Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
Kudos for this well written summary and reality check
We have been told by the 3 orgs that staying on Broadview ave is not a viable option. We have also been warned by others that staying on Broadview ave makes complete sense and that the Madison project is not a viable option. Someone is therefore way way off. This is a scary and disturbing situation to say the least.
What I would love to see (and what I believe the community deserves) is a debate on the subject at the Esto House. Give both sides the opportunity to face each other, make their respective cases and ask/answer questions. Seems appropriate with so much conflicting information, unanswered questions and the future of our community seemingly at stake.
It would have been better if this happened before the vote but it's not too late. I suppose from a technical stand point, the winners of the vote have won and that's that. From an ethical stand point however, and in the interest of uniting our community, I think this would be a very good thing. Let's get it all out in the open. Our community should be strong enough to withstand the airing of opposing views and in the end, I believe we would be stronger for it.
What I would love to see (and what I believe the community deserves) is a debate on the subject at the Esto House. Give both sides the opportunity to face each other, make their respective cases and ask/answer questions. Seems appropriate with so much conflicting information, unanswered questions and the future of our community seemingly at stake.
It would have been better if this happened before the vote but it's not too late. I suppose from a technical stand point, the winners of the vote have won and that's that. From an ethical stand point however, and in the interest of uniting our community, I think this would be a very good thing. Let's get it all out in the open. Our community should be strong enough to withstand the airing of opposing views and in the end, I believe we would be stronger for it.
What still needs to be disclosed in the name of complete transparency is, how did each organization operating out of Eesti Maja (with their respective block of shares) vote?
If that information has already been disclosed, please direct readers to that link.
If that information has already been disclosed, please direct readers to that link.
Jaak Järve posted the numbers here. That would make the numbers unofficial I suppose but I have no reason to suspect they're not correct (with the possible exception of the off typo perhaps).
http://www.eesti.ca/?op=allCom...
http://www.eesti.ca/?op=allCom...
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: lugeja (06:58)
Thanks lugeja. Unfortunately that only shows the # of shares held by an Eesti Maja organization, but not how that organization voted.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: ? (07:58)
Oops that's right, I didn't reread his comment and had forgotten about that so my mistake. Perhaps someone else has better information.
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: lugeja (06:58), lugeja (09:34)
You can just ask each organiation how they voted and why?
The Board should post and give everyone access to the studies that they relied on to say EH is "falling down". If there isn't anything to hide, show all the studies, to all of us. Also the Board should disclose to the shareholders if and how much we will be in debt for Phase 1 and 2. Something they should have disclosed to us during the Special meeting and at the AGM. Why is the Board continuing to not be transparent? How can we trust a board that isn't asking any questions and putting the EH at great financial risk? Is the Board hiding important information because if they would have been transparent about the real numbers, the outcome of the vote might have been different?
What are the real numbers? How much debt will we be in right out of the gate? Two million, three million dollars? The way I see it and the way the Board has described it to us, we can't even afford $240000 thousand existing debt, how exactly are we going to afford two million or more?
What are the real numbers? How much debt will we be in right out of the gate? Two million, three million dollars? The way I see it and the way the Board has described it to us, we can't even afford $240000 thousand existing debt, how exactly are we going to afford two million or more?
Thank you for your comments. Yes - there are a lot of unanswered questions. Unfortunately, those who voted in favour of the Madison Project have essentially given the Org's "can do anything we want" card and this is what they are doing. I hate to break the bad news, but (my City sources) told me the parking lot has already been purchased, they are just in the final "dot the i and cross the t's" stage. The questions that needs to be asked is who bought it and with what money? I thought the money from the sale of Esto House was going to be used to purchase the lot...but alas, I think the Org's used the due diligence monies for the purchase. That means there will be no due diligence to speak of, further, a tentative agreement for sale of Esto House must exist in order to serve as collateral. If this turns out to be the case, then we as shareholders were not only lied to but taken big time. The Org's silence is not a good sign, neither is the purchase ahead of the due diligence.
Shareholder
Shareholder
I don't have to stay at Broadview Ave, but I fear the Madison site will be extremely costly and we will end up with a small footprint for community use.
What about building next to the Latvian House? That may be better use of money. As I understand, the Latvians want us to come and build next to them to bring new life to their centre.
Or why can't we build at another location? The lot across the street with the former church is still empty, probably because any future buildings also has a height restriction as does 958 Broadview. There would be no heritage restrictions and the footprint for the lot is sizeable.
Many people have said that they do not want to drive to Tartu College to a community centre. We would be losing too many people to build next to Tartu. There must be parking for the centre. We can not rely on parking lots at a distance.
Also, if people do not want the community centre to be built at Madison, then there will be less donations in support of its construction.
What about building next to the Latvian House? That may be better use of money. As I understand, the Latvians want us to come and build next to them to bring new life to their centre.
Or why can't we build at another location? The lot across the street with the former church is still empty, probably because any future buildings also has a height restriction as does 958 Broadview. There would be no heritage restrictions and the footprint for the lot is sizeable.
Many people have said that they do not want to drive to Tartu College to a community centre. We would be losing too many people to build next to Tartu. There must be parking for the centre. We can not rely on parking lots at a distance.
Also, if people do not want the community centre to be built at Madison, then there will be less donations in support of its construction.
The "3Org's" can purchase the 9 Madison Ave site if they so desire, but leave the Broadview Estonian House moneys alone You have no rights to it whatsoever. It belongs to the Estonian Community and we ask the community to make their voice heard loud and clear!
Samalt IP numbrilt on siin varem kommenteerinud: Kallis Roi (09:15)
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.