Best of Mr.-- Angry Part One

In this blog I am posting an email that I came across when organizing my extensive POR email files in anticipation of a continuing fight to live here in peace since the harassment never stops.  Many of you will remember this posting because you were shocked by it.  I was scared.  

Jerry Biggart posted it on August 18, 2014, after I scolded Dave on the POR Discussion Group for his harsh attack on another Resident who was making her points in a very reasonable manner.

Here it is in its unedited glory:

From: J. Biggart <axswngr@gmail.com>

To: "harvey.kurtz75@gmail.com" <harvey.kurtz75@gmail.com>
Cc: "thepor@googlegroups.com" <thepor@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: {POR_discussion} Re: Garage Electricity

Harvey - I don't know what kind of organic brain syndrome you have but tell your doc that it's time to adjust your medications again. You perpetuate the very things you gripe about. You suck as a human being and I feel so sorry for you and everyone around you. 

Have a miserable week - 

Jerry 

On Aug 18, 2014, at 7:27 PM, Harvey Kurtz <harvey.kurtz75@gmail.com> wrote:

Dave:  Your reply to Megan Taylor is offensive and unacceptable.  Ideas can be discussed without such nastiness and profanity, and it helps to stay on subject and not introduce information that a resident does not know as evidence of the superiority of your ideas.  How can we accept the accuracy of any of your comments if you are so adamantly in favor of an idea being put to vote that you have to adopt such an inappropriately personal and nasty tone in your comments.  Why do you feel you need to respond when you don't, in fact, have anything to say?  I am tired of this weak imitation of the true nastiness present in Mr. Angry's (Biggart) emails to residents.  This has to stop, now.  If you are this burned out, then quit. But don't embarrass all of us who voted for you by this kind of behavior towards us residents, including Megan.  You need to apologize, and do it in a nice way for a change.

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:41:56 PM UTC-5, Dave Rasmussen wrote:

Megan:

My responses below.

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 6:57:22 PM UTC-5, Megan Taylor wrote:

Dave sent an e-mail out to everyone this evening regarding potential electrical outlets in the garage. Long e-mail short, the Association would spend $10,500 to tap into the common element electricity to run distribution panels to the 1st, 3rd and 5th garage floors.

If people want to elect to have this done then why don't they pay the $10,500?  If later on someone elects to have an outlet then pro-rate that cost; devise a formula.

I suggest you read our condo docs.  Look at the definitions about the General Common Elements.  

And while people who elect to pay extra to get the power in their parking stall arguably benefit the most, everyone benefits as this is an enhancement to the property that makes it potentially more desirable for prospective buyers.  For someone with an electric car for example, it could be a deal-maker.

Think about our gym here on the 6th floor.  I'm sure a ton of people here don't use it--some because they choose not to exercise at all while some join a local gym.  If I took a poll to close it down, sell the equipment and save money on the heating/cooling, cleaning, electricity and maintenance and sell it as storage lockers, I'd probably get a majority that would say, "Go ahead I don't use it anyway."

But it's an amenity that makes the POR more desirable to many potential buyers here.  So while you may not use it, the person buying your condo might find that an attractive part of living here.  I can't tell you the number of times I've been working out there and either Dana Karow or another realtor will bring prospective buyers into the room.  The people nearly always comment something to the effect, "Wow this is really nice".  They may never use it, but they seem to appreciate that it's a desirable amenity that enhances their investment considerations.

Why don't we FINISH the incomplete projects in the building first before we take on new ones? Balconies are in dire need of repair, the northern stairwell is still unfinished, the second hallway is still unsecure from the east stairwell into the hallway, and the list goes on...

I would not characterize the balconies as in need of "dire" repair.  They have rust on the top of a lot of the railings and some of the supporting structures.  We are in the process of soliciting bids to assess them from reputable engineering firms.  There is no need to rush this project as there simply is no imminent threat to life nor long-term property damage.  By the way, I don't have a balcony.  I have a terrace.  The balconies look just fine from where I sit.  So why should I have to pay for fixing the rust on other owners' balconies?

Answer:  Because it's a Limited Common Element and the owners who have rust problems should not have to endure them forever just because some of us are not effected or don't mind looking at rust.

About that "Northern Stairwell".  Funny you bring that up.  We spent about $800 to put locks on the doors in that stairwell largely because you and another owner on that end complained that you felt unsafe with only one locked door separating the outside world from your hallway.  We assessed the security threat and concluded it was quite low, but The Board agreed the unlocked doors were inconsistent with the security for the rest of the building.  So we found a cost-effective solution and implemented it.

Now imagine if I would have taken a POR-wide poll on that:

"Should we spend $800 to put locks on five doors on Megan's end of the building or just leave it as it's been for the past seven years?"

As for the security "hole" on the second floor, again that's something that's on our list, just not seen as a high priority right now.

And speaking of "the list going on...." how in the hell would you even know what's on the list?  We have one.  We review it every week.  We enhance and re-prioritize it every week.  That's how you got your locks.  You're welcome.

Why don't we wait to see if the projected FOE savings materialize before we continue to spend more money we do not have?

FOE.  Really?  You want to go back there again? The vote was something like 114-6, remember?  You also said we (The POR) were "Going to turn into Detroit" meaning we going bankrupt.  

Frankly Megan, the only thing bankrupt around here is your capacity to add intelligent, fact-based input to our cause here.  I am by now used to your bombast and hyperbole and find it tiresome.  So let's agree that I'll continue to put in a few hundred hours of work here again this year protecting and enhancing your investment and you continue to take petty potshots at me and Jerry and Lynn for not meeting your ill-informed expectations.

The last word can be yours.  Good night.

Megan Taylor

#220

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This discussion group is restricted to residents of "The Point On The River" (POR) condo complex in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The POR resident discussion group" group.