Still No Word From Permit Manager

Still no response from the city's
permit manager to my February 12th,
2008 letter.

I didn't make an appointment to
meet with lawyer#1. Instead I
faxed a letter dated February
20th, 2008, to the Buckingham
agent and copied to lawyer#1. In
the letter I pointed out that I
neglected to include in Schedule
'B', under Expenses, the additional
cost that I would incur to
purchase another property on
Riverside Drive East or a comparable
comparable street to Riverside
Drive East. I requested that the
expenses be increased by an additional
dollar amount that I provided. It's
not the first time I have brought up
the issue of cost of another home.
But it's the first time I've mentioned
Schedule 'B'.

Will it make any difference? Well,
if the objective is to get something
for nothing, even paying a penny is
too much.

Can you believe that April will be
a year that we've been at this, and
and although I've received offers from
the Buyer, the Buyer's dollar amount
has not changed in all its offers
during this entire time. They keep
making the same offer, and I keep
rejecting the same offer. It's
hardly a wonder that we've got
no where.

Anyway, the appraisl was done
February 28, 2007. According to
the appraisal report, the appraiser
valued the property using the
direct comparison approach. The
comparables were semi-detached homes
from various areas of the city. The
addresses of the comparables the
appraiser chose were as follows:
3245 Riberty Road; 8010 Menard;
4233 Old West; 4202 Pioneer.

The only street I was familar with
was Riberty Road. The other streets
I had never heard of before. So I
bought a map of Windsor from Mac's
Milk and looked up the street names.
Although the homes were semi-detached
none of the streets were comparable
to Riverside Drive East. They're not
even close. The appraisal was paid
for by the Buyer.

I also indicated in the letter that
I would be willing to agree to the
confidentialty of the expenses on
condition that I receive a cashier's
cheque for the expenses on the date
I sign the agreement.

No Word From Permit Manager

No word from the City's permit
manager, but instead I've heard
from EWCP Inc.'s lawyer. I received
a letter and an Agreement of Purchase
and Sale in the mail today. The offer
was the same.

If the Seller rejects the Buyer's
original offer, why would the Buyer
continue to counter the Seller's
counter-offers with the same offer
that's been rejected by the Seller?

I spoke to the Buckingham agent
today, who said he wanted to speak
to me first before I looked at the
agreement because he anticipated
my rejection of the offer. He knows
I've rejected the same offer a number
of times already. He said that he wanted
to meet with lawyer#1 and myself so
we could resolve those items that have
caused the present impasse. I agreed. I
told him I wanted to meet with lawyer#1
first though. I'd get back to him. So
that's that for now.

Now for the lawyer's letter. He wrote
that every individual that sold their
property to EWCP Inc., did so with a
confidentiality clause for both the
purchase price and the expenses. So
what? Perhaps the individuals didn't
know any better about the purchase price,
that once the deed is registered with the
OLR on the closing date, the purchase price
is public.

And what about the appraisals? Since
the appraised value was not included
in the confidentiality clause, then
the individuals can disclose the
appraised value of the properties
The purchase price is the appraised
value plus 10%. So you just have to
ask the right question and if you get
the answer, add 10%. That'll give you
the purchase price. The other option
is to have a title search done.

The lawyer let me know that he is aware
of my blog and took issue with the dollar
amount I posted for the purchase of 2929
Riverside Drive East. In an earlier post
I wrote that I heard through the grapevine,
that the Revels received a total of $262,000.
The lawyer is claiming that the amount is
inacurrate and so is the breakdown between the
purchase price and expenses. Really? And
how can it be proved that it's inaccurate with
a confidentialty clause that prevents the
disclosure of the purchase price and expenses.
The $262,000 could very well be accurate info.
It sounds about right to me.

More on the letter later.

Recall that I got a telephone
call from the city's building
permit manager, Bill Jean, on
Thursday, February 6, 2008, in
response to my letter of February
5, 2008 and attached proof of
title from the Ontario Land
Registry (OLR).

When we spoke he indicated that
an application for a demolition
permit for 2929 Riverside Drive
East was submitted. He said id
that because a permit would demolish
the building, the application
was being denied. The buidling is
divided into two homes referred to
as sem-detached. A permit is for
the building so if the city issued
a demolition permit for EWCP Inc.'s
2929 Riverside Drive East property,
it would demolish the building,
including my property adjacent property,
2925 Riverside Drive East.

Yesterday, it occurred to me
that it would be a good idea
to ger confirmation in writing
that a demolition permit would not
be issued. S I sent a letter to
Mr.Jean requesting confirmation.
Hopefully I get a response soon.

So why would anyone behave in
such wicked manner? Well, ask a
terrorist why he would blow up
a house with people? In his mind
he can justify the destruction
and killing but to the rest of
us, he's just plain nuts!

It's Personal

I think it's reasonable to conclude
that if someone is trying to defeat
you in any way possible, it's personal.
What's EWCP Inc.'s beef with me? Why
does it wants to destroy my property
that I worked for. I didn't get it for
free. Why would it want to demolish
the building with me in it?

What could I have possibly done that it
would want to exact such violence upon me?
What is the source of its anger and hatred?
I don't get it. Does EWCP Inc. honestly
believe that it is hiding its rage? It's
not. Something is fueling its anger, what is it?
Regardless of what it is, there's no justification
for violence or threats of violence, particularly
against a women.

Relief? Not!

I should feel relieved that a
demoliton permit will not be
issued for the building, right?
Wrong! I don't feel relieved at
all. When I picture in mind what
could have happened had EWCP Inc.
been successful in obtaining a
demolition permit from the City's
building department using its semi-
detached property next door,
(2929 Riverside Drive East), I don't
feel more secure.

I mean think about it for a minute.
Had EWCP Inc. managed to get a
demolition permit from the City, it
intended to not only demolish a building
it doesn't fully own, but demolish a
building that would be still occupied by
myself. If EWCP Inc caused a serious'
injury or worse death, what would it
claim? It was an accident? And of
course the supposed accidental death
would be blamed on me, right?

Demolition Permit Denied!

I got a call from the City's
Bill Jean, who said he received
my letter of February 5th, 2008.
He said that an application was
submitted for a demolition permit
for 2929 Riverside Drive East.
He said that a permit would not
be issued since the building is
a semi-detached building. He
said it would destroy the building.

He asked if I've been approached
about selling. I told him I have
and that I am willing to sell but
I am having problems with them
acting in good faith.

He said that he would contact
EWCP/EWCC to let them know that
their application for a demolition
permit is being denied.

Confidentiality Eh?

I just heard through the grapevine
that the former owners (the Revels)
of 2929 Riverside Drive East, received
a total package of $262,000 from
EWCP Inc. That makes sense to me.
$144,100 for the purchase price.
And $114,000 for expenses. I know,
your wondering why would the expenses
be so high? Because to purchase another
home on the Drive or comparable area
is going to cost much more than
$144,100. So that sounds about
right to me. Click on image
to enlarge.

So much for confidentiality
eh?