Why is this Eesti Maja vote being taken one day before the Ontario Municipal Board meets to consider an application on the property that has huge implications for its potential uses and valuations? Looks irresponsible to me because shareholders will not have all the facts required to vote in full knowledge of the legal status of the property. Where is the "prudent financial and risk management" offered while leaving shareholders in the dark?

As if they owned our non-profit.

...for this clear and detailed exposition; necessary, alas, in face of Allan Meiusi's scandalous allegations.
Anyone with a parent in Ehatare would be familiar with Meiusi and his 'modus operandi'. Ehatare was plagued by complaints to the Ministry of Health. They disrupted operations as Inspectors arrived to conduct an investigation. Without exception, the complaints were baseless, so; that proved to be a campaign of gratuitous harassment.
The campaign to destroy Ehatare dragged on for two years and tapered off, slowly, when the campaign to construct a new Eesti Maja gathered momentum.
Then, as now, Meiusi was in the middle of it all. Then, as now, our community newspaper didn't give us detailed, or fair and balanced, reporting.
We should grateful to the Boards of Directors for speaking up at this time.

“Estonian House remains the property with the most risk and least potential for sustainability”.

Why is it being compared?

"This was made clear from the in-depth Estonian House presentation at the Town Hall on March 29th 2017”.

Nothing was made clear. Only the point that three large firms (all working in tandem with developers) had somehow made the general point about sustainability being made here, was hammered, with absolutely no details as to what was supposed to have been studied, with what relevant expertise, and on what basis any specific claims were made. WHY IS THE MADISON GROUP AND/OR THE ESTONIAN HOUSE BOARD UNWILLING TO SHARE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE VALIDITY OF ITS CLAIMS ABOUT ESTONIAN HOUSE?

“Although Mr. Meiusi may have found the presentation overly detailed and unnecessary”,

Using the same generic slides as in 2014, devoid of any pertinent information, was unnecessary, AS IF reviewing a "history", then turning to the new project, AS IF the project manager was new, and AS IF he and the “Group” were not involved in the history of failed projects, then calling lights out at 9:30 pm, and cutting off Q & A for the misnomer of a “town hall” – all that was unnecessary and indeed insulting.

“Finally, Mr. Meiusi suggested in his editorial that the preferred solution is to renovate the Estonian House bit by bit. Perhaps he did not fully comprehend the current circumstances, because in a nutshell, the challenges facing the Estonian House are so great, and the cost of remediation so high, that the building is not salvageable. Expert after expert was consulted to find a way to remediate. Three developers were worked with in succession; none being able to return a rebuilt Estonian House to the community from the proceeds of the development without unacceptable risk to the assets of the Estonian House and at the risk of losing everything.”

How does this paragraph cohere? How does the last sentence fit, since it refers to the failed developer project replacing the Estonian House, and Meiusi, as reported in the first sentence, is talking about renovating Estonian House. AS LONG AS THE ESTONIAN HOUSE BOARD HAS FAILED TO SHARE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FROM A THOROUGH, INDEED FROM ANY, EXPLORATION OF THE OPTION OF RENOVATING, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SEPARATING PROPAGANDA FROM TRUTH. If the Board and the anonymous author(s) of this piece do not see this as essential, they have no business claiming they are representing the interests of the Estonian community. That no doubt is Meiusi’s main point, and the community is grateful for his efforts.

And, regarding that last sentence, WHAT WAS the reason for the failed partnership with Alterra - NOT confusing it with anything else, just in itself? The answer given - "the numbers did not support our going forward". Take that for a response to shareholders who came to the meeting wanting to find out what had happened to what they had last agreed to, in principle.