Condition Worsens at Soho Central Prison?

UPDATE (08/06/13):  In the past you may have read here or at the skyscrapercity forum messages still not copied to this blog regarding the elevators.  Of course, there are the developers, builder and developer controlled Board all with their hands in the mess.  But, there are also the companies hired to maintain and fix and inspect.  There is also the city or other government agencies that have seemingly no knowledge or lack of concern to inspect quickly determining whether we are riding safe elevators when they are working.  Finally, there is Otis.  I had called their headquarters long ago in Connecticut and also spoke to the person in charge here in the Philippines.  Overall I am disgusted with this entire affair.  As a Unit Owner who has been kept in the dark on this and so many other issues, I have complete contempt for the lack of information provided and consistently aggressive action that should have taken place from turnover to get the elevators safe and fully operational.  This is just another disgraceful event for the infamous builder.

 

Condition Worsens at Soho Central Prison?

I thought of several titles but kept coming back to this one given the deplorable condition that is getting worse.  Below is a memo from a signature originating at the PMO.  We assume that it is the Property Management Office and the signature might be the property manager.  Why this was posted in the lobby on the concierge desk without a typed name and official position is unknown.  Please read it very carefully.

Paragraph three has someone or thing create a new law for the nation, I believe.  What law in the Philippines gives Unit Owner rights to tenants?  Once a Unit Owner has a tenant they require the Unit Owner to sign as would a visitor!  Paragraph four further emphasizes this status lumping all Unit Owners who are not residing in the building with all others such as visitors.  Yes, when the 2013 Annual Meeting takes place Unit Owners who do not reside in the building will have to sign in first. 

Is Century Properties leasing required to sign in each morning?  We have never been allowed to see any contract made with them to issue a judgment as Unit Owners.  They are SPAs but are they exempt from the edict?  Meridien, I believe, still has their employees come to Soho Central and they may be seen from time to time in the lobby.  Are they, too, required to sign in?

Will we all have to sign out at some future date for a daily release allowance?

The following citation is from the Rules & Regulations just addressing the common areas.  Of course, the national laws state rights of Unit Owners and not arbitrary management rules as to whether or not property owners transfer rights and power.

"3.3 Use and Maintenance of Common Areas and Limited Common Areas

3.3.1 The Common Areas are for the use of all the Unit Owners. Their use is regulated to enhance community welfare.

 

3.3.2 The Limited Common Areas are intended for the exclusive use of particular Unit Owners or their duly authorized representative. Other Unit Owners shall not obstruct nor interfere with the use of such limited common areas. A limited common area shall be used for the purpose for which it is intended.
 

3.3.3 Only baggage and suitcases are allowed to be unloaded at the building main entrance and brought inside the front lobby. Grocery bags and similar items only allowed at the basement parking areas and brought up to the units via the service elevators.
 

3.3.4 The common areas inside the building premises, especially the floor elevator lobbies, ground floor lobbies, the upper ground floor facilities and basement parking are strictly NO SMOKING areas."

 
The letter that follows is from someone on the Residential Areas Committee (RAC) which is an organ of the Board to someone from Meridien.  That person from Meridien also sits on the Board.  The person that signed the letter did so without their position on the Board noted.  What is written is "Atty."  Well is this person now acting as a lawyer for the Board?  Or, are they acting as a lawyer for the Residential Areas Committee?  The Board has lawyers approved by the Board without full knowledge of the Unit Owners and the Residential Areas Committee has seemingly engaged (hired?) a law firm.  How much is all this costing and what is going on?

None of the Directors on the Board were elected by Unit Owners.  Many still think an election took place.  All members (Directors) of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation Board of Directors were appointed by the Board.  Yes, self appointing.

Both the memo and letter are dated July 26, 2013.  I had written about the problem of the elevators and posted to the blog on the prior day.

I consider the letter a Dog & Pony Show for distraction for what I see as emergency repair not of elevators but the disjointed managing of the property.  Has anyone seen this audit report?  This would not be the first.  Has anyone seen this Undertaking?  Recall, there was a question about legal action at the end of the 2011 Annual Meeting? What was done?  Nothing.  There was an announcement that January 31st of this year would be another deadline and nothing was done.  Many words and no action.

A unit owner at a building in QC had said at a meeting I attended that buildings were required to have a certain number of elevators running for a certain number of units.  Is that just a city rule or national code?

The last paragraph gives another threat.  Let me yawn first before the show continues.

Please read each carefully and pay particular attention to paragraph three of the memo.  It seems an edict above all law has been proclaimed.

 

(Click here for a .pdf of the above memo.) 

 

(Click here for a .pdf of the above letter.)

Bidding

Bidding

Even for small jobs?

The other day I had witnessed a disgusting reply in an exchange between an Owner of units and a member of the Board.  The Unit Owner was showing, once again, the condition of the lobby comfort room (CR) and what needs to be done.  I was not in the CR area when they had part of the talk but heard the conversation when approaching the elevators.

The reply and attitude of the Board member was not a surprise.  The contempt of Unit Owners and apparent disregard of our concerns must end.

It seems that the conversation had the Board member saying something about bidding and the rules, I believe.  I fully support bidding for large costs.  I also support more openness on such matters which does not take place here since everything is done in private and secret meetings.

But, this CR job is small in cost yet they want three bids.  Why three bids?  Why not fix the CR since it is low cost according to the Unit Owner who had a career and knowledge of such work.  Why bids?  I am also concerned about the quality given to us by the illustrious builder.  After all, are not their buildings advertised and promoted with such high regard as was this one.  Now the CR needs the walls replaced.

So many questions and no answers.  So many concerns and no addressing by the Board controlled by the developer.  All that is gotten are words, if that, and rudeness.

UPDATE (08.05.13):  Below are photos taken of the lobby CR.  Well, once again the Soho Central Condominium Corporation of which all Unit Owners are members is fixing or supplying what should have been done or made by that builder surrounded by big names from the US and art work to make themselves feel good.  More of our money for not only mailboxes but poor construction.  When will it end?

Additionally, a Unit Owner once told me she wondered why there was no toilet tissue in the lobby CR since she sees it come in and then up to the 4th floor.  Yes, much money and supplies.  Where does it all go?

EMERGENCY!

UPDATE (07.27.13):  TOP SECRET

Today the elevator situation worsened.  I was entering one of the three remaining elevators that work to one degree or another and two unrestrained dogs were in the car.  I did not enter since the recent dog attack I was told about has me concerned.  I asked the guard on the 4^th floor to make a report in the log book (~10:30am) and he refused.  He then used his radio, and I asked that the head of security come there and nothing happened in that regard, too.  He also gave a smiling smirk.  Nice.  I then went to the lobby and filed a complaint form.  I know futile but further evidence of the mismanagement.

 

Later in the day when I returned after being out for short time, I experienced as many others the third elevator away from the front on the right side not working (~1:50pm).  But, I had packages to bring up and I would return for a photo.  Upon returning the elevator was now working.  Oh, it took 15 minutes for the elevator to arrive to bring me downstairs.  This is now common.

The elevators are now often packed.  Imagine you get stuck on a packed elevator for two hours?  Given the state they have been in since turnover this is a possibility.  I was told when stuck and the electric lights are out there is no natural light.  There are also no fans and no cameras.

I went to the concierge desk asking why the elevator had not been working.  After all, as someone asked, how long before we have to use the stairs?

The head of security came to the lobby area and just stood there until I initiated the conversation and then a talk of evasion and clever remarks took place.  I had to finally explain, as if in sick comedy, that I was not talking about the three elevators on the left but the third one on the right.  He said it was now working and then said they are being worked on reverting back to the three on the left.  I said I wanted to know about the one on the right.  He then went out the doors and asked me to step outside.  Just what I need, to step outside for a possible serious encounter.  No thanks.
 

The photo below is now placed on all three elevators not working.  This was placed there after I had taken pictures yesterday and posted them here.  Rehabilitate to what?  Rehabilitation suggests to the previous condition.  We do not need that.  The previous and current endless condition has been operating without being fully functioning since turnover.

What we need are fully functioning safe elevators that have been inspected.  What we have now been in since 2009 turnover are elevators in a perpetual state of installation.  This is not what Unit Owners purchased.

We have had written and verbal words with threats of legal action.  Action has not taken place to finally repair the elevators from the Board controlled by the developers.

Oh, when talking to those gathered at the elevator after useless talk with the head of security he approached me once again asking me to go outside.  I had asked about the lack of reporting in the log on the 4^th floor, too.  He told me to “shut up.”

Our money paying for trash being spent in secret decided at private meetings.  Everyone must be told the game here so they know our pain.

This photo is the new sign posted on the three elevators on the left side not working.

 

EMERGENCY!

(the elevators)

Perhaps we all should just look the other way.  I know some may have heard as I did that two people were stuck in an elevator for about 2 hours today.  We all thought these repetitive incidents had stopped along with the falling elevator cars, right?

There are many posts about that and even I got to experience the dropping then tripping and almost falling myself leaving an elevator.  Yes, I had called Otis in Connecticut as I reported, spoke to the company here and with mismanagement and the Board.  What has been done?  Nothing.

All we get are words and supposed signed pieces of paper with more words and no action fixing what we now see as dangerous elevators.

The Board holds privates meetings in secret and management are puppets to the Board controlled by the developers.

So should we just look the other way hoping that all will be made good for us after spending so much money?  Let us all whisper about the problems and they will just get solved on their own.  Oh, if the guards come close by speak louder so they may write and report to the management and Board what is said.  That, too, is an interesting experience.

I know why am I spoiling the secret of the Board making like they were the only ones aware of the problems and the only ones supposedly concerned for years and now once again trying to fix what has been attempted so many times before.  Well for all those not here, the following are photos of what has been the regular situation, a lack of full set of elevators we all paid for.  Where the hell did all our money go?

Three elevators not working from left to right:  service elevator not servicing for over one year, middle passenger elevator not working for unknown reasons like all else, elevator that trapped two people.

 

Service elevator and middle passenger elevator

 

 

Middle passenger and current trapping elevator

 

The current trapping elevator

 

The three elevators that work, well function at best, with the middle sometimes used as service elevator for work and dogs.

 

Visitors

Visitors

Yes, security has been poor to non-existent in various aspects of the building from turnover in 2009.  We still do not feel secure given the Board transferred 10 guards from the previous service to the new company, unknown & unseen meetings and contract with other issues such as people coming and going and no one seems to know what to do.  Of course, the four attempted physical assaults and use of bakla against Ryan and FAGGOT against the both of us just adds to the lack of security.  Other xenophobic attacks are noted.

I was told someone had an item missing from outside their unit.  The solution from management is to have all visitors sign in (the norm) exempting Unit Owners and residents, of course.  But the change in those entering the building is to SPAs (those with special powers of attorney) who are either caretakers, friends, relatives or with other relationships to the Unit Owners have also been placed in the visitor category by mismanagement.

The action taken by mismanagement is not to satisfy security involving possible theft but a means to go after SPAs and possibly those who are caretakers specifically.  Theft, after all, has its own history in Soho Central.  I had touched upon some of what we were told took place before we occupied our unit and then afterward.

Why caretakers?  HINT:  who has an office here?

Were any of the thefts and break-ins properly dealt with and reported?  We may never know given all the secrecy.  Funny, Unit Owners are members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation paying dues but denied with defiance full knowledge how our money is spent.

Once again, policies decided at private and secret meetings just compounding the increasing problems in the building.

Pets

Pets

I was told the other day by two different Unit Owners that they recall a different set of Rules & Regulations.  But, one no longer has the original and the other can not find it.  We need a copy of what someone would have gotten as close to turnover as possible.  When were any Rules & Regulations approved by the Board?  Where are the Minutes reflecting this as so much else?

The Rules & Regulations are in the "SCCC - Resident's Building Handbook."  After all, why be consistent and make it easy to discuss and find anything.  You know it is just like the childish game of who and how they want correspondence addressed though they know who to give it to.  Children doing adult work is what we are subjected to at Soho Central.

In the past, we were told no pets allowed.  Former property managers stated this and other Unit Owners also experienced such remarks.  There was one exception for a Unit Owner from what I was told in the past who had their little dog in the building prior to any rule.  At least this was the story I was told at the time.  You can only guess who had the little dog.

After I asked for a copy of the Rules & Regulations in the past, I then saw pets were there and allowed.  What happened to not only the management's declaration but what I heard with Ryan at the only "Steering Committee" meeting we were allowed to attend or notified about via the old website at Weebly?  Yes, another of the many tales that need at least some light to get as much a truthful story as any from this current regime.

What is the wording of the current rule for pets given the odd history others remember, too?

"3.7 Pets
 

3.7.1 Pets that are permitted at the SOHO CENTRAL premises are limited to dogs, cats, birds and fish. These pets are allowed as long as they do not disturb nor cause any harm on others. Each unit is allowed no more than one (1) small dog or one (1) cat and/or a reasonable number of birds and/or fish.
 

3.7.1 Owners should ensure that their pets are always kept in good heath. Dogs are required to have anti-rabies vaccine and a proof of this shall be submitted to the Property Management Office (PMO) every year.

3.7.2 All pets inside the unit should be registered with the PMO.

3.7.3 Pets are to be kept strictly within the confines of the owner’s unit and are not allowed in any of the common areas of the condominium building except only when passing through. Whenever they need to be taken out of the unit, they must always be on leash or similarly restrained, where applicable. The owners of the pets shall ensure that their pets are under the control of the owner/handler and do not cause offensive noise, odors, disturbance, damage and/or injury that presents a danger or nuisance to the condominium residents.

3.7.4 The Unit Owner and/or tenant shall be held responsible for any injury to person or property caused by his pet(s). The pet owner should clean any waste produced by his pet(s) in the common areas of the compound. Pet excrement must be securely bagged and disposed of properly.

 

3.7.5 Pets are not allowed in the lobbies or sitting areas of the buildings.

3.7.6 Pets shall not be walked at the swimming pool area.

3.7.7 Pets should not be kept in the parking areas, roof decks, storage rooms, or other common areas.

3.7.8 Pets shall be moved in and out of the building using the service elevator or stairways only.

Penalties for Violations

3.7.9 The owner of the unleashed or unrestrained pet involved in causing injury to a person or another pet shall immediately be required to remove the pet permanently from the building premises.

3.7.11 When the injury results despite the fact that the pet was leashed or restrained, the PMO will conduct an investigation to determine whether the offending pet should be removed from the building premises. The extent of the injury and the decision of the offended resident to pursue the removal of the pet from the SOHO CENTRAL premises shall be given greater weight versus the efforts made by the owner to restrain the pet or prevent the injury.

3.7.12 The pet owner who does not immediately clean the waste produced by his pet in the common areas shall be penalized with an order of the pet’s immediate removal from the premises.

3.7.13 SCCC reserves the right to require the pet owner to remove from the building premises any pet which has been the subject of any written complaint from a resident or which the Condominium Corporation finds to be a nuisance or danger to the community."

 
A definition of a small dog is needed in weight and height.

Recently, what happened to the dog that attacked in some manner a resident at the elevators?  Were the rules followed?  I was told by a Unit Owner that whoever was in charge of security at the time seemed to have a unconcerned attitude about the situation given his demeanor.

Again, if anyone has a prior (original) set of Rules & Regulations, please give me a copy.

The Agony continues

The Agony continues

Among just some of the agonies Unit Owners and their residents suffer are the elevators.  Recently, we were told of supposed efforts by the Board.  But, this is old news.  It is an old story with no end in sight but more money spent for another study of the problem and no legal actions taken against all those responsible after repeated threats of such action never to emerge.

There are now just three elevators running regularly and the service elevator has not operated for many, many months.  As I have written of many times in the past, without the service elevator wear and tear of the other passenger elevators increase.  So many questions and all we get are secret meetings and surprise decisions.

The wait time for an elevator even when there are not many people seen in the lobby has crossed the line of intolerable.  Are the elevators even safe?  When was the last time anyone saw an inspection notice?  Have they been inspected by the city or some government agency?  What risk is there for passengers?

I have now noted that dogs have priority over people in riding the passenger elevators.  A dog which is not small was allowed with its owners to privately ride.  Did this just start after the attack I was told recently took place?  I will post a separate piece on pets since there is a bit of a story on this topic touched upon in past posts which may also be at skyscrapercity's forum.

I know so many questions and requests for information only met with silence and defiance.  Defiance shoved in the financial faces of all Unit Owners to know what is taking place with their homes and investments.  Defiance placed in our way to discover the whole story without filtering from those with unknown interests.  Defiance against those seeking facts.  Why?

Has anyone questioned the mailbox situation.  Yes, we had questioned this in the past, too.  What has been going on is another secret decision using funds without prior knowledge.  How much to build mailboxes?  Why not buy prefabricated mailboxes?  Was this investigated?  And do I need to tell anyone that we the Unit Owners, I presume, are paying for the mailboxes.  After all, why should the builder/developer have installed them when we spent money for a hyped building?  I know the ads are illusions.

After a Unit Owner had complained many times instructing the staff how to do work unlike the incompetent management, the lobby and outside areas have finally been treated for the mosquito problem we have all experienced.  The situation was worse than being in swamp.  It only took how many years and the constant and now dedicated commitment of a Unit Owner to complain and explain as should have management how to treat the area to stop the sting.  Now, if we could only treat the sting we all feel from the developer controlled building as a whole.

The Big Gun entered the lobby (07/20/13) as I was sitting watching the business of the day.  It attempted to use the elevator until the guard at the elevators saw me watching and then there was a conversation and the Big Gun left the lobby not to return.  At night the Big Gun is normally discouraged to enter as I stand watch still trying to discover the roaming criminals.  As I have written, the Big Gun is meant for us.

Appreciation for time and energy saved and funds spent

UPDATE (07.22.13):  The public reply to our letters continues as seven (7) pages of paper were just delivered on the 35th floor.  They had been making a four page double-sided copy with all 7 pages but this changed.  I guess they wanted Unit Owners to have room for notes on the back.  Once again, for all those that have not received copies go to the 4th admin office and get a copy.  Ryan & I would once again thank the Board for their time and energy saving us money for advertising the online blog and forum.  There has been an increase in readership and responses we very much appreciate.

 

Appreciation for time and energy saved and funds spent

Ryan and I would like to thank the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC) currently constituting a developer-appointed, unelected Board of Directors/Trustees as represented by their Residential Areas Committee for the advertisement of our endless efforts and the recognition of the online forum(s).  There are actually two websites regularly written to with others being posted for information to be clearly understood by many sectors.

The excess time and energy it would have taken to properly gain greater attention was accomplished much more rapidly with the advertisement being free for us though at great cost to the dues paying Unit Owners who are all members of the SCCC.  The burden of the cost for the open letter that is a reply to 17 letters from Ryan & I was lifted from our shoulders and placed on that of the Unit Owners by the Board using its power and authority at their many meetings and subsequent decisions.

We would like to thank Buenhijo F. Diaz (Unit 2719, Buenhijo.Diaz@interpublic.com ), Ma. Zenaida M. Garcia (Unit 3921, ma.zenaida.garcia@gmail.com ), and Ma. Consolacion J. Tiotuico (Unit 1623,  soljay@yahoo.com ) for your time and spending the money to publicize for us.  All three are Directors though their proper designations are not written next to their names on the publicity ad.

Ryan and I would now like to encourage all Unit Owners, members of SCCC, to go to the administration office on the 4^th floor and get your 4-page double sided copy.  There are 886 units, I believe, and you need to get your copy soon.  If there are any questions, please ask us.

There will be a future message with our responses to the reply covering 17 letters from late November early December 2012.  Thank you.

 

---

 

The following are responses to the Open Letter sent by the Board members with SCCC money.
 

The first reply below is a compilation of 9 unit owner messages sent to a list member then sent to the facebook list for SOHO Central.
 

"We would like to thank the 3 who revealed to us the very controversial and much talked about couple, George DeCarlo and Ryan Reyes, who were right in exposing on the blogs what we are not aware of.  We thank them for the effort together with their friends and other owners like us who are so very much disappointed on how our hard earned income is being used to pay the association dues which are manipulated and misused without conscience and consideration nor sympathy for our daily efforts to raise extra money to be able to comply with the responsibility of what is due us investors/owners of Soho Central Private Residences.

We have also seen the pictures of what the lobby looks like, the worn out chairs way back 2009 that already need replacement to give an ambiance of good reception to everyone, the roll up blinds which had not been fix so that it can all be rolled up to conserve electricity wherein payment comes from us unit owners/investors.  The elevator wherein the RAC report stated all their denial and passing on to whoever is responsible.   Our question is - as unit owners are we not all responsible for the building wherein our own units are located?  The 3 who claim to represent us owners are owners themselves however we cannot accept everything that they have written in the RAC due factual information we have been tracking from the blogs and our own relatives and balikbayan owners who confirm what is in the blog.

In addition, the open letter which was scanned and sent to us must only be for your addressee and that the dispute between you 3 and the addressees ought to be dealt with in a professional way AND NOT waste our money to print your answers and response to all of us unit owners/investors.  We condemn your stupid move to spend our earnings paid to association dues, vat and daily interest with a motive to destroy the personalities of Mr George DeCarlo and Ryan Reyes as well as an unidentified broker whom we know since we were present in last year’s annual meeting.  We have been aware of all the issues that transpired through the blog and skycrapercity and we are so disgusted, annoyed and convinced that you 3 are not qualified to represent us owners nor are our Proxy forms to be used to vote or retain you.

from us: names withheld for our own personal reason as the 3 of you too did not specify your designation in that shit open letter

and it is our right to voice out how we all felt for all that you 3 have done to represent us as owners of Soho Central."

***

"To : 3 RAC
From : Owner of 5 condo units at SOHO Central
Re : Refund of Print Out Expenses"

"My husband and I own 5 condo units and spend for Assoc Dues, Vat, Insurance, Common Area Tax plus the daily interest is no joke.  Yes, it is none of your concern since we bought it from Century on the golden promises of having a profitable investment with good management service, high quality facilities, etc.

Upon reading the forwarded comments and grievances from my co-unit owners at Soho, I was so shocked on how you 3 decided to use the funds at Soho Accounting wherein they claim you have rights. What right are you speaking of whereas we were never informed of anything.  We were never told of what plans you have, worst we were not told that you will print out all those oh yes "shit" letters and distribute them to all the units.  Are you insane?  Most of us unit owners are not residing in Soho and we are out of the country trying to earn enough to sustain for our needs. What right have you to use those funds then.  Did you solicit our advice?  Did Accounting email us that you RAC will deduct from the funds and spend it to fight back and destroy or finally crash Mr George de Carlo and Ryan Reyes and others together with them?  Your ill motives have triggered my madness to write this as a petition for you to REFUND to us owners what is due us. Or better still, REFUND TO CEASAR WHAT IS DUE CEASAR!

As for the comments that you are not at all qualified to represent us owners, may I ask. . . who voted for you?  I was informed there was no quorum in last year annual meeting and I even listened to the youtube about it.  And pretty sure you want to find out from Accounting who owned 5 units, then rest back on me and my husband like what you did to George and Ryan.  How old are you guys?  Is being in the RAC something like showbiz?  True enough the comments that you 3 are NOT QUALIFIED to represent us owners must end effective today if I may vote on that, but before you go and keep your mouth shut, please refund all that you spent for that funds came from Accounting and you 3 used our money for your OWN VESTED INTEREST and not for the good of all.

For George and Ryan and your very supportive unit owner friends and others, thank you and we revolt with you against all this CORRUPTION going on in our building.  No one will sit in a position with "hot seat" without receiving any centavo or penny.  That is bullshit!  Please keep on posting what we need to know.  Again our vote is - effective immediately upon reading this letter from us, the 3 must close their doors and work on their own lives and refund every centavo they withdrew from BDO through the approval of our incapable accounting staffs as well as the officers involved.

Same as the others, our names as husband and wife withheld like the 3 without designation in the open letter and whose names are in the picture of the missing chair."

Reply to 2013 Annual Meeting Memo & Proxy

UPDATE (07/16/13):  As I have now discussed the serious concern as far as the Chair obtaining votes due to the form being pushed on to Unit Owners (members), yes, votes obtained by the Chair without the full understanding & knowledge of the form being written with the clever wording will and need to be challenged.  The word and concept of fair and fairness is lacking with the managing of the building and Board.

 

Reply to 2013 Annual Meeting Memo & Proxy

I find it interesting that my email sent to Liza Bautista which she forwarded to the Board Secretary is now answered by the Soho Central Property Management Office.  This office in the building of Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC) which is run by Century Properties Management Inc. does not answer the question as to who wrote the reply.  Who wrote the reply?  The only signature is Soho Central Property Management Office.  There is no such legal entity; it is only a location designation.

Someone needs to also explain to the board secretary that they are not a secretary to this new entity nor Century Properties Management Inc. but are secretary for the Soho Central Condominium Corporation.

The By-Laws do not have “suggested” forms and do not even hint at “suggested” forms.  What the By-Laws have is the required format.  But a new entity calling itself the Soho Central Property Management Office has a warning of validation as a threat.

Their snippy and rude remark on a “forum” for “legal redress” is a clever disarming sick joke.  Their form is a clever ploy giving the appearance of legality to achieve an ends which is more than the By-Laws require.

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/07/annual-meeting-memos-opposition-to-by.html

So there are at least three directors that are supposed to leave the Board but do they want the Chair to have the vote if the Proxy does not show up?  And also notice that the three Greenfield Board members and Meridien member are not on the email just the three unelected developer appointed Unit Owners who participate in private and secret Board meetings as well as Residential Area Committee meetings.  Has anyone seen the Minutes for these new meetings or all the Minutes for the Board as a whole?

As for the emails below, one is for the property manager, three for Directors to the Board who sign without their proper designation for the recent Residential Area Committee report and finally emails of Ryan & I.  A better email for me is sohocentralresident@gmail.com. 

The Board to me always seems to be hiding and meeting somewhere or other and now Liza Bautista has provided additional contact information for them below.  The thread of messages below are, of course, in reverse order from more recent to the initial message.

George DeCarlo

0927 381 9113

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Liza Bautista < mmm.sohocentral@gmail.com >
To: geodecarlo@yahoo.com
Cc: sccpropertymanager.sohocentral@gmail.com ; Buenhijo.Diaz@interpublic.com ; ma.zenaida.garcia@gmail.com ; soljay@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 10:27 AM
Subject: FW: NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

Dear Mr. De Carlo,

As per our Corporate Secretary,

The proxy form and Secretary’s Certificate are the suggested formats. You may or may not accomplish them. You can use any format you want, subject to validation thereof.

We do not wish to argue further with you on the matter but if you are so bent on questioning the proxy form, there is nothing to prevent you from seeking legal redress in the proper forum.

Soho Central Property Management Office

 

From: Liza Bautista [mailto:mmm.sohocentral@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:20 AM
To: 'George DeCarlo'
Subject: RE: NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

Hi Mr. George De Carlo,

Your concern are already forwarded  to our Corporate Secretary.

Thank you.

Liza Bautista

 

From: George DeCarlo [mailto:geodecarlo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:04 PM
To: Liza Bautista
Cc: rize081476@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

Dear Ms Liza Bautista,

The proxy being sent out is not legally recognized under the By-Laws of Soho Central Condominium Corporation.  In fact, last year we had done quite a bit of educating for Unit Owners about this proxy form being passed off as is now being done once again as though it were official in some manner which it is not.  Below is Section 8 of the Bylaws.  Please do not promote such a thing to us again.

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/

By-Laws of Soho Central Condominium Corporation

Meetings of Members

Section 8. Proxy. – Any member or representative as defined in Section 4 hereof, may be represented by a proxy in all the meetings of the members of the corporation. The proxy must be in writing, designating the representative by name, signed by the member or the representative and duly presented to the Secretary for inspection and recording before the opening of the meeting.

Proxies shall be valid only either for the next annual or special meeting after the execution of the proxy or any adjournment thereof. The presence of the member at the meeting shall revoke the proxy heretofore executed by him and such member shall be entitled to vote at such meeting in the same manner and with the same effect as if he had not executed a proxy.

Sincerely,

George DeCarlo & Ryan Reyes

Units 2114 and 3506

--

George DeCarlo

0927 381 9113

 

From: Liza Bautista <mmm.sohocentral@gmail.com>
To: rize081476@yahoo.com; geodecarlo@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:48 PM
Subject: NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING

(This message had the original attachments of the memo and proxy.)

 

UPDATE (07/15/13):  I was sent the following text immediately after posting:

The simple truth is this, (a Unit) Owners' meeting of a condo association is first and foremost mandated to elect an owner represented board of directors or trusties. These officers oversee the conduct and credibility of the owners association, mandate transparency, enter service contracts and other functions to "insure" accountability. This is the main function of this board. Without soliciting persons who wish to be on the board via a pre-meeting request for nominees and having them provide a resume prior to the meeting, then the main function of that meeting is being intentionally avoided to keep control of such board by others.

As I have told our illegal board for the past 2 years, of which they made no real effort to gain a quorum, I could myself handle the process IF I would be given the list of owners and their contact information. The process is to simply send out a solicitation of interested persons, ask that they write a simple cover letter why they wish to be on the board and provide a resume for all owners to review. This is done 90 days prior to the election/meeting. The letters, resumes, list of nominees are then sent to all owners 45 days prior to the meeting (not less than 30 days) along with a proxy for absentee owners. With this process I managed to have a quorum and election of officers 100% of the time despite that 70% of my owners were absentees.

The requirement is only that each nominee must have residency at the property for at least 6 months and 1 day during the election year. Board members can still vote on issues while they are away via email.

This does not take a rocket scientist to figure out. 

[Unit Owner at another Century Properties building and former president of a homeowners association in the US.]

 

A History of Annual SCCC Meetings

A History of Annual SCCC Meetings

While the historical meetings have been fraught with problems, it is important if not critical for this year and future meetings to have Unit Owners who are by law members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC) attend and let their voices be heard and votes cast.  The value of your property depends upon the condition of the building which has been in decline.

more history:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/sccc-by-laws-official-announcement-2013.html

2009 -  Where and when was the announcement for and subsequent meeting?  Turnover was in June 2009 and the By-Laws call for an annual meeting on the last Friday in August.  Even though the time was short and possible quorum questionable, it is critical to follow the By-Laws, Master Deed and nation's laws.  Violations start from the beginning.

While the By-Laws and Master Deed were written by the developers for their own purposes, we may amend and change them for values to increase.  There are many serious problems and issues that have not been properly addressed and explained.  Currently, the vote of the commercial part of the building is equal to that of the residential even though they pay 26.5 pesos per square meter compared to 65 pesos per square meter for residential.  They have three seats reserved for them on the Board to which they may nominate.  BUT, RESIDENTIAL UNIT OWNERS MAY VOTE NO TO ALL THEIR NOMINEES FOR THE BOARD!  WE DO NOT HAVE TO SIT THEIR CHOICES.

2010 - The annual meeting was canceled by an employee of Century Properties Management Inc. in violation of the By-Laws and our rights as Unit Owners who are members of the SCCC.

more history:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/evidence-of-knowledge_4.html

2011 - There was a walkout of the Board and no subsequent meeting was announced as required by law.

more history:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/04/steering-committee-sccc-board.html

additional history and the law:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/04/title-iii-section-24-of-corporate-code.html

2012 - There was a declaration of lack of quorum after the meeting was illegally moved from the date as required in the By-Laws.  So all those that may have been in the building or area for the required date were denied a legal presence.  Those that came to the building or area if living elsewhere were treated as garbage with the illegal move.

This infraction also violates the corporate code since that is where the date of the annual meetings are defined:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/title-vi-section-50-of-corporate-code.html

Remember last year and how we as Unit Owners were treated?  Look back in the messages and notice the security guard facing the Unit Owners even though it was us who were abused.  Yes, even though I have now had three attempted attacks upon me by Board members, I expect the guards to face us and not them.  It is them we need protection from due to their past actions against us.

The first couple of minutes hard to hear since speaker was not speaking up enough.  The full audio of the short meeting may be found here: http://youtu.be/UCPGudoU2MY or here http://soundcloud.com/sohocentral/soho-central-agm-2012

2013? - This year does not appear to be off to a good start.  I was asked by a Unit Owner from South of Market (SOMA) if there was solicitation for candidates for the Board's election.  I replied, "Your joking, right."