|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 64 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 19 of 64:
| 
Jan 18 17:06 UTC 2000 |
I think that there's also a danger that in our thinking we could be
making this a bigger deal than it deserves to be. I voted with the
majority and still feel comfortable with that, but in the absence of
more information doubt it's a huge deal either way. (The agent at
the former management company only asked for notification by phone,
not by certified letter.)
If people feel we should act differently, there's time to reconsider
before Feb. 1. As Jan pointed out, we should at least know who to
contact in case of problems.
|
janc
|
|
response 20 of 64:
|
Jan 18 18:50 UTC 2000 |
If I hadn't been late I would have argued in favor of initiating contact
with the new management. Not doing so seems weird to me.
|
krj
|
|
response 21 of 64:
|
Jan 18 19:02 UTC 2000 |
My vague and imperfect recollection is that the previous conflict
described by eeyore was with the now-departed management company,
and not with the owner.
|
don
|
|
response 22 of 64:
|
Jan 18 19:12 UTC 2000 |
The vote was just on renewing the lease, right? Therefore the board has not
made a ruling on contacting the owners. Maybe someone could bring it up next
meeting.
|
mary
|
|
response 23 of 64:
|
Jan 18 19:26 UTC 2000 |
There really wasn't any "conflict" with either the landlord or the
previous agent. The landlord expressed concern over how our electric bill
was calculated but she seemed okay with the system after hearing the
explanation. I found the previous management agent easy to work with and
she facilitated our getting a very nice lease.
To be picky, there is a minimum of 120 days before June 1 in which either
party can give notice not to renew. So February 1 might not be quite
exact.
Grex has been nothing but honest in our dealings with landlords.
In return we have been extended a whole lot of trust in regards to
our arrangement at the Pumpkin. I'd hate to see anything change
that. We have no intention of doing anything sneaky, I know that.
But in displaying reluctance to contact the new management until
after the deadline passes we risk the appearance of being sneaky.
I'd rather we work toward keeping the relationship open and easy
and if that means our landlord decides they don't want to rent to
us or that the terms need to be changed, so be it.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 24 of 64:
|
Jan 18 21:03 UTC 2000 |
I'm in agreement with Mary.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 25 of 64:
|
Jan 19 02:06 UTC 2000 |
I realize that my version above didn't really give the whole discussion that
we had justice...but that was my basic theory on voting the way I did....
|
janc
|
|
response 26 of 64:
|
Jan 19 05:56 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Mary.
|
aruba
|
|
response 27 of 64:
|
Jan 19 15:56 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Mary too.
|
flem
|
|
response 28 of 64:
|
Jan 19 17:43 UTC 2000 |
IIRC, a fair amount of our discussion concerned the exact text of that
particular clause in the lease. Would it be appropriate to post that
text here?
|
aruba
|
|
response 29 of 64:
|
Jan 19 19:20 UTC 2000 |
Sure. It's in the file cabinet, Greg. :)
|
flem
|
|
response 30 of 64:
|
Jan 19 19:46 UTC 2000 |
D'oh! Well, I'll look for it when I get home, then. :)
|
mary
|
|
response 31 of 64:
|
Jan 19 20:40 UTC 2000 |
The lease is also online at:
/usr/bbs/local/grexdoc/archives/lease/pumpkin
I can't check the accuracy of that file location at the moment, since
I'm coming in on Backtalk. But I think it's close.
|
aruba
|
|
response 32 of 64:
|
Jan 19 21:50 UTC 2000 |
That's:
/usr/local/grexdoc/archives/lease/lease.pumpkin2
Here's the relevant portion:
2 TERM, Terms of this lease shall be for a time commencing the
1st day of June, 1999 and continuing through the 31st day of
May, 2000.
OPTION: Providing Tenant has not been in default of this lease,
Tenant shall have the option of five 1yr. Lease extensions at
a 5% increase in rent per year. Said option may be cancelled with
a written ninety (90) day notice at the discretion of either
Landlord or Tenant.
The "ninety (90)" was changed to "one hundred twenty (120)" in the final
signed version. The question was whether the lease automatically extends
itself if we say nothing.
|
don
|
|
response 33 of 64:
|
Jan 19 23:44 UTC 2000 |
I would think that having the option is different from exersizing it.
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 64:
|
Jan 20 03:26 UTC 2000 |
Strictly speaking, this clause is poorly worded because it does not specify
the default state if no communication is made.
Logically, the default state (and the basis of my position in the vote) is
that we pick up the option. The only *action* specified is for cancellation.
Since it is not our intention to cancel, then logically, no action is called
for.
In our discussion, there were fears voiced, which appeared to be based on
misunderstanding of the history, and which, in the course of discusion, led
to temporary phrasing of a proposal which could be construed as underhanded
in intent. After discussion of the potential impact of this appearance, the
wording was changed. Pardon my excess of commas. In my head I associate them
with pauses in the way i might speak the words, even though they may not be
entirely proper if so placed in the written form.
I think it is both logical and appropriate for us to pursue the establishment
of contact with whomever is responsible for managing the property we rent.
The comments I made in the meeting in regard to this issue were, I think, more
in response to the fears expressed than based on solid thinking. Ultimately,
however, I believe that we did adopt the correct and appropriate course of
action. We did not rule out any attempt to contact the management.
Mary, since you have been the point person on this, I am perfectly pleased
to have you continue to be, unless you wish otherwise. Therefore, I leave
the contact issue up to your judgement, unless anyone objects, in which case
we can have them flayed for expressing such poor taste as to challenge your
good judgement. ;)
|
mary
|
|
response 35 of 64:
|
Jan 20 13:06 UTC 2000 |
Er, thank you, Eric, I think. ;-)
I'd like to make sure at least a majority of the Board members
authorize me to follow-up on this first.
What I suggest be done is the owner be contacted as asked
about any new management company working with this property.
She may be managing it herself. I'd let it be known we are
happy there and wish to allow the option to renew to rollover.
I'd ask if she needs a letter stating this and how she'd like
it sent.
We should probably not let too much more time go by before
making the call.
|
flem
|
|
response 36 of 64:
|
Jan 20 14:13 UTC 2000 |
As I recall, the main reason I voted the way I did is because I was
under the impression that what we were talking about was whether or not
to contact the *management company* about the lease renewal. That
didn't seem like a particularly important or useful thing to do to me.
Contacting the *owner* and asking about the management company, as well
as informally stating our intention of continuing the lease, seems like
a much better idea to me.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 37 of 64:
|
Jan 20 14:34 UTC 2000 |
Honestly, I'd like to see her contacted. That way we at least know what kind
of ground we stand on with her. And also just out of common curtesey.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 64:
|
Jan 20 17:12 UTC 2000 |
I've thought this over and now feel that contacting the owner as
described in #35 is the right thing to do.
|
aruba
|
|
response 39 of 64:
|
Jan 20 22:09 UTC 2000 |
That's your majority, Mary.
|
mary
|
|
response 40 of 64:
|
Jan 21 11:31 UTC 2000 |
I'll telephone the owner today.
|
mary
|
|
response 41 of 64:
|
Jan 21 14:27 UTC 2000 |
She won't be in (at her office) today but will be back on Monday.
I'll follow-up then.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 42 of 64:
|
Jan 22 23:11 UTC 2000 |
FWIW, you've got my support.
|
janc
|
|
response 43 of 64:
|
Jan 24 03:46 UTC 2000 |
To make it a super-majority, I agree too.
|