Kommentaarid on kirjutatud EWR lugejate poolt. Nende sisu ei pruugi ühtida EWR toimetuse seisukohtadega.
VanemadUuemad
As a shareholder I am formally requesting that you spare us from another 1 hour repeat power point presentation. Our time is just as valuable as yours. If you have to, I recommend that you put this regurgitated presentation onto the EWR site for all to view at their leisure PRIOR to the AGM. The shareholders wish to spend time discussing pertinent issues not look at your power point.
Kia Puhm faced shareholders who came to find out what had happened to the last deal they had agreed to, and she said only "the numbers did not support our going forward", while projecting on screen the same "Progress to Date" visual used in 2014, the one with the graphic of a Large Upward Pointing Arrow. Failures do not exist in corporate -speak. The 2014 "Progress to Date" slide identified a LOI (Letter of Intent) and "Preliminary Work" by Ernst & Young (2009), Turner & Townsend (2010), and Cushman & Wakefield (2012), towards RFQ/RFP and an EM 2. The 2017 "Progress to Date" slide, the same visual of the Large Upward Pointing Arrow but with less text, identified several shareholders' agreements, (and an EM2).
The decision to treat the EM as "obsolete" was fateful, and it should not be shrouded in mystery. It is not the value of the house but the value of the land that has been of interest to developers, as land anywhere in southern Ontario is increasingly exorbitantly expensive to acquire. Broadview-Danforth is a good location, with the Relief Subway Line coming to the Pape and Danforth "Hub", one of those favoured for intensification by City Planning. At the same time, the real amount of land to work with at the Estonian House for the good of the Estonian community is much greater than what is available at the edges of the parking lot at the Tartu College site which the sale of the Estonian House is intended to support.
What should have been on a slide are the exact reasons, given by what authorities, their relevant qualifications, and on what basis, for deciding as far back as 2009 to treat the EM as "obsolete". Curiously Raivo Remmel switched from Estonian (for the EM Põhikiri etc.) to English to make this very point, repeating it with reference to each of the expensive studies by corporate giants – accounting (E & Y), capital projects (T & T), and real estate (C & W) - cited in the 2014 Progress to Date slide going forward, but now hammering home the point about EM being "obsolete".
It is not the location of the EM per se that matters to many Estonians, although a recent spoof of the sale of Tartu College did attempt to make them out to be cantankerous oldsters or far-flung yuppies fixated on preserving and serving themselves, but rather the ownership of the land and the house and what it is possible and necessary to do on the available land for the good of the community as a whole.
Zoning height and use restrictions, neighbourhood opposition, and heritage designations have been issues for “development” at the Estonian House and Tartu College/VEMU locations. They are a regular part of the cost and the time frame (part of the huge cost of financial management), built into the projects of developers. Estonian House has been embroiled. To embroil is to involve deeply in an argument, conflict, or difficult situation; to bring into a state of confusion or disorder. Was it necessary? Is there a better way out?
The decision to treat the EM as "obsolete" was fateful, and it should not be shrouded in mystery. It is not the value of the house but the value of the land that has been of interest to developers, as land anywhere in southern Ontario is increasingly exorbitantly expensive to acquire. Broadview-Danforth is a good location, with the Relief Subway Line coming to the Pape and Danforth "Hub", one of those favoured for intensification by City Planning. At the same time, the real amount of land to work with at the Estonian House for the good of the Estonian community is much greater than what is available at the edges of the parking lot at the Tartu College site which the sale of the Estonian House is intended to support.
What should have been on a slide are the exact reasons, given by what authorities, their relevant qualifications, and on what basis, for deciding as far back as 2009 to treat the EM as "obsolete". Curiously Raivo Remmel switched from Estonian (for the EM Põhikiri etc.) to English to make this very point, repeating it with reference to each of the expensive studies by corporate giants – accounting (E & Y), capital projects (T & T), and real estate (C & W) - cited in the 2014 Progress to Date slide going forward, but now hammering home the point about EM being "obsolete".
It is not the location of the EM per se that matters to many Estonians, although a recent spoof of the sale of Tartu College did attempt to make them out to be cantankerous oldsters or far-flung yuppies fixated on preserving and serving themselves, but rather the ownership of the land and the house and what it is possible and necessary to do on the available land for the good of the community as a whole.
Zoning height and use restrictions, neighbourhood opposition, and heritage designations have been issues for “development” at the Estonian House and Tartu College/VEMU locations. They are a regular part of the cost and the time frame (part of the huge cost of financial management), built into the projects of developers. Estonian House has been embroiled. To embroil is to involve deeply in an argument, conflict, or difficult situation; to bring into a state of confusion or disorder. Was it necessary? Is there a better way out?
Kommentaarid sellele artiklile on suletud.