Help Stop The Waverly Board From Wasting Our Money
17 Comments
A
Anonymous
5 years ago
Featured
I have owned 5 units in the waverly since 2005. This board is insane/bad and trying to waste millions on everything they can think of. STOP the projects!!! Hallways; soundproofing of gym, windows/balconies (replace problem units ONLY). Either someone in the board is stupid or corrupt- or both. People are going to sell their units and the reputation of the building is going to decrease. Please start acting responsibly and don’t push projects. It reeks of corruption or irresponsibility.
D
David Wilson
5 years ago
Featured
$300K is a ridiculous cost to sound proof the gym. And charging every unit in the building to do this after it existed as not sound prooofed for over twenty years dies not make sense.
G
Gabriel Celemin
5 years ago
My tenant complained about the elevators humming when they moved. If this is approved, I would like my unit soundproofed as well.
J
Jesus Miranda
5 years ago
I am against any additional assessments!!
F
Feras Ikhwan
5 years ago
2 units.
L
Lauren Luck
5 years ago
Every standard purchase and sale agreement has a standard due diligence and inspection period of time to perform inspections, perform tests, research, etc. The buyers knowingly purchased directly above a gym, public bathroom and busy 4th floor. What did they expect? If they were negligent and failed to perform their due diligence and inspection, or even staying in the apartment overnight to see how it would be, that mistake should not fall upon every other unit owner for which to pay. Rather this sounds like an intentional decision to purchase directly above a gym, hope for the best and when annoyed with the decision (buyer’s remorse), ask everyone else to pay for it. My unit is under water since when I purchased in 2015. Since that time, peppery values in the building have continued to go down. Should I be able to petition the Association to contribute funds to my sale in order to make me whole when I do sell at a loss? Same principle.
R
Robert Fournier
5 years ago
I strongly agree with this pushback from owners. As much as I want all of our neighbors to be happy living here there are some units that might be red flags due to their placement in the building. I know in 3604 the vibration from the motors on roof rattle their dishes. I have also head from a couple owners about constant elevator noises. Buyers have opportunity to inspect units, question sellers and review building documents. Did the seller of the unit in question fail to disclose disruptions from the gym, or was it a none issue for that seller? When I served on the board we had an owner send notice from his attorney regarding landscaping that had encroached his view. Legal counsel at the time was Gary Marse. Gary’s statement rings clear today. Modifying landscaping to satisfy an owner would set a precedent for future owners claims. I see this matter with soundproofing the gym in the same way. On weekend mornings when the tennis court was open I think they started playing at 7:00 am. I would have to turn a fan on and pillow over my head if I wanted to continue sleeping. Also in winters when it gets dark early the glaring lights from tennis court shined right into my unit, making it unpleasant to enjoy my balcony. I bought in front of the tennis court and I knew that.
We live in a condo and the building is what it is, like every other condo building where some units have negatives.
R
Roberto Bonetti
5 years ago
Stop spending our money!
K
Karl Gerasimov
5 years ago
Featured
“Buyer Beware”. Buyer acquires an inferior unit at a discount due to an imperfection and can not rely on the condo association to remedy their dwelling.
What’s next; residents requesting soundproofing daily from barking dogs or crying newborns? Where does the building draw the line? The Association is setting a very poor precedent pursuing this course of action.
A capital expenditure plan is designed for building improvement that benefits all residents and not for improving individual unit imperfections.
M
Michael Emanuele
5 years ago
STOP THE In appropriation use of funds
S
Sander Ross
5 years ago
2 Units
D
Dale Cotton
5 years ago
ALSO. I AM NOT IN FAVOR TO REMODEL HALLWAYS IN DOORS UNTIL WE REPLACE WINDOWS AND PATIO SLIDER DOORS
I
Irman Forghani
5 years ago
At least 2/3 of the cost should be paid by the units requesting these changes
I have owned 5 units in the waverly since 2005. This board is insane/bad and trying to waste millions on everything they can think of. STOP the projects!!! Hallways; soundproofing of gym, windows/balconies (replace problem units ONLY). Either someone in the board is stupid or corrupt- or both. People are going to sell their units and the reputation of the building is going to decrease. Please start acting responsibly and don’t push projects. It reeks of corruption or irresponsibility.
$300K is a ridiculous cost to sound proof the gym. And charging every unit in the building to do this after it existed as not sound prooofed for over twenty years dies not make sense.
My tenant complained about the elevators humming when they moved. If this is approved, I would like my unit soundproofed as well.
I am against any additional assessments!!
2 units.
Every standard purchase and sale agreement has a standard due diligence and inspection period of time to perform inspections, perform tests, research, etc. The buyers knowingly purchased directly above a gym, public bathroom and busy 4th floor. What did they expect? If they were negligent and failed to perform their due diligence and inspection, or even staying in the apartment overnight to see how it would be, that mistake should not fall upon every other unit owner for which to pay. Rather this sounds like an intentional decision to purchase directly above a gym, hope for the best and when annoyed with the decision (buyer’s remorse), ask everyone else to pay for it. My unit is under water since when I purchased in 2015. Since that time, peppery values in the building have continued to go down. Should I be able to petition the Association to contribute funds to my sale in order to make me whole when I do sell at a loss? Same principle.
I strongly agree with this pushback from owners. As much as I want all of our neighbors to be happy living here there are some units that might be red flags due to their placement in the building. I know in 3604 the vibration from the motors on roof rattle their dishes. I have also head from a couple owners about constant elevator noises. Buyers have opportunity to inspect units, question sellers and review building documents. Did the seller of the unit in question fail to disclose disruptions from the gym, or was it a none issue for that seller? When I served on the board we had an owner send notice from his attorney regarding landscaping that had encroached his view. Legal counsel at the time was Gary Marse. Gary’s statement rings clear today. Modifying landscaping to satisfy an owner would set a precedent for future owners claims. I see this matter with soundproofing the gym in the same way. On weekend mornings when the tennis court was open I think they started playing at 7:00 am. I would have to turn a fan on and pillow over my head if I wanted to continue sleeping. Also in winters when it gets dark early the glaring lights from tennis court shined right into my unit, making it unpleasant to enjoy my balcony. I bought in front of the tennis court and I knew that. We live in a condo and the building is what it is, like every other condo building where some units have negatives.
Stop spending our money!
“Buyer Beware”. Buyer acquires an inferior unit at a discount due to an imperfection and can not rely on the condo association to remedy their dwelling. What’s next; residents requesting soundproofing daily from barking dogs or crying newborns? Where does the building draw the line? The Association is setting a very poor precedent pursuing this course of action. A capital expenditure plan is designed for building improvement that benefits all residents and not for improving individual unit imperfections.
STOP THE In appropriation use of funds
2 Units
ALSO. I AM NOT IN FAVOR TO REMODEL HALLWAYS IN DOORS UNTIL WE REPLACE WINDOWS AND PATIO SLIDER DOORS
At least 2/3 of the cost should be paid by the units requesting these changes
Agree
Couldn’t agree more ✅
2712
Agree totally