Extra Parking - Extra Costs

Never once in 20 years had snow been shoveled from our driveway by the strata corporation while extra parking in extra long driveways like Mr. Mac's were secretly costing extra money for snow removal a LOT extra - paid for by those with blisters from shoveling - and those who have no driveway parking at all.

The whole of the circumstances during more than 30 years living here convinces me that parking disparaties, garage conversions, added skylights, and extra decks should all be FUNDED MORE FAIRLY - with corresponding user fees implemented in accordance with the Strata Property Regulation 6.9 to cover the extra costs in relation to their existence, and the extra benefits and exclusive use of common property exceeding unit entitlement on the strata plan and proportionate property taxes and strata fees.

For example, an average monthly fee of $50 for 17 extra decks on common property over 30 years comes to over $300,000 less in special levies and strata fees.

 I would not mind if the strata shoveled driveways for the 500 series when others had to shovel their own if they paid the extra cost instead of seccretly offloading it onto others, contrary to the best interests of the strata corporation, in order to avoid having to pay reasonable user fees.

I'm all for making the best use of property also, but I'm vehemently opposed to unjust enrichment in contravention of the law. I don't like paying the price attributable to Unit 208's carport conversion, the extremely intrusive extra deck, and common property unlawfully taken for the exclusive use and enjoyment of Unit 208 when the land is worth more than 4  times the building, and I have to pay 30% more in taxes and strata fees than they do. They take more and pay less, while I get less than I bargained for and am persistently deprived of repairs and maintenance and retaliated against relentlessly for complaining.

Extra Speed Bumps - Extra Problems I know this is not about parking - but whose idea was it to install speed bumps on the hills right after that winter with so much snow? Does anyone KNOW THE NAME of the person and WHERE THEY LIVE - to find out whether it is someone who will have to TRY TO MAKE IT SAFELY UP THE HILL AND OVER THESE SPEED BUMPS IN THE SNOW themselves? I suspect not. In fact, I would not be surprised if Mr. Mac didn't plant the seed for this idea. It fits his pattern. Obviously, I disagree with positioning speed bumps on hills. From what I've seen over the years it makes better sense, in my opinion at least, to add warning signs to KEEP RIGHT around the hairpin turn. Especially if safety is a genuine concern - rather than imposing added dangers in snow. After all the snow that fell in the winter of 2008-2009, I don't know what reasonable person would make a motion to install speed bumps on these hills - unless they were somehow misled - especially when the scars from speed bumps that were installed on the hills and had to be removed previously are still showing. I really don't know who would deliberate on the matter and vote to approve such a motion; nor do I know the date of the meeting where the motion and vote for this decision can be found in the minutes. I hope the council did not just allow a strata manager or paving worker or one of its members to add more speed bumps anywhere at all. In fact, if these added speed bumps are just another arbitrary decision by persons unknown, with no authorizing vote in the minutes, then they would seem to be a mistake that should be corrected, sooner, rather than later.

2010 - Parking Issues

From: Dianne Bond
Subject: Parking Violation Complaint
To: info@fraserpm.ca
Received: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 10:21 PM

At 4:48 pm today my husband and I had to swerve into the lane for oncoming traffic to avoid hitting Al MacLeod's van which was parked at the end of the hairpin curve on the wrong side of the firelane with the door open while he was visiting unit 405.

He smiled and waved as we drove around his vehicle.

Please let me know what action is being taken to enforce the parking bylaws with respect to each of my 2 current complaints.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


March 28, 2010
Via Fax: 1-604-854-1754
Attention: Donna Blight, Strata Secretary
Re: Bylaw Violations

Yesterday my life was endangered as I was forced to travel into the lane for oncoming traffic on the blind curve because a young Asian man was parked in the middle of the hairpin. I yelled at him to move, telling him he could not park on a hairpin curve. I waited for him to move; warning of the danger to any oncoming traffic by honking while he appeared to be sending text messages on his phone and other owners came to watch. He stayed parked in the middle of the hairpin until a young Asian woman finally came out of unit 403, put her belongings in the trunk, got in the car, and off they went.
Since Al MacLeod flagrantly and blatantly violates the bylaws others think they can be just as lawless. From the driver’s astonishing refusal to move I assume 403 had a good view of Al parking on the hairpin and in the firelane to put up his open house signs and think they are entitled to do so also. Please impose the maximum fine.

______________________________________________

Another Hazardous Parking Nuisance

From: Dianne Bond
Subject: Another Hazardous Parking Nuisance
To: info@fraserpm.ca
Received: Sunday, April 18, 2010, 11:42 PM

Re: NW2671 - Sunridge Estates
______________________________________________

Here is another photo of Al MacLeod's van parked in the firelane and obstructing the path into our driveway while visiting unit 410 on March 20, 2010, when he could have parked in their driveway far more safely and respectfully.

Although I didn't have the time or energy to complain on March 20, what bothers me so much about Mr Mac's flaunting the bylaws and creating various parking hazards and obstructions on an ongoing basis while both on and off council - is me being awakened so unreasonably when my husband returns from work at 2 a.m. - because in spite of our creating no hazardous nuisance Mr Mac threatens to fine us if our car extends into the firelane the slightest bit.
It is hard for me to get back to sleep after the garage door opens and closes right below our bedroom. As a result, I have to go to work sleep deprived, very upset, and dangerously impaired.

Mr MacLeod's parking in the firelane sets a terrrible example, it needlessly creates all kinds of hazardous nuisances and violates our bylaw 4 a. Please fine him for each violation until he stops.

Parking Practices

2009
Prior to 2004 parking was a practical matter that was seldom an issue. It became a big problem when Mr. Mac came along and zealously stopped owners from parking in their own driveways and threatened to tow us or fine us if our car extended the least bit beyond - far short of creating a hazard pursuant to our bylaws.

Yet Mr. Mac recognized no rules for himself - not for parking - or safety. He acted like he was above the law and did not begin to demonstrate an understanding that he is not by some divine right magically exempt from all the rules - until the photos and reports on this blog exposed his behaviour.

Besides just parking in the firelane whenever he felt like it, Mr. Mac left his van parked in the middle of the hairpin corner, in spite of the danger. He also deliberately left it parked across our driveway, creating a complete obstruction.

Finally, after almost all the units had been sold by others for years and what had looked like a permanent boycott of his listing services began to fade, Mr. Mac suddenly created more serious parking problems with his real estate activities than we had previously experienced in decades.


























































It took quite a while after I posted photos of his behaviour on this blog before Mr. Mac finally began improving his conduct - an improvement which was very noticeable, but not long lasting or consistent. He retaliated and perversely blamed me for sharing the facts of his damaging misconduct; requesting a motion to meet with lawyers and sue for my strata blogs.
Mr. Mac told owners who had NEVER created a hazard that they would be towed; while Mr. Mac himself created GENUINE HAZARDS repeatedly, in blatant violation of the bylaws.

Changing the bylaw that violators WILL be towed to MAY be towed seemed like his attempt to somehow solve the discrepancy between his conduct and enforcement via the magic of distraction and manipulation. To heck with safety and respect, or reason.

It cannot be emphasized too much that council repeatedly ignored my reports of Mr. Mac's misconduct, and it was not until I exposed some of his parking practices on this blog that I saw him start to obey ANY parking rules.


Double standards like that might be easier for me to accept if Mr. Mac had not for so many years forced my husband to wake me up when coming home from work by opening the garage door - in the middle of the night - just so his little Protege would not overhang our driveway by so much as an inch.

Parking Bylaws

The minutes show a dramatic increase in parking problems started when most owners - who were traditionally allowed to park harmlessly in the driveways in front of their units for years - were suddenly prohibited from doing so. The bylaw had not changed, only its interpretation, making it corruptly distorted.

The bylaw itself seems clear and reasonable:
36.7 Strata lot Owners and Renters may park automobiles adjacent to their strata lot as may be accommodated in their carport driveway. An automobile shall not extend into the roadway proper to the extent that it will create a hazard.

Parking problems were seldom, if ever, found in the minutes until Mr. Mac took it upon himself to become a parking dictator. He changed the interpretation of the discretionary words "may be" into the strict and mandatory words "shall be" and changed the traditional and reasonable meaning of "accommodated" in their driveway into "fit entirely within" their driveway, all of which contradicted the 2nd sentence.

The 2nd sentence: "An automobile shall not extend into the roadway proper to the extent that it will create a hazard." had always been the prevailing rule until Mr. Mac ignored both reason and precedent.

He twisted and manipulated the interpretation of this parking bylaw into such perverse and unrecognizable terms that a car parked in a driveway was strictly prohibited from protruding by so much as an inch. Meanwhile he recklessly generated caravans of cars, trucks, and obstacles parked entirely in the firelane - creating obvious obstacles and easily preventable hazards.

This change in parking policy created a detriment to many, which could never be shared by Mr. Mac, living alone, with his extra long driveway. He alone was the only parking fanatic. He imposed rules on others that he ignored himself.

Our garage door, being right below our bedroom, disrupts my sleep each night my husband has to park inside the garage - which imposes a personal hardship on me that is noteworthy and enduring.

March 30, 2009 - our strata's parking bylaws read as follows:

36 Parking
...
36.7 strata lot Owners and Renters may park automobiles adjacent to their strata lot as may be accommodated in their carport driveway. An automobile shall not extend into the roadway proper to the extent that it will create a hazard.
...
36.13 Any vehicle which does not comply with paragraph 39.6 will be removed at the Owner's expense.
**** On April 9, 2008, Bylaw 36.13 was amended, and filed in the Land Title Office under number BB657476 on April 28, 2008, to change the mandatory word "will" to the discretionary word "may," as follows:
36.13 Any vehicle which does not comply with paragraph 36.6 to 36.12 and 36.14 may be removed at the Owner's expense ****


It is interesting to note that 36.7 was NOT amended to change the words "may be accomodated" to "shall fit entirely within" nor was "to the extent that it will create a hazard" deleted to conform to Mr. Mac's oppressive bullying tactics.

Parking Violations

When Mr. Mac finally got another real estate listing in this complex after what looked to us like a 3-year boycott by the original owners he conducted himself in such manner as to attract the most attention possible by parking in the middle of the hairpin curve to put up his sign. Even negative attention seems to be a better strategy than being ignored when it comes to advertising when bylaws or safety are not an issue. For specific examples:

Jan-24.09
Saturday, January 24, 2009, just before 2 pm
Larry and I saw Mr. Mac putting up an Open House sign
and Larry honked at him because Mr. Mac
had left his van parked in the firelane
almost, if not EXACTLY, in the middle of the narrow hairpin turn with safe visitor parking only a few feet away. Had we not kept to the right we could have hit him. Unfortunately we didn't have a camera with us but the danger of a collision and personal injury was so immediate that I submitted a report to council. Council did nothing.

Just 4 days later at a meeting of owners
Mr. Mac said that if one bylaw was enforced
then all bylaws must be enforced

He didn't laugh a bit
he only smiled and waved at me
the next time I saw him parking in the firelane,
in a somewhat SAFER location at least.

This time I did have a camera. I took this photo at about 2:45 on Sunday, February 15, 2009. If you click on the image to enlarge it you see Mr. Mac's vehicle parked on the left with Mr. Mac getting into it. The other vehicles are visiting another realtor's open house. To get around the hairpin we had to first thread our way through this dangerous maze at its entrance. Council still did nothing.














Perhaps we need a new bylaw to provide realtors with a sign pointing to the visitor parking (inexpicably referred to in 2008-09 minutes as "back out" spaces) and heavy fines on owners who park in the firelanes, or who permit their visitors to do so. When bylaws are so corruptly manipulated, as they have been here, there is nothing to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief.
















So why did all owners have to respect parking bylaws
except for the exceptionally privileged Mr. Mac?













Council permitted him to violate the bylaws and
willfully and needlessly block driveways with his vehicle













and bring others with him to obstruct the firelane













All this was repeatedly allowed by council
in spite of the hazards or the bylaws or owner protests.

I know I must apologize for ranting so much about Mr. Mac. But I just can't help it. I don't think that owners should have to post blogs because complaints to council get results like these:

1. Council ignored my first complaint about Mr. Mac blocking our driveway and having a caravan parked in the firelane. Instead it repeatedly defamed me in the minutes, allowing Mr. Mac to accuse me of assault - falsely and maliciously.
2. The minutes dismissed my next complaint about Mr. Mac parking right in the very middle of the hairpin curve.
3. The next time we caught him parking in the firelane he smiled and waved, but at least he was now parking on either side of the hairpin instead of right in the middle of it.
4. The parking hazards increased in frequency and volume until it became a real zoo - as this resident realtor was allowed to flaunt bylaws and safety - in fact and in minutes - other realtors just followed suit.

When council provokes others to join a scoff law community by ignoring complaints about the first owner who flaunts the rules and by dismissing such dangers in the minutes and victimizing the reporter with defamatory attacks, a future collision would probably not be just an "accident" - it most likely would be deemed to be a foreseeable and preventable event contributed to by council's actions.

Having worked in personal injury law I am aware that a catastrophic accident can take place in less than a second - and result in a lifetime of pain and total disability that no amount of money can make whole again - notwithstanding the astronomical cost of future care requirements. I am also aware of how the manner in which my complaint concerning Mr. Mac's dangerous parking practices was handled in the minutes could adversely affect liability and insurance issues.

If the strata corporation wants to dismiss safety concerns, harass whistle blowers, and brag about exploiting voluteer labour and paying elderly owners in frail health to climb around on rooftops - as it has done - the strata corporation's liability insurance for personal injury should probably be increased. I would say to several million dollars, or at least enough to provide a level of protection for injury that is higher than we have provided to the over-insured strata agents and councillors who act without responsibility for the enormous damages flowing from wrongful abuse of power.

Good rules are reasonable, universal, and consistently enforced. Our original parking rules met these criteria; the new ones don't. The parking policies that Mr. Mac invoked were the direct opposite - in every way - and wrecked more havoc than I could ever imagine.













To avoid creating unreasonable hazards - council, strata management, contractors, realtors, and visitors must not be allowed to park in the firelane needlessly - no more than owners are.














The driver of this vehicle told me he left it parked in the firelane because strata managment had not mentioned any parking rules and he thought it would be a convenient place to have his lunch.

Take it from me. Over the years volunteer strata councils have exercised power and been led into all kinds of corrupt behaviour.

Double standards that single out certain owners as being less privileged than others make it hard to say thank you to some of these volunteers - especially when you are the one singled out for recklessly unfair treatment.

When volunteers are driven by a self-centered agenda and cause irrepairable harm out of malice or negligence it becomes impossible. No matter how much time and effort some of them may have put into their own little power trips.

Self-Interest

Mr. Mac repeatedly claimed that some people go on council out of self-interest, and he made repeated claims that self-interest is not tolerate , kind of like saying black is white and apples are oranges.

If acting in self-interest was not tolerated we would expect him to disclose the cost to clear snow from long driveways along Rambler way, and disclose that one of these long driveways is in front of his unit. We would expect the same disclosure associated with the costs of the extra decks, one of which is his. We would expect disclosure of the $6,000 of strata funds spent on his new fireplace. We would wonder why he proposed frivolous and vexatious amendments to the bylaws instead of a bylaw to implement user fees for his extra deck as I, for one, requested.

We don't know how a realtor cannot call it self-interest to take a corresponding increase in the value of a unit with a double long driveway and free extra parking and free extra deck, which parking is effectively not allowed in the driveways or firelanes in front of other units, who must pay correspondingly more so that he can avoid paying fair and reasonable user fees.

Mr. Mac repeatedly cited the essential need not to create a hazard when invoking his draconian parking policies in spite of the hazards that he himself repeatedly created in his own self-interest by parking in the firelane and all the damaged garage doors reported in the minutes since this change in policy and then trying to make owners responsible for repairs to common property garage doors that were accidentally damaged under such circumstances is more in the interests of a bully than the owners'.

It does not mesh with the lack of owner responsibility for repairs to common property extra decks that were built illegally. In view of the whole of the circumstances it seems obvious who was acting on council in their own self-interest.

Mr. Mac has a lot to answer for. He has told me that I am vile and despicable for challenging him. He has indicated that he had a right to act against me. He said he would not allow me to serve on council. Undermining my character and credibility seems essential to his own self-interest. I have been defamed to the degree that a bit of a hate group seems to have formed. When I introduce myself to owners I have never met, the first thing they ask is if I broke a gate that I never go near and didn't know was broken.

The minutes state over and over that an owner identified as either my husband and/or myself has been charged with assault. These claims are all untrue. Every one of them. Neither of us have ever been charged with assault.

Mr. Mac lied to the owners when he told a meeting he was a surprised as anyone to have a leaky condo. If he told the police that I kicked him, he lied about that too. Then he lied to the world, for months, repeatedly reporting non-existent assault charges in his minutes - reports that made me wonder who had assaulted him - until the minutes finally named our strata lot.

The truth is that I objected to Mr. Mac parking across our driveway when I had to get to work and he rudely ignored my questions and threatened me to charge me (with what I can't imagine) if I did not back away and allow him to simply bully right past me. He was acting like such a spoiled-brat bully that I told him to go ahead and spontaneously tousled his hair for a moment, very lightly, nothing else, even though his actions and words seemed deliberately designed to provoke a much stronger reaction to his childish prank.

In response to Mr. Mac's accusations I went to the police and asked if he could charge me with assault for touching his hair as I did. The officer I spoke to told me that Mr. Mac had claimed that I kicked him and that he had a witness - a witness of what I don't know, but whatever it was, it was not of me kicking or assaulting Mr. Mac - so his credibility must have been pretty poor. In any case, Mr. Mac could not, and the police would not, charge me with assault for tousling his hair as I did.

The reports against us in the minutes are untrue, malicious, and defamatory - and will continue to speak in the official record of the strata corporation forever. We believe this is an unconscionable abuse of power which is damaging to us. Yet not one member of council ever once asked either my husband or me anything about the matter.

We think that repeatedly making claims of assault and vandalism in the minutes serves no purpose beyond malicious defamation. It adds further and needless damage to the reputation of this complex and looks bad to prospective purchasers.

We don't know who, if anyone, was vandalizing individual units, other than that it was not us.

We do, however, know that it is no secret who exactly vandalized all the rest of the common property; illegally cutting down trees and tearing out most of the bushes and ground cover, ignoring the restrictive covenants and all my geotechnical warnings. Sorry, but we just can't thank you for such devastating and ongoing damage.