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:
- 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.
- The minutes dismissed my next complaint about Mr. Mac parking right in the very middle of the hairpin curve.
- 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.
- 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.
