[DIDO]

Just wondering re our duplex:

The VG’s UCV for our land is, say, $280,000.

If the new levy is based on our land valuation, does that mean that BOTH Units 1 & 2 will be assessed each on $280k – or each on $140k – or pro rata for unit entitlements for Unit 1 (larger) and Unit 2?

[DIDO]

Aha! Excellent! Thanks for that. It gives us the logic that is missing from the way our SM does it. The SM only ever puts as Motion 1 “Determine the number of EC members” – doesn’t call for noms first, so we get locked in to whatever number they suggest/push thru … because majority residents are either in 80s and not up to challenging agent who says “Righteo, that’ll do for that motion” OR do not attend, but give their proxy to agent. We can’t change agents as there is only one practicable agency in this town and we dont want to go out of town. We’ll check out Sched 3 and take a copy along to AGM. 

[DIDO]

Jimmy and MattB, you are both ahead of us! Yes, when we considered it further, we realised this was a half-way measure aiming to (part) fulfil our right to not be reasonably refused, but also to satisfy the complainant.

It’s wrong, but we’ll take Jimmy’s level-headed advice, while also asking for details of what the problem is purported to be. Thank you.

[DIDO]

A belated thanks to Jimmy T, Peter and Loraine for your helpful and comprehensive advice. (Removing/terminating strata from the original Torrens Title is logical, in hindsight)!

We'll proceed with Lands Dept but we're wondering about Loraine's reference to “Council” consent. We are in a regional centre: wouldn't the fresh Lands Dept dox, when issued, just be filed with the council?

[DIDO]

Thanks for that Chris Kerin. Seems logical enough.

 

However, value is a moot point. We're assuming we can give ourselves the benefit of the lowest – reasonable/defensible – market estimate.

[Author]

Replies