Tõnu! Well said - you've hit the nail on the head! if 97.5% of the shareholders authorized the Board to act on their behalf then let's move on . Surely we have to trust their expertise and hard work! We have two years to find accommodation for our community activities and those competent leaders are surely capable of that ? But where are the anchor tenants going for that time?

Say, How did the Estonian Credit Union and the Estonian House get their lions share of EM Shares? There is much talk around town of some years back being invited by the EM to give back, or give up individual shares to the benefit of the EM. Was this already an action to gather in as many voting shares in case just as this?. In fact, there were naïve older Estonians who thought they were helping keep the Estonian community going by returning shares and saying yes to the request, not build 24 storey boxes in the sky. How did the Credit Union get their lions share of EM shares? Have we had the wool pulled over our collective eyes for years but were too trusting to ask. I am ashamed of how many only see dollar signs, but not the EM as the heart of a fading community.

I'm yet to see any credible alternative plan. Critics have had ample time to come up with it. Everybody agrees that status quo is unacceptable.

Haters gonna hate, hate, hate ...
Just shake it off!

Not sure what to make of the silence from ESK and to some extent from TC. As Tonu noted, there were several ESK board members at the meeting. Unlike bank, they were silent. Something weird is going on, see also the video at 49:25 (Meiusi). The board's answer is basically 'no comment'.

When rumours swirl it is hard to determine what is true without transparency, openness. Facts help make decisions. Truth gives people the right to act on facts. Sorry, Anton Hansen Tammsaare, not exactly what you meant, but you did know how estos battle other estos in a small village, much like in esto-Toronto of today.

So: rumours have been heard that Sihtkapital has sold their property to Eesti Maja. True or false? If true, where did Eesti Maja get the cash, considering today’s real estate market? Rumour: the Estonian Credit Union’s purchase of the Buddhist centre on Madison Avenue, north of Tartu College, ostensibly to serve as their base of operations during demolition of Eesti Maja and construction of EM2 has been posted, with a sign on the building saying that the property has been approved for student residences.

And finally, Tartu College cannot serve as any large-scale community center, even if they cede a floor or two to community use, renting it out to Eesti Maja users. It would be financially a loss of revenue for Tartu, they get more money from the students in the “matchbox” rooms there than they would get from Eesti Maja clients, from our community or from outside. Plus they would have to bring common use areas up to snuff… Too late anyway to expect the Eesti Maja board to budge on having the vote on Tuesday, as requested by quite a few movers and doers in our community in a letter to the Eesti Maja board of directors at the Eesti Elu website. (Speaking of which, could somebody actually make that site interesting to visit, post things when current, etc?)

What are you, 17... what's with the hate words? Chill out and realize what is going on, and it's not hate.

How many Jehovah's Witnesses are there within the Estonian community?

I asked the question about ESK because ESK is an obvious stakeholder in the project; representing at least 3 assets in the proposed plan and a number of other monetary interests over the years. EM 2.0 would have been much harder to put together had ESK's sites not been part of the package. Nonetheless, it begs the question: "how or in what form will ESK be compensated?" It's more than fair to assume that ESK will be compensated, so why not declare what the compensation will be? Somewhere in the 18 or so million has to be something set aside for that added real estate.
The Board is making a pragmatic decision based on an operational reality. Few doubt the Board's hard work, analysis, due diligence and commitment to EM. Board members should continue to gain our appreciation for their efforts. At the same time the Board has to realize that the number of questions they faced on Wednesday resulted from a lack of transparency. Asking shareholders to go to EM to view documents during business seems to place an unnecessary burden on most shareholders. Most share corporations would regularly distribute copies of critical documents to shareholders if those documents were the focus of a motion. You know, a shareholder would most likely expect to get a copy of documents requiring their support when they enter a shareholder information session/ meeting (a.k.a. Wednesday’s meeting). Asking shareholders to come and view a document “during normal business hours, as co-ordinated with the Manager” is like suggesting that community members attend a major shareholder vote the same week many (maybe as many as 600) active shareholders and stakeholders are out of town on a widely publicized and long planned cruise. (Oh wait.., that is happening that way isn’t it?) Well, if you can’t come and review an important document while you’re most likely at work, you’re welcome to come and vote on it when many of you will be somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico or wherever. (Sorry I digressed).
The EM 2.0 process started off very transparent with the round-table meeting and taking suggestions from anyone who could provide them on those yellow sticky notes. So when a number of people get up at an information session to ask a question about inherent risks, business climate or whatever, why is the answer left to "well it's riskier not to do anything" or "riskier not to act." That's true. There is risk in not acting. There are also legitimate risks in opting for a particular path. Those risks should be openly discussed since many of those risks were explicitly cited during the questioning, such as:
What are EM’s financial risks if real estate prices decline below projections?
What are expected revenues generated by renting out the EM 2.0 facility for Esto and non-Esto functions?
Are scouts and guides, Eesti Kool and every community club going to have enough rooms?
What is the possibility of a "no" go from the City of Toronto for 20+ floors or 190+ rooms?... and so on.
These risks weren't cited for the purposes of questioning the actions of the Board, on the contrary, stakeholders just wanted to know the "what ifs".
Here are a few more “what ifs.” "What if" shareholders were given the right to hold other roundtable discussions after Tuesday's vote? Sure, Tuesday's motion will pass and that’s all good, EM has a path to pursue and let's all hope it goes well...really, really well!! But "what if" it doesn't? “What if” EM 2.0 hits a bump in the road along the line? "What if," just to be pragmatic and cautionary, shareholders had one, two or more roundtable(s) to discuss possible contingencies for each phase of the proposed EM 2.0 project that passes Tuesday? "What if" those roundtable sessions resulted in viable contingencies and alternatives for an assortment of scenarios? "What if" EM 2.0 actually developed more business opportunities with greater sustainability and more benefit to the seltskond? “What if” shareholders truly felt more engaged and informed?
If we can't have labour "talgud" that gave us the benefit of EM in the first place, as Tõnu mentioned, maybe we could have "idea talgud" to ensure ourselves a sustainable EM 2.0 no matter what obstacle presented itself. What if?

Here is some more information from EM board
https://estohouse.wordpress.co...

It is very ironic that a root cause of Toronto Eesti Maja’s prolonged death spiral – the decrepit old schoolhouse that should have been bulldozed in 1960 – will be its sole surviving element if and when the redevelopment proposal goes through.

I don’t mind such ironies, but what bothers me is that the redevelopment proposal fails to honour and commemorate many other, equally noteworthy, root causes of our current dilemmas.

We could begin by carving the words “Ei Mingit Kompromissi !” over the front door of the restored 1890 facade. Much more appropriate (but hopefully not more accurate) than “Me Kestame Yle Aja...”

All the principal rooms of the new EM2 should be designed with free and easy ingress, but without any convenient or graceful way out. This would facilitate our tradition of “town hall” and “round table” consultative democracy (an ample supply of pedestals and vanity mirrors would also help).

In a more abstract sense, the design should scrupulously avoid or at least draw attention away from any and all rectilinear edges, brass tacks and solid base lines. The upper floor should focus on “up, up and away” motifs, such as sails and clouds, while the lower floors could adopt an earthier decorative theme, such as fern flowers.

Above all, in order to respect our past and project it into the future, the Eesti Maja must preserve its singularly unique corporate structure: a not-for-profit “public benefit” organization with share capital (!?!). New certificates could be printed on absorbent paper and dispensed in the lavatories, thus “killing two birds with one stone” – three, if the newly minted shareholder takes the certificate home or donates it to one of the “four pillars” of our society – thus reducing the environmental footprint of the proposed EM2 and possibly scoring additional densities at City Hall.

My point is that this is just the very beginning of a necessary new adventure – a process that should keep our community frothing for years to come, as the unresolved issues proliferate in every direction with not a single or any easy answer in sight. We all have important roles to play in crafting the resolutions, but only if we learn to accept and agree that compromises are good and necessary. Let’s get on with it.

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

One of my favorite Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood) lines is from the 1973 movie Magnum Force. At the end of the movie, just after Harry has dispatched the last bad guy, he says, "A man's got to know his limitations."

I love this quote because we typically have no clue as to our limitations. We tend to anchor our beliefs in one of two extremes: there's very little I can do or I can do anything! Both beliefs tend to be equally errant. Many people in the process of "self-improvement" vacillate between the two.

From "Cool Hand Luke"
Boss: Sorry, Luke. I'm just doing my job. You gotta appreciate that.
Luke: Nah - calling it your job don't make it right, Boss.

Tõnu Naelapea, your article prompts more questions. Are you sure Eesti Maja can vote all its unsold and non-issued shares? That is not typical for public share corporations and should not be allowed for private share corporations. Somebody once said Eesti Pank only seemed to control Eesti Maja annual meetings because few shareholders ever came out. So what percent of Eesti Maja shares does Eesti Pank own? That should be public knowledge. Wasn’t the overwhelming shareholder support given in 2012 rather than last year as you state? Perhaps the gap in public information sessions explains why many shareholders are asking for more time to understand how we got to the LOI. If the main purpose of Eesti Maja is to provide physical facilities (rather than cultural programs), as the chairman stated Wednesday, then perhaps the cultural groups who deliver the programs to the community should advise the facility provider where they prefer to see a new facility, instead of the reverse? If current parking is deemed inadequate for large events and the new parking lot will be smaller then isn't that a ​disconnect with the larger crowds expected once the new EM2 opens? Or will parking costs encourage many Estos to park for free on the street? If the vote is a done deal as you suggest then why are all ballots marked with bar codes which allow Eesti Maja to see how everyone votes?

In their open letter to the Board of Directors (Estonian Life Jan. 23), a group of “current and active members of the Estonian Community in Toronto” ask that the future of the Estonian House “not be treated simply as a real estate transaction”. The response from the Board (Estonian Life Jan. 26) supports this perception.

"We must move forward at the speed of business in order to protect the viability of the Estonian House in Toronto Ltd. The world will not wait for us to have further academic and philosophical debates of being. Act now to support the Estonian House community, the Estonian Credit Union and all the other key stakeholders who have thrown their unconditional support behind this redevelopment project."

That sums up the mood and the options or should we say imperative of the busy-busy world.
It's all about closing the deal.

What is the (big) deal?

"A decision was made based on the strength of the Tribute offer, a fact that stands on its own and something that is, in the Board's opinion, an irrefutable fact."

"The bottom line is that after much exploration there is simply no other viable way forward. There are no other viable options. We have been looking at this for eight years. We are certain of this. To suggest otherwise is to mislead the community. In particular:

...Every other option is currently unknown [?] and therefore carries with it such substantial risk and delay that the Estonian House in Toronto (sic Ltd.] will be bankrupt if we wait any longer..."

"We applaud the group for raising questions…. They are good questions… And we want the community to understand and feel comfortable with the answers. We also want you to be excited.…”

So, “Can we delay the vote?

The short answer is no. Unfortunately, we cannot delay the vote on this LOI [Letter of Intent]. If we do, the deal will likely die and we have no other options….Please write to the Board or call us with your questions. We will work to answer them before Tuesday so you have complete information. That said, we must proceed."

"Will shareholders have an opportunity to review and vote on the deal before the property is transferred to the partnership?

The short answer to the question is no, since the business deal and path to the end is clearly laid out in the LOI. The only thing that remains is to formalize the business deal in a binding contract. What we are asking the shareholders to vote on is approval of the path to the end."

To what end?

“Tribute must know now that, provided they live up to their end of the bargain (which involves sunk costs well in excess of a million dollars) [of a stated $80 million + project], that the Estonian House has a binding obligation to transfer the land into the partnership.”

What partnership?

“This partnership is in effect only until the completion of the project when final project accounting is completed. After this, Estonian House and the anticipated new Condominium corporation will act as independent entities.”

Remarkable.

Oh, and by the way:

“Estonians will have the first opportunity to purchase the condos that will ultimately be offered to the public – start planning to move in now to what will be a marquee building in Toronto.”

But

“The [Town Hall] meeting was informed of the projected sizes of the units, which seemed rather matchbox-like….” (“A House Divided”)

On related requirements for developers, and how they have met them recently:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

A vacant lot is not unheard of. Developer receives demolition permit without filing to rebuild:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

Thanks for the impressively detailed and informed article.