Plan, plan and plan some more

QUESTION: Is Stonewall Central a better name for the property?
UPDATE (click): 2012 Audited Financial Statements
UPDATE (click): 2013 Annual Meeting packet
UPDATE (click): 2013 Special Meeting packet

AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ANALYSIS 2009-2012 (click): A CPA analysis of SOHO Central Condominium Corporation's Audited Financial Statements

The Fantasy Vision

Does everyone remember this among the wonderful ads and brochures and how about the salespeople and what they told us. I hear such fantasies continue. So after watching and remembering, cry and then laugh at the truth that is being exposed.









And, if the above is not enough and you need elevated blood pressure, here is the project's brochure.

Many posts are still issues and need to be read once again. At this main hub of postings watch for new posts and updates. Please get involved by spreading the word as to the issues here. We must document all that is taking place. Many documents need retrieval and assistance is needed in getting them scanned and posted.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Non-Answer to 17 Personally Sent Letters

Non-Answer to 17 Personally Sent Letters


All of the letters may be easily seen at the right on this blog page by clicking each link.

Many have already seen this 7-page "Open Response to George De Carlo and Ryan P. Reyes Unit 2114" from copies paid for by members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC) to our personally paid for 17 letters that are still not answered.  As we have stated, we have been relieved of a financial burden for greater publicity to our exposure.  The cost has now been approved and acted upon by the RAC of the Board of Directors.  This non-answer has given greater exposure showing the extreme faults of the managing of the building while announcing the online forum.  Actually, there are two main forums that are easily discovered for those who now know.

Their accusations of the meeting that I discovered by accident is not fully described but why should history be written correctly.  Speaking loudly for responses that have been refused since late November early December was needed since nothing else had worked.  They write "you claimed you wrote."  Is this trying to paint me as a liar?  Those letters were delivered and stamped received at the administration office for delivery to the parties addressed.  You write "We have asked the Property Management Office to give us copies of all letters you wrote."  Does this mean that once the letters were stamped received on various dates they were not delivered by Century Properties Management, Inc.?  If so, why are they still employed in the building?

We had given copies of all letters for the parties addressed.  These matters are still not answered and your declaration to "not engage with you further on the matters covered by your letters" is a perfect example of a lack of concern to the Unit Owners who are members of the SCCC.  Again, after delivery and time waiting many requests were made even my reading all the letters one afternoon in the administration office out of frustration from the mismanagement of the building.

more comments to come...



this will take time so more to come...

(Click here for a .pdf of the Non-Answer.)

Cash

Cash

For an anecdotal comparison to another condominium corporation, I was given the following information for Corinthian Executive Regency, Inc. which is on the other side of Ortigas.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

 
2009
2010
2011
2012
Soho Central
 3,307,004
 3,787,145
 9,341,452
 ?
Corinthian
 ?
 ?
7,827,339
9,615,107

Soho Central 886 residential units @ 65 pesos per square meter (ppsm) for residential; 26.5 ppsm reduced from 41 further reduced from 65 for three commercial floors by the unelected Board

2009 and 2010
 
2011
 
2012

Corinthian 924 residential units @ 50 ppsm plus VAT for residential; 50 ppsm plus VAT for 24 commercial units

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Master Deed Rules if legal Not the current edict

Master Deed Rules, if legal, Not the current edict


The Master Deed which may be amended, cannot be changed by a rule created by unelected Directors assigned to a committee.  The circular at bottom needs to be compared word for word to the Master Deed and evaluated.  Section 7 a and b are the sections pertaining the new edict.  It is always best to start from the source and then compare to the distorted version.

from the Soho Central Condominium Corporation Master Deed:

Section 7.  DISPOSITION, MORTGAGE AND/OR LEASE OF UNITS

a)  The Units may be acquired and leased or disposed of subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 4726, otherwise known as the Condominium Act and other applicable laws and regulations that the Condominium Corporation shall validly promulgate, from time to time.  No transfer or conveyance of a Unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the pertinent membership in the Condominium Corporation will cause the alien interest in such Corporation to exceed the limits imposed by existing laws;

b)  Except in case of transfer by hereditary succession, no Unit owner or purchaser may effectively transfer, sell or dispose of his Unit to any person or entity without first offering the same to the existing Unit owners and purchasers of the project through the Condominium Corporation.  The Unit owner or purchaser intending to sell or dispose of his Unit shall give to the Condominium Corporation a written notice of such intention, including therein the price and such terms and conditions of the sale.  Within (5) days from receipt of the notice, the Condominium Corporation shall furnish a copy thereof to all existing Unit owners/purchasers.  Any Unit owners interested in purchasing the Unit under the terms as provided in the notice shall, within ten (10) days from his receipt of the notice, tender his written acceptance thereof to the Condominium Corporation.  In case there are two (2) or more Unit owners/purchasers who tendered their acceptance, the selling Unit owner/purchasers shall have the option to choose the buyer from among those who tendered their acceptance.

If within the ten (10) day period as provided, the Condominium Corporation fails to receive any acceptance from any of the Unit owners/purchasers, the selling Unit owner/purchaser may proceed to offer his Unit to any person or entity under the same price, terms and conditions as contained in the notice or even better.  The same procedure shall be observed in the event the selling Unit owner/purchaser is unable to sell his Unit and is forced to offer the same at a lower price and/or substantially modified terms and conditions.

The foregoing provision on transfer or sale of Unit shall not be applicable to the transfer and sale of Units by the DECLARANTS."

You will note changes in the edict below from the wording in the Master Deed above.  To start, Number 1 has changed "written notice" to "formal written offer."  This is not appropriate to change wording from such an important document.  They then compound this problem by stating that the offer be submitted to the "Property Management Office (PMO)."  The Master Deed states that the notice be given to the "Condominium Corporation."

Number 2 violates the Master Deed which states "Within (5) days from receipt of the notice, the Condominium Corporation shall furnish a copy thereof to all existing Unit owners/purchasers."  The limitation placed in the edict is contrary to the Master Deed.

Number 3 also has a violation of the Master Deed.  The Master Deed states "Any Unit owners interested in purchasing the Unit under the terms as provided in the notice shall, within ten (10) days from his receipt of the notice, tender his written acceptance thereof to the Condominium Corporation."  No mention is made as in the edict "...or at price, terms or conditions better than those stated in the written offer..."  I would also exercise extreme caution with their use of the word "compelled" when the Master Deed uses words such as "intending" and "tender."  It is not wise to be legally creative in such matters.

Number 4 also changes the manner upon which the Unit Owner may make a decision.  The Master Deed states "... the selling Unit owner/purchasers shall have the option to choose the buyer from among those who tendered their acceptance."  This is changed in the edict to "... it is the prerogative of the selling unit owner to select between or among said interested unit owners."

Number 5 contains several problems.  Besides the change of wording from "... fails to receive any acceptance from any of the Unit owners/purchasers ..." in the Master Deed to "... no unit owner signifies his intention to purchase the unit offered for sale ..." in the edict, the ten (10) days waiting period in the Master Deed shall be "receipt of the notice" and has nothing to do with a bulletin board but does make specific mention to the "furnish (of) a copy thereof to all existing Unit owners/purchasers."  No certification from the PMO is required or stated in the Master Deed.  What is stated in the Master Deed to this respect may be read above in the second paragraph under b).

Number 6 uses the "formal" wording contrary to "written notice."  There is also the obvious and another curious change.  The Master Deed states "The same procedure shall be observed in the event the selling Unit owner/purchaser is unable to sell his Unit and is forced to offer the same at a lower price and/or substantially modified terms and conditions."  The edict deletes the phrase " substantially modified" before terms or conditions.

This edict is not information or guidance acceptable when compared to the Master Deed.




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


Further to the comments above, there are some additional concerns such as Unit Owners who sold units since turnover but never followed the Master Deed or told to.  Why was this ignored by all those individuals and entities managing the SCCC?  In fact, could not those now selling sue all those involved since they are now compelled to do what others did not and now suffer?  Could not any Unit Owner sue since the Master Deed was ignored?  True, the clause in the Master Deed is not even enforceable but I will leave that for the Annual Meeting or government hearing or court where I would explain the serious problem with the requirement.

What of a member of the Board who was selling their unit at one time?  Was that transaction ever made known according to the Master Deed?  I had been told someone who is either a friend or friendly with a Director has just sold a unit before this edict.  Could that not be brought up in various venues?

The Master Deed was not given to all buyers!  This requirement was not in the contract to sell!  So why were the documents kept from buyers?  Armando Ang, author of Guide to Homeownership, is correct.
 
Are all Unit Owners who sold since turnover now liable to being sued?  Do the current Unit Owners from such sales really own their units?

Saturday, August 17, 2013

A Penalty for Not Paying Dues?: Cops hunt killer of American diver

A Penalty for Not Paying Dues?


Was execution the penalty for not paying dues?  Does anyone know this project?  Is anyone able to find out who the South Star Security Agency is and if they are a subsidiary of another company?  Does anyone know someone in the area to find out what problems there are at the subdivision?

Honestly, I am not surprised given the number of complaints I now hear from all over Metro Manila.

 

Cops hunt killer of American diver

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/466991/cops-hunt-killer-of-american-diver

By Jaymee T. Gamil
Philippine Daily Inquirer


MANILA, Philippines—Police are now hunting a security guard at Hamilton Heights Subdivision in Las Piñas City who fled after shooting dead an American diver who helped in the retrieval of the body of Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo who was killed in a plane crash off Masbate in August last year.

Police identified Ericson Elacquio  of the South Star Security Agency as the primary suspect in the killing of Matthew Caldwell, 59, around 10:30 p.m. on Thursday.

A spot report from Chief Inspector Eddie Galang of the Las Piñas police said Elacquio shot Caldwell during an argument at the gates of the subdivision.

Caldwell and his live-in partner, Jeanelyn Flora, 36, were in their Toyota Corolla on their way home  when Elacquio barred them entry, arguing the couple had not paid their monthly dues to homeowners association.

The couple got off the car to confront the security guard, with Caldwell attempting to raise the wooden boom at the gate, prompting Elacquio to draw his gun and shoot Caldwell pointblank in the face.

Elacquio escaped with another security guard on a commandeered red motorcycle with plate number IA-4929.

The Philippine Coast Guard said Caldwell was one of the foreign technical divers who helped in the search for and retrieval of Robredo’s body from the wreck of his chartered plane.

Las Piñas police identified Caldwell as  director of a company called Allegro.

---

American diver in Robredo search shot dead

Posted at 08/16/2013 5:39 PM | Updated as of 08/16/2013 5:39 PM
 
MANILA – An American technical diver who helped in the search and rescue operation for the late Interior and Local Government Sec. Jesse Robredo last year was shot dead in a Las Piñas City subdivision Thursday night, authorities said.
Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) spokesman Commander Armand Balilo said the victim, Matt Caldwell, was shot by a security guard after a verbal altercation at the gate of the subdivision.
Balilo said the guards refused entry to Caldwell, which led to the argument. He was shot at around 10:30 p.m.
Balilo added that there is a split in the homeowners’ association of Hamilton Heights and it is possible that Caldwell and the guards on duty were at opposing sides.
Caldwell was a PCG auxiliary captain and was also part of the search and retrieval operation of 21 passengers trapped in the MV Catalyn B in 2010. -- Report from Noel Alamar, ABS-CBN News
---

Diver in Robredo crash shot dead 


 (The Philippine Star) |

MANILA, Philippines - An American diver who helped in the search and retrieval operations in the plane crash that killed interior secretary Jesse Robredo was shot in the face and killed by a security guard while opening the gate of a subdivision in Las Piñas City late Thursday night, police said yesterday.
Senior Superintendent Adolfo Samala, Las Piñas City police chief, identified the victim as Philippine Coast Guard auxiliary member Captain Matthew Caldwell, a US citizen residing at Hamilton Heights in Barangay Talon 5.
Caldwell helped in the search and retrieval operation of the plane carrying Robredo that crashed off Masbate sea last year.
He was supposedly celebrating his 59th birthday on the day he was killed, according to the PCG.
Initial police investigation showed that Caldwell and his live-in partner Jeanalyn Flora arrived in their car at the gate of the subdivision at about 10:30 Thursday night.
Security guard Ericson Mendoza Blacquio refused to open the gate because the plate number of the car was among those of residents listed as not paying dues to the homeowners’ association. 
Moreover, the rule set by the homeowners is for delinquent dues payers to open the gate themselves without the assistance of the guard on duty, said Las Piñas Police Criminal Investigation Division Chief Giovanni Martinez.
But when the American was about to open the gate, the security guard confronted him and a heated argument ensued. 
At the height of the argument, the security guard allegedly took his service 12-gauge shotgun and shot the victim in the face. The security guard and his unidentified companion then commandeered a passing motorcycle and fled.
“A special team was organized to track down the suspects,” Martinez said.
A review of the security logbook showed that last Aug. 13, Caldwell and Blacquio already had an argument over entry in the subdivision. The American allegedly berated and cursed the security guard.
The Las Piñas police are preparing a murder charge against the suspect and his cohort. They are also coordinating with the president of the homeowners association to determine if the victim was really not paying his association dues.
The PCG has condemned the killing and expressed its sympathy for Caldwell.
“Matt really loves the Philippines. He has been very helpful to the Coast Guard in the past years and willing to lend his pro bono services whenever we asked for his help,” PCG spokesman Commander Armando Balilo said. 
Caldwell was a seasoned diver who had been living in the Philippines for more than 20 years. He had been a partner of the PCG in its search and rescue operations in the past years. 
  – With Evelyn Macairan

---

Hero US diver murdered in the Philippines 'after being blasted him in the face with a shotgun by security guard in row outside his home'

  • Matthew Caldwell, 59, was shot by security guard near his home, near Manila
  • Row broke out when guard claimed he owed homeowners' association dues
  • Caldwell became local hero after he helped find body of Interior Secretary Jessie Robredo last year, who died in plane crash, sparking deep-sea hunt
By Richard Shears
|

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395654/Hero-US-diver-murdered-Phillippines-blasted-face-shotgun-security-guard-row-outside-home.html#ixzz2cIeXNIO6

---

American diver in Robredo retrieval ops killed

http://manilastandardtoday.com/2013/08/17/american-diver-in-robredo-retrieval-ops-killed/

By Ferdinand Fabella | Posted on Aug. 17, 2013 at 12:01am

An American diver who helped in the search and retrieval operations for the body of Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo was shot dead by a security guard in Las Piñas City on Thursday, three days before the first anniversary of Masbate plane crash.
Police said 59-year-old Matthew Caldwell died on the spot after being allegedly shot in the face by Ericson Elacquio, security guard of Hamilton Heights Subdivision in Barangay Talon V where the American had a house.
Caldwell was a technical diver of the Philippine Coast Guard Auxiliary, a civilian volunteer arm of the Coast Guard. He was able to locate and identify  Robredo in the wreckage of the Piper Seneca plane that plunged 800 meters off the Masbate coast on Aug. 18, 2012.
Senior Supt. Adolfo Samala said the shooting took place at around 10:30 p.m. when Caldwell, companion Jeanalyn Flora, 36, and another female arrived at the subdivision gate aboard a Toyota Corolla car.
Caldwell got into an argument with Elacquio who refuse them entry over his unpaid monthly dues to the subdivision.
Investigation  showed that Caldwell got off the car and started tearing down the gate’s boom. Flora said Elacquio took out his 12-gauge shotgun and shot the american in the face.
Elacquio and another security guard forcibly took the motorcycle of one Stanley Verano, who was passing by the gate, and escaped.
Samala said investigators from the United States embassy in Manila have arrived in the scene to gather more information about the incident.
PCG spokesman Cmdr. Armand Balilo said Caldwell had just gone from a meeting with his fellow PCGA volunteers that evening.
He said Caldwell was assisting the Coast Guard in other rescue and retrieval operations, including the wreckage of M/V Catalyn B that sank off Cavite on Dec. 24, 2009, killing 25 people.

---

Guard in US diver’s slay not licensed


http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/467851/guard-in-us-divers-slay-not-licensed
 
By Jaymee T. Gamil, Philippine Daily Inquirer - Saturday, August 17th, 2013
 
The subdivision security guard who allegedly shot American diver Matthew Caldwell dead during a heated argument Thursday night was not licensed for the job and his agency was never registered with the Philippine National Police, the Inquirer learned Saturday.

Three days after Caldwell’s killing, the police started circulating photos of Ericson Mendoza Blacquio (not Elacquio as earlier reported), who worked for South Star Security Agency and a resident of Sampaloc Site, BF Parañaque.

Blacquio escaped after shooting Caldwell, a businessman and a technical diver who helped the Philippine Coast Guard find the body of then Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo following a plane crash last year. The American, who had lived in the country for 20 years, received an award from President Aquino for his role in the search.

The guard was then manning the gates at Hamilton Heights Subdivision in Barangay Talon V, Las Piñas City, when he barred Caldwell and his live-in partner from entering, reportedly on orders from management to restrict residents who had been remiss in paying monthly dues. The guard shot the American in the face in an argument after the latter tried to raise the wooden boom barrier.

Chief Insp. Vanni Martinez, head of the Las Pinas police investigation unit, said Hamilton Heights issued a memo to the guards in July saying residents who refused to pay a monthly P500 fee shall not be extended certain services. The fees were collected to pay for security and power supply for street lights, among others, the officer said.

The guards were given a list of the vehicle plate numbers of delinquent payers. When they see these vehicles, the guards were not supposed to lift the gate barrier and just let their owners do it themselves, Martinez said.

However, the officer said, “when I last talked to the homeowners association officials, they condemned what Blacquio did. (The situation) didn’t have to go that far,” Martinez said.

“Some of them felt guilty because their policy became the cause of the quarrel that killed Caldwell,” Martinez said in Filipino.

Martinez also disclosed that Blacquio’s agency, owned by Jordan Mijares, was not registered with the PNP’s Supervisory Office for Security and Investigation Agencies (Sosia) and that the suspect did not have a license to be a security guard.

“I checked the registration papers submitted by the agency to the homeowner’s association and found that they were dated May 2013 and yet the signature was that of former PNP chief Avelino Razon, who is already retired,” he said.

***

Information for United States Citizens:  The following statement appears at the bottom of email messages from the US Embassy in the Philippines.  This will give you information for contacting the embassy in case you or your family are victims of corruption and crimes.

"The Embassy is located at 1201 Roxas Boulevard, Manila, Philippines and is open 0730-1600, Monday through Friday.  The Embassy's main telephone number is (632) 301-2000.  American citizens needing to speak to the Embassy can dial this number and ask to be connected to the American Citizen Services (ACS) unit or with the Embassy Duty Officer (for calls outside of normal business hours).  You can also contact the ACS unit through email at ACSInfoManila@state.gov or through the Embassy Facebook page.  Please visit our website for information on all services offered by the ACS unit.
We strongly recommend that U.S. citizens travelling to or residing in the Philippines enroll in the Department of State's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) program.  Registering gives you access to updated information on travel and security within the Philippines and makes it easier for the Embassy to contact you in case of emergency.  If you don't have Internet access, enroll directly at the nearest U.S. Embassy or consulate.
You can also stay up to date by bookmarking the Department of State's website, which contains all current Travel Warnings and Travel Alerts, as well as the current Worldwide Caution.  Please consult the Country Specific Information on the Philippines, for general information about the Philippines. For additional information, refer to "A Safe Trip Abroad" on the State Department's website. 
Contact the U.S. Embassy for up-to-date information on travel restrictions.  Current information on safety and security can also be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll-free in the United States and Canada, or a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444 for callers from other countries.  These numbers are available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays).  You can also stay up to date by "following" us on Twitter and "liking" the Bureau of Consular Affairs on FacebookYou can also download our free Smart Traveler App, available through iTunes and the Android market, to have travel information at your fingertips.
Please continue to monitor the Embassy’s website http://manila.usembassy.gov/ for updated information.
If the Embassy public phone number, (632) 301-2000, is not operational, U.S. citizens who require emergency assistance may contact the American Citizen Services unit through http://www.facebook.com/pages/Manila-Philippines/US-Embassy-ManilaPhilippines/157551009622  or through acsinfomanila@state.gov or by calling the United States at the following numbers: 1-202-501-4444 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada) or 1-888-407-4747 (if calling from within the United States or Canada).  The Embassy is located at 1201 Roxas Boulevard, Manila, Philippines"

Monday, August 12, 2013

RAC's 2nd Quarterly Report

Residential Areas Committee's (RAC) 2nd Quarterly Report


Below is the report and comments.  First, the committee in the opinion of myself and others is illegal in the work done without our witness and consent.  This committee is made up of Directors who were not elected.  These unelected Directors are on the Board of Directors which is controlled by the developers and has members, Directors, who are not elected by the Unit Owners.  Unit Owners are members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC).  The Board has been self-appointing and self-anointing in all that they do with our money in private and secret meetings.  The regular Board meetings are not open to Unit Owners.

There are links on the side which include the article "Why Condo Corps Fail."  Please do as we and other Unit Owners have been doing and that is explaining what takes place in this building while guiding others to the laws and articles on the situation.

Page 1 of the silly self promotion:

They write reviewing "certain contracts."  How about all contracts and policies?  Why not everything?  Unit Owners are still denied access to these contracts and policies.  Why?  What is being hidden?

We need to see all contracts in order to compare to Minutes to discover when approved at legally sanctioned Board meetings if at all.  When were yearly or periodic renewals made?  So many questions with all this since turnover being hidden by walls placed in the face of Unit Owners who are members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC).

Why are we involved with in employee trust funds?  What is this all about?  The SCCC hires agencies and they supply their employees.

The criteria for the hiring of the security agency is ridiculous.  Quality and Cost are the most important factors.  Who in the committee is into the size?

Why was the security force not reduced given the CCTV?  So much money for CCTV.  In fact, money, Our Money, flying in all directions.

The mailboxes are a joke on us.  Why were not prefabricated mailboxes not installed by the developer/builder?  Once again, SCCC money, Our Money, spent on what should have been there to begin with.

The signage is another sickening example of wasted money and bad taste.  The elevators have numbers inside them when stopping at a floor.  The bad taste signs also have a "F."  I know the F stands for floor but there is another word that would be appropriate.  The numbers are a waste of money and the F's just compound the waste.  The number signs for the Mayflower Tower are another example of sickening bad taste and wasteful spending.  The design does not match the signs for each unit.  Why all this nonsense cluttering the building when so much else needs to be done?


Page 2 of the silly self promotion:

CCTV cameras will not save money unless they help to replace the excessive number of guards.

The "Steering Committee" (SC) was never a predecessor of the RAC.  The SC was not elected by a legally recognized entity of the SCCC.  No government agency recognized these few individuals.  It is a shocking statement to be made that the SC was somehow tied with the RAC.  The only claim that may be made is that individuals remaining in the group called the "Steering Committee" were appointed not elected to the Board of Directors.  The RAC members were in turn appointed from within the unelected Board.

The elevators were also the concern of other Unit Owners who made efforts now ignored by this history.

All Board meetings have been secret and private with Unit Owners refused to observe and witness.  A complete set of Minutes & Resolutions have also been refused allowing Unit Owners to know what has been taking place with unelected Directors and Our Money.

I have written many times about the elevators and threatened actions never taking place.  This situation is laughable on how it has been handled by all of the unelected whether on the unelected Board or "Steering Committee", a concerned group with no legal capacity.


Page 3 of the silly self promotion:

The "independent professional firm" was as all else contracts in private and secret with Unit Owners once again left in the dark as to what takes place with Our Money.  When & Where did this take place?  It is no surprise what a horror the elevators have been for all of the Unit Owners.

Besides the expense another unknown entity is revealed to us.  Another law firm besides the others for the Board.  Where does all the money come from for all this?  When will Unit Owners be allowed to witness all meetings and have up-to-date knowledge?

As I had asked previously, where is the "Undertaking?"  So many documents refused to members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation, the Unit Owners.

I had given the steps for the elevators before this report.  But, mirrors were placed in the cars seemingly ignoring priorities of mechanics and safety.

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/beautification-campaign-or-coverup.html

Under the heading "Finance", the electric meter is discussed,  Yes, actions once again not allowed witness by Unit Owners for analysis.  Given the saga of Meralco meters for each unit with a difference of the original deposit and what was given to Meralco discovered by Ryan & I.  The difference was taken without Unit Owner consent and then the horrendous gauntlet that we were put through for over a year to get our original deposit back.  We had to give another deposit in our names since the original deposit we paid was in the name of Greenfield.  We have no trust with such activities unless shown and completely given all the facts.

As for the trash bins, how about a better definition of wet and dry.  Many Unit Owners see this as a problem I have written about before.


Page 4 of the silly self promotion:

"You are not paying the VAT on your condo dues, ...?"  Talaga!  Where does Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC) get its money in the bank account?  Does it not come from the members of the SCCC?  Unit Owners.

Has a Homeowners Association been thought about to avoid VAT on some expenses?  Perhaps, but following the law for its creation which would take power form the Board handing more control to Unit Owners is the fear.  Who fears?

They claim an idea which Ryan & I have been practicing since first arriving.  The lights in the hallways are a little much and use power.  Did they not communicate this idea we have been practicing and they now suggest to the security guards?

This also brings up communication between Board and management who then need to communicate with the security guards.  Why?  They turn all of the lights back on when we turn half off providing enough light.  Yes, just like an old comedy.  We certainly do have some clowns.

Coordination and Communication in many respects is a serious failing in the managing of the building.  Unit Owners being the highest level of authority at the Annual or Special Meetings have had their rights taken being emasculated by a developer controlled Board with appointed groomed ones.

Last year's meeting like others was not followed by a legally required meeting(s) for an election to take place as required by the Corporate Code - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/04/title-iii-section-24-of-corporate-code.html  and the history of meetings - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-history-of-annual-sccc-meetings.html .

The unelected write that "By law this is given two weeks before the meeting."  This is in reference to notification of the Annual Meeting.  But that is a requirement if there is no statement in the By-Laws.  The Corporate Code states:  "That written notice of regular meetings shall be sent to all stockholders or members of record at least two (2) weeks prior to the meeting, unless a different period is required by the by-laws."  Our By-Laws say only 10 days - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0Sq5pyrVRznYzE0YjU1M2YtZTZjZC00OWJmLTk5YWUtNTk4NDllNWZiZWYw/edit?usp=sharing .  For more on announcement:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/sccc-by-laws-official-announcement-2013.html .

But, this also means the Board may announce prior to this 10 day time though it has failed to do so.  Such an appropriate gesture would offer greater participation.  A clear explanation as to such action working is written in the following - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/07/reply-to-2013-annual-meeting-memo-proxy.html (See the update at the bottom of the post.)

Once again, the proxy requirement is made too complicated.  Check here to read what the By-Laws state and not the form with a ploy - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/search?q=2013+proxy (See Section 8.)

The DEVELOPER CANNOT VOTE YOUR SHARES!  Why do they write "The consequence of not attending and not submitting a proxy is that the developer can now legally vote your shares."?  If this were true, the ploy on the proxy form giving the Chair your vote would not be needed.  Also, a quorum would have been automatic at all past meetings.

The proxy form which is NOT required needs to be changed or not used if you do not like it or portions of it.  I would urge you to cross out the chairman clause unless you want the developer to have your vote.

To end this latest joke on Unit Owners, they once again do not place titles next to signatures.  They were not elected but appointed by the developer controlled Board.

This is the link to the first report this unelected committee distributed - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-star-chamber-and-its-residential.html


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

Old News before Annual Meeting

Old News before Annual Meeting

Actually, not news so much as old routine prior to the Annual Meeting.  Yes, notice all the cleaning and increasing work about the building as the 30th approaches.  Also notice or remember after the meetings or lack of meetings when the slow down took place.  Unit Owners will no longer be fooled.

I was just reminded and Unit Owners I have spoken with are also amused by the guards rushing to the elevators to hold them open.  This aggressive assistance is also taking place now just before the meeting.

UPDATE (08/27/13):  The notice below was just posted.  Well, is this not sweet.  We have only been discussing this for over 1 1/2 years.  Anyone can read past posts here and at skyscrapercity's forum for Soho Central where I had mentioned writing to the company in Manila and to the maker of the intercoms in Spain.  I had even spoken with a Yek Yeu employee when they were checking the smoke alarms about the intercom system.  What was done?  Nothing.  Now just before the meeting another seeming act of concern.  They only have a few days left for such images.  What is next?

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Residential Areas Committee (RAC): Illegal

Residential Areas Committee (RAC):  Illegal

After receiving a telephone call this morning, I am posting this in agreement.

There was no quorum of a 2012 Annual Meeting.  There has been no election of Directors of the Board of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC).  Therefore, the RAC is not a legal entity and its actions are being conducted without the approved authority of the Unit Owners who are members of the SCCC.

---

Yes, there was no quorum and there was no follow-up meeting as required by the Corporate Code.  So the Board and the RAC are illegal in all their actions.
 
 
Title III Section 24 of the Corporate Code

Electoral Process or Illusion?


Have we had further violations of the election process given the last sentence of Section 24 below?  Why would this be ignored by those sitting on the musical chair Board?  Why would they not follow the law?  Why the games?  Why the self-appointing and anointing?  What is going on here?  Why must Unit Owners be told the law and truth & facts of the law by those outside the Board or those not in the legal profession?
 
Who has answers?
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 68
THE CORPORATION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE III — BOARD OF DIRECTORS/TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS

SECTION 24. Election of directors or trustees. — At all elections of directors or trustees, there must be present, either in person or by representative authorized to act by written proxy, the owners of a majority of the outstanding capital stock, or if there be no capital stock, a majority of the members entitled to vote. The election must be by ballot if requested by any voting stockholder or member. In stock corporations, every stockholder entitled to vote shall have the right to vote in person or by proxy the number of shares of stock standing, at the time fixed in the by-laws, in his own name on the stock books of the corporation, or where the by-laws are silent, at the time of the election; and said stockholder may vote such number of shares for as many persons as there are directors to be elected or he may cumulate said shares and give one candidate as many votes as the number of directors to be elected multiplied by the number of his shares shall equal, or he may distribute them on the same principle among as many candidates as he shall see fit: Provided, That the total number of votes cast by him shall not exceed the number of shares owned by him as shown in the books of the corporation multiplied by the whole number of directors to be elected: Provided, however, That no delinquent stock shall be voted. Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or in the by-laws, members of corporations which have no capital stock may cast as many votes as there are trustees to be elected but may not cast more than one vote for one candidate. Candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be declared elected. Any meeting of the stockholders or members called for an election may adjourn from day to day or from time to time but not sine die or indefinitely if, for any reason, no election is held, or if there are not present or represented by proxy, at the meeting, the owners of a majority of the outstanding capital stock, or if there be no capital stock, a majority of the member entitled to vote. (31a)

Another Marial Law Edict in Soho Central

UPDATE (08/08/13):  If Unit Owners were to have their rights transferred to the lessee, they would not be able to inspect without prior notice and they can be prohibited by the tenant from entering the building.  Insane.  The RAC is lowering property and resale values by such attempted actions.

Another Martial Law Edict in Soho Central


Yes, another memo was posted without the knowledge or consent of the Unit Owners by the Residential Areas Committee (RAC) which is made up of three Unelected Directors of the Board.  The Board has no Unit Owner elected members.  Unit Owners are members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation.  The Board of Directors only has unelected members and is self-appointing.

Be prepared it is getting worse.

In the short time it was posted and contact was made with a few Unit Owners, they will defy this edict.  We are with other Unit Owners who will not recognize the authority of the Unelected Board and will defy such edicts.

Besides the general illegality of the unelected's edict, there is no requirement under Philippine law to give copies of the titlesWhat is the motive behind this demand?  Under Philippines law there is no requirement to give the personal information of your familyWhat is the motive behind this demand?  Under the laws of the Philippines there is no transfer of powers of ownership by an Unit Owner when having a lesseeWhat is the motive behind this demand?

There are other problems besides the general illegality of this edict contained below. 




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

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Martial law arrives in Soho Central built by Century Properties

Martial law arrives in Soho Central built by Century Properties

The title was strongly suggested by a unit owner due such displays of dictatorial power read here and in previous posts.  So I have changed the title from "Caged" being the immediate or now long-lasting situation to the overall goal as acted upon by the authorities that assume control over our money, homes and lives.

I had written of this situation and spoken to many people about this manipulation of the Unit Owners by the management and developer-controlled unelected Board.  As was told to me once again after answering a question as to why there was no place in the building such as a lounge or even sufficient chairs in the lobby, "we are cows to be corralled."

What is the procedure?  We enter the building with security guards opening the doors and then when in the area of the elevators immediately directed to an available elevator whether we want it or not.  This has been boosted with the new edict preventing more people who are Unit Owners or SPAs from being in the lobby and ordering them to their units or cells.

What other means have been employed to prevent as much Unit Owner mingling as possible?

Unelected Board of Director and other such meetings are private and secret.

Bench seating was removed from the lobby.

Pool lounge chairs though inexpensive are limited.

The Christmas Party was poorly promoted and organized enabling cancellation.

The Function Room though seldom used is locked.

The Residents' Lounge is locked and used as a special meeting room with an attached foyer taken in violation of the Condominium Act for management further discouraging use as a lounge.  In fact, the space is used for management purposes.

40th floor roof area of the Shaw Tower was locked.

Revelations?

Revelations?


Please see previous message:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/08/rescue-starts-month.html

After the incident concerning the recent distraught person wanting to jump from the 18th floor, many revelations were supposedly told by personnel in the building.  I ask questions regarding what was told below.

In an incident that was supposed to have involved the 8th floor which I had asked questions about and requested information from anyone with knowledge, is it true that nothing actually took place on the 8th floor but involved the 18th floor future distraught person?

Is it true that the police several weeks ago in May raided the unit of the individual and police activity took place on the 8th floor to cut off escaping down the stairwells?

Why was the police activity kept secret from the Unit Owners and security sworn to secrecy?

Was anything found during the raid and what was done as a result?

Is it true that the individual was banned from the building?

Is it true that the individual returned to residing in the building with the knowledge of various service agencies in the building?  Did the Board know?

Did various employees in the building know about the drug addiction and possible drugs and paraphernalia in the building?

Were there any management or Board meetings after the first raid and prior to the incident?  Have there been any meetings since then?  If so, where are the Minutes?

Were the Unit Owners in any danger at any time and was there any reason to suspect this?  If so, why was the information not released?

Is there any information as to why the police raided the first time?  Was there something that took place in the building alerting building service agencies or police?

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Mayflower Tower 4th Floor Balcony


Mayflower Tower 4th Floor Balcony


Please read the previous piece on this situation:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-cracks.html

While we had all seen the metal scaffolding hanging from the building on the Mayflower Tower side, were we aware of the damage to the property of the Unit Owners?  The top most part of that wall acts as the railings do on all other balconies.  Imagine if they arbitrarily decided to place clamps and metal scaffolding on your balcony railings.  We will get up close photos of the concrete railing walls for posting.

There are many issues that need to be addressed at the 2013 Annual Meeting.  Start writing extensive, clear and to the point questions and statements for the Board of Directors and Members (Unit Owners) of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation on August 30th.  Thank you.




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

***

The Unit Owners on the 4th floor of the Mayflower Tower as elsewhere in the building need to read all documents such as the Master Deed.  Here is a quote from the Master Deed.

Section 3


"b) Nothing shall be done or placed in any Unit or in the common and limited common areas which would jeopardize the safety or impair the structural strength of the building.  Nor shall any alteration, change or modification of the architectural character of the building be made without the written consent of the Condominium Corporation and of the Unit owners directly affected by said work, if any;"


It seems someone or entities violated the Master Deed.  Should lawyers be called?