow... no thought of having a person to inform the board of the city or provincial code changes. PINCHIN report says "the importance of an effective maintenance program cannot be over looked because it plays such an important role in the effectiveness of Site Building equipment.” Yeah!!!!
I believe the Board just proved their lack of understanding asset managment and lack of understanding Marketing… where one WORKS daily on Marketing to rent out every square foot every day at good rates. Especially since a building as an asset is valued by the revenue it generates. Higher revenue, Higher value.
What most competent asset managers do is look at ways to reduce costs. That typically means upgrading/replacing old heating systems to new energy efficient ones. Any Engineer that comes to give you suggestions would compute the payback period. Meaning the cost savings of spending funds. Just like low flow toilets will reduce costs. The board’s aversion to spend funds in upgrades only increases maintenance costs and does not allow for energy efficiency…. Which is super important.
If you are going to manage the proposed new Madison building with a much reduced rentable area than the current Estonian House…. You are NOT going to ever payback the mortgage that will be needed. The board has not proven their ability to manage an asset.
I believe this report makes a stronger case to KEEP the current Estonian House. Since the Madison building will take years before it can be usable. Thus, we need to update the current Estonian House so as to have a place for all our events. And if we are spending funds, we might as well keep it and focus on competent management.
You RENTED a water heater? wow those are so expensive to rent and super difficult to buy out of the contract. Short sighted decision. Again a loan from the bank could have had less costs to purchase it.
The report points out that NO BUDGET for ongoing maintenance of major components of the building. That is like saying we will deal with issues when they fail. The report also mentions LED Lights have not even been considered (again... rebates were available and reduced operating costs after changing to LED lights are significant.)
Code violations... wow... no thought of having a person to inform the board of the city or provincial code changes. PINCHIN report says "the importance of an effective maintenance program cannot be over looked because it plays such an important role in the effectiveness of Site Building equipment.” Yeah!!!!
I believe the Board just proved their lack of understanding asset managment and lack of understanding Marketing… where one WORKS daily on Marketing to rent out every square foot every day at good rates. Especially since a building as an asset is valued by the revenue it generates. Higher revenue, Higher value.
What most competent asset managers do is look at ways to reduce costs. That typically means upgrading/replacing old heating systems to new energy efficient ones. Any Engineer that comes to give you suggestions would compute the payback period. Meaning the cost savings of spending funds. Just like low flow toilets will reduce costs. The board’s aversion to spend funds in upgrades only increases maintenance costs and does not allow for energy efficiency…. Which is super important.
If you are going to manage the proposed new Madison building with a much reduced rentable area than the current Estonian House…. You are NOT going to ever payback the mortgage that will be needed. The board has not proven their ability to manage an asset.
I believe this report makes a stronger case to KEEP the current Estonian House. Since the Madison building will take years before it can be usable. Thus, we need to update the current Estonian House so as to have a place for all our events. And if we are spending funds, we might as well keep it and focus on competent management.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Ingrid Tanner (07:39)
Thank You for sharing.
First off, this report and your summary shows that the Board of the Estonian House did not hire competent managers over the years or they did not heed concerns expressed by Managers over the years. The report is really highlighting the board’s negligence in not understanding asset management or the lack of understanding that borrowing funds to maintain the asset (the Estonian house) is a valid expense.
And your comments "over the last decade" that discussion of how YOU (the Board) have been managing the asset is not sustainable should not have meant "sell" it should have meant borrow funds to fix the heating and the roof.
How many millions have you borrowed for "due diligence" for the Madison project… that could have been used to upgrade the systems and infrastructure?
Just putting in an energy efficient heating system with borrowed funds would have dramatically reduced your operating costs SIGNIFICANTLY! The payback of an efficient boiler could have been calculated. Not only that, over the years there has been incentive programs from all level of governments that would have even given you rebates. This just screams incompetence.
Thus forgive me if I look at this report as “fail” on the part of the board for lack of understanding asset management. Please ask the Credit Union if they would have lent you funds to upgrade the heating system. The answer should be YES… since at that time there was NO LIEN on the Estonian house. NOW though there is all the “due diligence” costs for figuring out how to sell and hiring how many experts to work on the new location’s design… you have spent way more funds in trying to rip the Estonian house away from us.
One final note, the rentable space of the Estonian house could be calculated… and with proper marketing it could generate a lot more money than the Madison proposal. The Estonian House has larger square footage to rent. The proposed, super expensive, good looking Madison project would have a smaller foot print to rent out… and thus could NEVER generate higher revenue than the current Estonian house.
You have never done a good job marking the spaces at the Estonian House.
Finally, now that you know that work needs to be done and the Madison project’s completion will be YEARS away… you will be forced to upgrade the Estonian house infrastructure in order to enable us to continue to have the continued use of the Estonian House while you continue your “due diligence” of the new project. That also is short sighted… and I say we vote to stay at the current Estonian House where our costs will be much less and our revenue could (if managed and marketed properly) would be much higher than it is now. And it is time to put competent people onto the board who truly understand asset management.
First off, this report and your summary shows that the Board of the Estonian House did not hire competent managers over the years or they did not heed concerns expressed by Managers over the years. The report is really highlighting the board’s negligence in not understanding asset management or the lack of understanding that borrowing funds to maintain the asset (the Estonian house) is a valid expense.
And your comments "over the last decade" that discussion of how YOU (the Board) have been managing the asset is not sustainable should not have meant "sell" it should have meant borrow funds to fix the heating and the roof.
How many millions have you borrowed for "due diligence" for the Madison project… that could have been used to upgrade the systems and infrastructure?
Just putting in an energy efficient heating system with borrowed funds would have dramatically reduced your operating costs SIGNIFICANTLY! The payback of an efficient boiler could have been calculated. Not only that, over the years there has been incentive programs from all level of governments that would have even given you rebates. This just screams incompetence.
Thus forgive me if I look at this report as “fail” on the part of the board for lack of understanding asset management. Please ask the Credit Union if they would have lent you funds to upgrade the heating system. The answer should be YES… since at that time there was NO LIEN on the Estonian house. NOW though there is all the “due diligence” costs for figuring out how to sell and hiring how many experts to work on the new location’s design… you have spent way more funds in trying to rip the Estonian house away from us.
One final note, the rentable space of the Estonian house could be calculated… and with proper marketing it could generate a lot more money than the Madison proposal. The Estonian House has larger square footage to rent. The proposed, super expensive, good looking Madison project would have a smaller foot print to rent out… and thus could NEVER generate higher revenue than the current Estonian house.
You have never done a good job marking the spaces at the Estonian House.
Finally, now that you know that work needs to be done and the Madison project’s completion will be YEARS away… you will be forced to upgrade the Estonian house infrastructure in order to enable us to continue to have the continued use of the Estonian House while you continue your “due diligence” of the new project. That also is short sighted… and I say we vote to stay at the current Estonian House where our costs will be much less and our revenue could (if managed and marketed properly) would be much higher than it is now. And it is time to put competent people onto the board who truly understand asset management.
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.