|
Post by helencrump on May 7, 2015 20:16:56 GMT -6
What was the fire department looking at ontop of the majestic yesterday? They were high above the building on the tower truck. Were they looking for code violations? Golly, maybe they were just exercising the ladder truck? You know, every once in a while running it up to make sure everything works? They have drills every so often that I believe are run by the state. From watching, it appeared that they are sent to a location and get information that example: building is engulfed in fire, with certain amount of people inside. They are required to rescue them, put out the fire, etc. It appeared to be timed, etc. Like, how long to get trucks in position, ladder up, men activated, and such. Hospitals, nursing homes, schools, police departments, office buildings all do have drills. Fire, disaster, etc.
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on May 7, 2015 21:28:24 GMT -6
Wiily, that is the price Streator will have too pay......since this town does not have the help like Ottawa has, Ottawa has a program too help people fix their Homes for little or nothing out of pocket! why not Streator? You have to talk to Streator united way and ask them to start up a program for Streator. Ottawa united way only goes to grand ridge to the south . Dk if it is because we have our own united way or whatever else the reason is why they won't come to Streator. I give over $100.00 a year to United way, maybe our town should of asked a LONG TIME AGO! that is sad isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 8, 2015 6:32:28 GMT -6
What was the fire department looking at ontop of the majestic yesterday? They were high above the building on the tower truck. Were they looking for code violations? With the large hole in the roof over the projection room, I would bet there could be code violations. Maybe they were looking to see how much asbestos they could spot to get an idea of how much it might cost taxpayers to demolish the building. It was sad last night to see it pour knowing that a lot of water is just washing through the theatre further destroying it. After soliciting and accepting the $130,000.00 in public donations to "Save" it, I would have thought that Tim's local cousin/business partner could have at least been able to afford a tarp to try to protect the place until the big money people from Pennsylvania get here. Couldn't his other partners, the Couch Family(Floor to Ceiling Ottawa), who it seems helped him kick Katie out, have come over to cover the building? It looks like they all just decided to take dog's financial advice and just walk away from their investments. Hey MnM, what is your "dear family friend" (born & raised in the area) going to do with his building that he took donations to "Save", just make taxpayers have to pay to tear it down after we sit here watching it deteriorate? This "import" would like to know. The City made the Majestic a centerpiece of their Downtown/Comprehensive Plans, and now it looks like we will end up having to pay to tear it down. How sad. I think some of the people involved owe us some answers.
|
|
|
Post by dog on May 8, 2015 7:04:39 GMT -6
I actually had the conversation with a City Official I was referred to because I wanted to find out exactly what issues they had so we could get in compliance. He said the cars had to be parked on a Driveway and that a new drive could not be installed unless it was leading to a Garage or a Shed. I told him I was pretty sure that they were parked on gravel and that there was indeed a drive but grass had overgrown the gravel from years of not being used. I suggested that we COULD spray and kill the grass. He said he would need to SEE the gravel. We can fix that one easily enough. Just have to spray a little when it's not going to rain and wait a week or 2 for results. He also said that a Drive could not be expanded. He even cited an example of a guy he knows that had several teens that came of driving age and he wanted to widen his Drive to accommodate the extra cars. He was willing to landscape, etc. but was not allowed. Now PERHAPS it was not allowable without proper PERMITS, I really don't know. I don't want any trouble, I just want to know exactly what they want so we can get in compliance. When he mentioned things like that though, it really leaves me scratching my head in bewilderment. If you mandate someone to park on a Drive but then you don't allow them to construct one......dang....really a Catch 22. That's fvcked up. Here is the only thing I found about driveways: Chapter 12.20 - DRIVEWAYS Sections: 12.20.010 - Construction permit required. No person shall construct a driveway across a public sidewalk without having first obtained a permit to do so. An application for a permit shall be submitted in writing to the city clerk and shall specify what is proposed to be done. The permit fee is contained in Chapter 3.48 of this code. (Ord. 2004/05-57 § 1 (part)) 12.20.020 - Specifications. A. All driveways across public sidewalks shall be constructed in conformity with specifications contained in the ICC Building Codes adopted by the city council and shall have a minimum thickness of six inches. B. Grades. The grade of a driveway crossing a public sidewalk shall be as nearly as possible the same as that of the sidewalk. C. Materials. No part of the surface of a driveway shall be composed of tile, smooth glass, or smooth metal where it crosses a public sidewalk. D. Obstructions. A driveway shall be kept free of obstructions where it crosses a public sidewalk. (Ord. 2004/05-57 § 1 (part)) Maybe there is more, but I didn't take the time to research any further. If the guy you talked to was R.G. , I really do question his ability as an inspector.
|
|
|
Post by helencrump on May 8, 2015 10:11:13 GMT -6
Maskedman, my parents sold on contract before, and I found this:
Land contract home sales go by other names such as "contract for deed," but they all mean the same thing: seller-financed mortgages. Because land contract home sellers are financing their buyers' mortgages, they retain legal ownership of their properties.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on May 9, 2015 17:03:09 GMT -6
What was the fire department looking at ontop of the majestic yesterday? They were high above the building on the tower truck. Were they looking for code violations? Maybe they were looking to see how much asbestos they could spot to get an idea of how much it might cost taxpayers to demolish the building. Kyle, Any asbestos in your building? g
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on May 9, 2015 20:48:59 GMT -6
I am sure that Building is full of it, all old Buildings have it. Better get busy on that project Kyle from South park. lol
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 10, 2015 7:05:00 GMT -6
Maybe they were looking to see how much asbestos they could spot to get an idea of how much it might cost taxpayers to demolish the building. Kyle, Any asbestos in your building? g Gee greek, don't you think that is a silly question? Even CP knows that old buildings have asbestos. Although it was known about 1900 that asbestos was killing people, it wasn't phased out of many building materials until the 1980's, was it? Don't you think that there is asbestos in most of the structures in Streator, including homes? Isn't it true that getting all of the asbestos out of buildings is just too cost restrictive? Isn't it also true though that most asbestos in buildings is considered safe as long as it is encapsulated and not disturbed? I am proud to say that I have removed most of the problematic asbestos from my building. Just this weekend, I have been further encapsulating more of the less dangerous asbestos in my building. Yes, I continue to invest in my building despite dog being convinced that it would be best if I just walked away from my investments here. I think the difference between my building and the Majestic is that I haven't followed dog's advice and just walked away from my investment to let taxpayers most likely have to pay for the expensive asbestos removal for demolition. Leaving a huge hole in the roof of the building with a lot of water running though it, would probably be disturbing any asbestos that may have been encapsulated in the building and making it more dangerous, don't you think? Walking away from his investment and not even caring enough about the community where he was raised (a non-import) to get anyone, like maybe his dear family friend MnM, his legal consultant/eviction crew/Floor to Ceiling friends, or any of his local family members (Burke or Vissering) to at least put a tarp over the hole, despite the $130,000.00 in donations taken from the community to "Save" the theatre, certainly seems like an FU attitude. Some people here certainly do support him and his ways though and seem to be more concerned about what the "import" to the community is doing with his building. Some people make it out as if I am missing some type of quality because I was not raised in Streator. I certainly could follow dog's advice and take Tim's non-import FU attitude to walk away from my building (after pulling HVAC units, windows, copper piping and wiring, etc.) to leave behind a useless shell of a building for taxpayers to be forced to pay to demolish, but I have too much respect for myself and the many good people of Streator. Perhaps since our City leaders seem to now being doing things differently, they will recognize and support those who are investing in our community more, regardless of where they were born and raised. Don't you think? I think Anything's Possible here if they do keep doing things differently.
|
|
|
Post by dog on May 10, 2015 10:30:29 GMT -6
Kyle, Any asbestos in your building? g Gee greek, don't you think that is a silly question? Even CP knows that old buildings have asbestos. Although it was known about 1900 that asbestos was killing people, it wasn't phased out of many building materials until the 1980's, was it? Don't you think that there is asbestos in most of the structures in Streator, including homes? Isn't it true that getting all of the asbestos out of buildings is just too cost restrictive? Isn't it also true though that most asbestos in buildings is considered safe as long as it is encapsulated and not disturbed? I am proud to say that I have removed most of the problematic asbestos from my building. Just this weekend, I have been further encapsulating more of the less dangerous asbestos in my building. Yes, I continue to invest in my building despite dog being convinced that it would be best if I just walked away from my investments here. I think the difference between my building and the Majestic is that I haven't followed dog's advice and just walked away from my investment to let taxpayers most likely have to pay for the expensive asbestos removal for demolition. Leaving a huge hole in the roof of the building with a lot of water running though it, would probably be disturbing any asbestos that may have been encapsulated in the building and making it more dangerous, don't you think? Walking away from his investment and not even caring enough about the community where he was raised (a non-import) to get anyone, like maybe his dear family friend MnM, his legal consultant/eviction crew/Floor to Ceiling friends, or any of his local family members (Burke or Vissering) to at least put a tarp over the hole, despite the $130,000.00 in donations taken from the community to "Save" the theatre, certainly seems like an FU attitude. Some people here certainly do support him and his ways though and seem to be more concerned about what the "import" to the community is doing with his building. Some people make it out as if I am missing some type of quality because I was not raised in Streator. I certainly could follow dog's advice and take Tim's non-import FU attitude to walk away from my building (after pulling HVAC units, windows, copper piping and wiring, etc.) to leave behind a useless shell of a building for taxpayers to be forced to pay to demolish, but I have too much respect for myself and the many good people of Streator. Perhaps since our City leaders seem to now being doing things differently, they will recognize and support those who are investing in our community more, regardless of where they were born and raised. Don't you think? I think Anything's Possible here if they do keep doing things differently.
I see you missed me and are trying to bring me back into the conversation , so I wont disappoint. I was not or am not convinced that walking away from your investment was the prudent thing to do. I made it as a suggestion that if you were upside down that it might be a good thing to consider. You came back and said you weren't upside down and that's that. If Burke is allowing his building to go to pot and letting the bank take it back, he could very well be following advice similar to what I suggested to you. In his case, it might be the better choice.
I think it isn't a question of people supporting him and his ways and making more of a big deal out of you. Obviously there are some here that like to wind you up and are more concerned with antagonizing you rather than what you are actually doing to your building. Most who contributed to save the Majestic, will be pi$$ed for a while but wont worry too much about it in their own lives. I freely contributed $50 to help save the Majestic, knowing full well that there was no guarantee that would keep the Majestic open forever, or a year, or even a month, but I am not going to go on post after post, on how Tim Burke screwed us. It happened. Although, like you, I personally don't think people should run away from their obligations, sometimes it is better to use every legal direction to create a better outcome.
I am curious, with all your cameras and your observations of the Majestic as your neighbor, didn't you capture the removal of the projectors on your surveillance?
Edit: According to info from the letter from Katies attorney to Burke, the lawyer indicates very little equity in either theater building:
"It appears as though there is little or no equity in either of the theater buildings"
And then what you posted at the film-tech forum:
"His non-digital, boarded up, falling apart building in a small declining market isn't even worth the amount of his mortgage, in my opinion."
With very little equity in a building that is falling apart, that isn't even worth the amount of the mortgage, why would anyone in their right mind, continue to pay on a $130,000 mortgage AND cost of repairs just to save face or respect?
I think Dave had asked you about who had the projectors. I saw this but maybe you forgot you posted this too at that site:
"She gained access to the building, took the digital equipment, popper, candy, etc."
It also appears you didn't give the theater much of a chance after Tim screwed you over:
"When you screw over someone who the community watched working so hard on the place as I did, I don't think that business really ever recovers."
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on May 10, 2015 18:36:25 GMT -6
Gee greek, don't you think that is a silly question? Even CP knows that old buildings have asbestos. Although it was known about 1900 that asbestos was killing people, it wasn't phased out of many building materials until the 1980's, was it? Don't you think that there is asbestos in most of the structures in Streator, including homes? Isn't it true that getting all of the asbestos out of buildings is just too cost restrictive? Isn't it also true though that most asbestos in buildings is considered safe as long as it is encapsulated and not disturbed? I am proud to say that I have removed most of the problematic asbestos from my building. Just this weekend, I have been further encapsulating more of the less dangerous asbestos in my building. Yes, I continue to invest in my building despite dog being convinced that it would be best if I just walked away from my investments here. I think the difference between my building and the Majestic is that I haven't followed dog's advice and just walked away from my investment to let taxpayers most likely have to pay for the expensive asbestos removal for demolition. Leaving a huge hole in the roof of the building with a lot of water running though it, would probably be disturbing any asbestos that may have been encapsulated in the building and making it more dangerous, don't you think? Walking away from his investment and not even caring enough about the community where he was raised (a non-import) to get anyone, like maybe his dear family friend MnM, his legal consultant/eviction crew/Floor to Ceiling friends, or any of his local family members (Burke or Vissering) to at least put a tarp over the hole, despite the $130,000.00 in donations taken from the community to "Save" the theatre, certainly seems like an FU attitude. Some people here certainly do support him and his ways though and seem to be more concerned about what the "import" to the community is doing with his building. Some people make it out as if I am missing some type of quality because I was not raised in Streator. I certainly could follow dog's advice and take Tim's non-import FU attitude to walk away from my building (after pulling HVAC units, windows, copper piping and wiring, etc.) to leave behind a useless shell of a building for taxpayers to be forced to pay to demolish, but I have too much respect for myself and the many good people of Streator. Perhaps since our City leaders seem to now being doing things differently, they will recognize and support those who are investing in our community more, regardless of where they were born and raised. Don't you think? I think Anything's Possible here if they do keep doing things differently.
I am curious, with all your cameras and your observations of the Majestic as your neighbor, didn't you capture the removal of the projectors on your surveillance?
Edit: According to info from the letter from Katies attorney to Burke, the lawyer indicates very little equity in either theater building:
"It appears as though there is little or no equity in either of the theater buildings"
And then what you posted at the film-tech forum:
"His non-digital, boarded up, falling apart building in a small declining market isn't even worth the amount of his mortgage, in my opinion."
With very little equity in a building that is falling apart, that isn't even worth the amount of the mortgage, why would anyone in their right mind, continue to pay on a $130,000 mortgage AND cost of repairs just to save face or respect?
I think Dave had asked you about who had the projectors. I saw this but maybe you forgot you posted this too at that site:
"She gained access to the building, took the digital equipment, popper, candy, etc."
It also appears you didn't give the theater much of a chance after Tim screwed you over:
"When you screw over someone who the community watched working so hard on the place as I did, I don't think that business really ever recovers."
dog, Great question about those cameras. I really doubt if Kyle will offer an answer why they were not working during the removal of the the donated projectors. In my opinion Kyle now supports or elected officials as being "more business friendly" since he has recognized that his past remarks will make his building lose value when he places it on the market. I haven't seen a remarkable change in our Mayor and City Council since the last election as being more "business friendly", but then again I always believed they were. In my opinion it seems Kyle has undergone a wonderful epiphany. Oh, and no Kyle, I don't miss you. That's just my own opinion though. g
|
|
|
Post by toshiko on May 11, 2015 9:12:54 GMT -6
I, skimmed the thread. Where is the money,folks donated? Who got that money? Kyle, the gal, Tim? who?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 11, 2015 9:18:19 GMT -6
I see you missed me and are trying to bring me back into the conversation , so I wont disappoint. I was not or am not convinced that walking away from your investment was the prudent thing to do. I made it as a suggestion that if you were upside down that it might be a good thing to consider. You came back and said you weren't upside down and that's that. Yes dog, I missed your ridiculous claims that you were attempting to "help" me, as if I couldn't figure out for myself that just not making payments and leaving my building with water running through it so that tax payers could pay to demolish it is a possible option. Gee dog, you really seem to be back pedaling. If it was just a suggestion, it was a strongly repeated suggestion of being the best thing for me financially (without even knowing about my finances), after my having already said multiple times that I could not afford to just walk away from my investments here. Did I say I was not upside down? Didn't I ask questions about what you meant by upside down, that you just ignored? Is upside down when the real estate market is so low that you can't sell a building for what you have invested in it, like taxpayers with the Mushro building? If so, isn't a lot of Streator upside down? Should everyone who can't get what they have put into their buildings/homes back out of them just walk away and leave them as someone else's problem to deal with? I just think your "suggestion" and attempt to "help" without even knowing my finances is simply ridiculous. Obviously there are some here that like to wind you up and are more concerned with antagonizing you rather than what you are actually doing to your building.
Gee dog, despite your inferring that I am not as educated as you are, I do realize that people like to wind me up with claims of "helping" me when sticking their nose in my finances and worrying about how much I utilize my building. If Burke is allowing his building to go to pot and letting the bank take it back, he could very well be following advice similar to what I suggested to you. In his case, it might be the better choice.
I think it isn't a question of people supporting him and his ways and making more of a big deal out of you. Obviously there are some here that like to wind you up and are more concerned with antagonizing you rather than what you are actually doing to your building. Most who contributed to save the Majestic, will be pi$$ed for a while but wont worry too much about it in their own lives. I freely contributed $50 to help save the Majestic, knowing full well that there was no guarantee that would keep the Majestic open forever, or a year, or even a month, but I am not going to go on post after post, on how Tim Burke screwed us. It happened. Although, like you, I personally don't think people should run away from their obligations, sometimes it is better to use every legal direction to create a better outcome.
I am curious, with all your cameras and your observations of the Majestic as your neighbor, didn't you capture the removal of the projectors on your surveillance?
Edit: According to info from the letter from Katies attorney to Burke, the lawyer indicates very little equity in either theater building:
"It appears as though there is little or no equity in either of the theater buildings"
And then what you posted at the film-tech forum:
"His non-digital, boarded up, falling apart building in a small declining market isn't even worth the amount of his mortgage, in my opinion."
With very little equity in a building that is falling apart, that isn't even worth the amount of the mortgage, why would anyone in their right mind, continue to pay on a $130,000 mortgage AND cost of repairs just to save face or respect?
I think Dave had asked you about who had the projectors. I saw this but maybe you forgot you posted this too at that site:
"She gained access to the building, took the digital equipment, popper, candy, etc."
It also appears you didn't give the theater much of a chance after Tim screwed you over:
"When you screw over someone who the community watched working so hard on the place as I did, I don't think that business really ever recovers."
Wow dog, you are really digging up some posts to try to defend Tim's following your advice, aren't you? Yes dog, I do think that the Majestic would sell for less than what he owes on it. Haven't you seen how little commercial real estate is going for here? I don't think that has changed so much since the time that he accepted $130,000.00 in donations to save the place though. I think the reason that a person in their right mind would keep paying his mortgage and take care of the building is because that was the obligation he agreed to. Weren't his payments being made by Katie though? If he couldn't afford to repair the place, maybe he should have accepted a reasonable offer from Katie, don't you think? Wouldn't that have stopped him from even being foreclosed on and not screwed over the community? Maybe though, screwing over the community was his only motive. No, I didn't forget my posts on film-tech. Perhaps I should have used some of my weasel words like "appears" or "it seems", since I don't really have any non-hearsay proof that she took the items out of the Majestic. Since she had posted on Facebook that the projectors were secured and the Couch's had posted that they had video of her taking them and were going to the SA's office (who likely called ownership of them a civil matter as opposed to filing theft charges), I didn't even bother looking at my video. Perhaps I wasn't very clear in answering Dave. Probably because I was not happy with his inferring that those projectors could be at the Roxy. I do believe that Katie has the projectors. Funny thing is that I just ran into Katie yesterday when she was bringing her family to a show at my place of employment in Ottawa. I was going to ask her about the projectors, but she seemed visibly upset when I told her that I could see the section of roof missing from above the projection room and how sad it was to see so much water pouring through the place over the past few days, since Tim didn't seem to even bother having any of his local supporters try to cover it (maybe he should have called you, since you seem to like trying to cover his a$$). It even got her husband's attention, who was clearly trying to just ignore me. I backed off on asking about the projectors or saying much more because I really didn't want to make her start crying in the lobby. I had already suspected that maybe Katie was still working on getting back into the place, but now after seeing how upset she was and concerned her husband was of the news that the place is being flooded, I am even more convinced that was the case. Obviously there will be considerable extra expense added to that now. I find it interesting sad that you try to justify his walking away from the theatre that he accepted $130,000.00 in public donations to "Save" and now just leaves a huge hole in the roof so the weather can destroy the place. Yes, Tim sure seems good at running away from his obligations. However, do you really think that soliciting and accepting $130,000.00 in public donations just a couple of months before running away form his obligations was a legal direction?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on May 11, 2015 9:21:17 GMT -6
dog, Great question about those cameras. I really doubt if Kyle will offer an answer why they were not working during the removal of the the donated projectors. In my opinion Kyle now supports or elected officials as being "more business friendly" since he has recognized that his past remarks will make his building lose value when he places it on the market. I haven't seen a remarkable change in our Mayor and City Council since the last election as being more "business friendly", but then again I always believed they were. In my opinion it seems Kyle has undergone a wonderful epiphany. Oh, and no Kyle, I don't miss you. That's just my own opinion though. g Gee greek, did anyone say that my cameras weren't working when the projectors were removed? Yes, I have been recognizing that our City seems to be changing. Haven't you been reading about the changes? After over seven years of asking them to take some action to try to help curb the bar violence, they finally made the first statement with any viable solution that I have ever heard from them. When the article came out last year highlighting the problems, they didn't offer any real solution, just talked about what we couldn't afford to do. I see that as a huge change over their previous responses to my requests. I am anxious to see what else they might do to improve our community and am willing to back off some to give them a chance to make more changes. However, that certainly won't stop me from still talking about what they do. I still think their ridiculous snow removal ordinance is wrong, is hurting our community by projecting an unfriendly business attitude that keeps business away, and should be changed as soon as possible. This morning in front of my place of employment in Ottawa, I talked to Derek from the Times about the ordinance and asked that he ask the City if they really expect building owners to remove "all" of the snow from the sidewalk or if they will correct the problem soon and how our City (and their tax payer funded attorneys) could allow such a ridiculous ordinance to be passed in the first place, and write about it. I certainly don't think it was my remarks about our City that made my building lose value. I believe it was their overly restrictive, selectively enforced ordinances, lack of enforcement of other laws, and their unfriendly business attitude that created the loss of value to not only my building, but also the many other buildings that have sold at low values and even been given away with values being so low. My epiphany is that they seem to be finally correcting some of the problems that I have talked about for years as well as their attitude. With that, I think that Anything Could Be Possible here, including better real estate values.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on May 11, 2015 10:09:56 GMT -6
Did you ask Derek to make the same inquiry with the Ottawa city officials since they have an identical ordinance requiring snow removal? Imagine how much more your employer could pay you if he wasn't saddled with the exorbitant cost of, heavens forbid, having to shovel the sidewalk a few times every year.
|
|
|
Post by dog on May 11, 2015 11:45:13 GMT -6
I see you missed me and are trying to bring me back into the conversation , so I wont disappoint. I was not or am not convinced that walking away from your investment was the prudent thing to do. I made it as a suggestion that if you were upside down that it might be a good thing to consider. You came back and said you weren't upside down and that's that. Yes dog, I missed your ridiculous claims that you were attempting to "help" me, as if I couldn't figure out for myself that just not making payments and leaving my building with water running through it so that tax payers could pay to demolish it is a possible option. Gee dog, you really seem to be back pedaling. If it was just a suggestion, it was a strongly repeated suggestion of being the best thing for me financially (without even knowing about my finances), after my having already said multiple times that I could not afford to just walk away from my investments here. Did I say I was not upside down? Didn't I ask questions about what you meant by upside down, that you just ignored? Is upside down when the real estate market is so low that you can't sell a building for what you have invested in it, like taxpayers with the Mushro building? If so, isn't a lot of Streator upside down? Should everyone who can't get what they have put into their buildings/homes back out of them just walk away and leave them as someone else's problem to deal with? I just think your "suggestion" and attempt to "help" without even knowing my finances is simply ridiculous. Obviously there are some here that like to wind you up and are more concerned with antagonizing you rather than what you are actually doing to your building.
Gee dog, despite your inferring that I am not as educated as you are, I do realize that people like to wind me up with claims of "helping" me when sticking their nose in my finances and worrying about how much I utilize my building. If Burke is allowing his building to go to pot and letting the bank take it back, he could very well be following advice similar to what I suggested to you. In his case, it might be the better choice.
I think it isn't a question of people supporting him and his ways and making more of a big deal out of you. Obviously there are some here that like to wind you up and are more concerned with antagonizing you rather than what you are actually doing to your building. Most who contributed to save the Majestic, will be pi$$ed for a while but wont worry too much about it in their own lives. I freely contributed $50 to help save the Majestic, knowing full well that there was no guarantee that would keep the Majestic open forever, or a year, or even a month, but I am not going to go on post after post, on how Tim Burke screwed us. It happened. Although, like you, I personally don't think people should run away from their obligations, sometimes it is better to use every legal direction to create a better outcome.
I am curious, with all your cameras and your observations of the Majestic as your neighbor, didn't you capture the removal of the projectors on your surveillance?
Edit: According to info from the letter from Katies attorney to Burke, the lawyer indicates very little equity in either theater building:
"It appears as though there is little or no equity in either of the theater buildings"
And then what you posted at the film-tech forum:
"His non-digital, boarded up, falling apart building in a small declining market isn't even worth the amount of his mortgage, in my opinion."
With very little equity in a building that is falling apart, that isn't even worth the amount of the mortgage, why would anyone in their right mind, continue to pay on a $130,000 mortgage AND cost of repairs just to save face or respect?
I think Dave had asked you about who had the projectors. I saw this but maybe you forgot you posted this too at that site:
"She gained access to the building, took the digital equipment, popper, candy, etc."
It also appears you didn't give the theater much of a chance after Tim screwed you over:
"When you screw over someone who the community watched working so hard on the place as I did, I don't think that business really ever recovers."
Wow dog, you are really digging up some posts to try to defend Tim's following your advice, aren't you? Yes dog, I do think that the Majestic would sell for less than what he owes on it. Haven't you seen how little commercial real estate is going for here? I don't think that has changed so much since the time that he accepted $130,000.00 in donations to save the place though. I think the reason that a person in their right mind would keep paying his mortgage and take care of the building is because that was the obligation he agreed to. Weren't his payments being made by Katie though? If he couldn't afford to repair the place, maybe he should have accepted a reasonable offer from Katie, don't you think? Wouldn't that have stopped him from even being foreclosed on and not screwed over the community? Maybe though, screwing over the community was his only motive. No, I didn't forget my posts on film-tech. Perhaps I should have used some of my weasel words like "appears" or "it seems", since I don't really have any non-hearsay proof that she took the items out of the Majestic. Since she had posted on Facebook that the projectors were secured and the Couch's had posted that they had video of her taking them and were going to the SA's office (who likely called ownership of them a civil matter as opposed to filing theft charges), I didn't even bother looking at my video. Perhaps I wasn't very clear in answering Dave. Probably because I was not happy with his inferring that those projectors could be at the Roxy. I do believe that Katie has the projectors. Funny thing is that I just ran into Katie yesterday when she was bringing her family to a show at my place of employment in Ottawa. I was going to ask her about the projectors, but she seemed visibly upset when I told her that I could see the section of roof missing from above the projection room and how sad it was to see so much water pouring through the place over the past few days, since Tim didn't seem to even bother having any of his local supporters try to cover it (maybe he should have called you, since you seem to like trying to cover his a$$). It even got her husband's attention, who was clearly trying to just ignore me. I backed off on asking about the projectors or saying much more because I really didn't want to make her start crying in the lobby. I had already suspected that maybe Katie was still working on getting back into the place, but now after seeing how upset she was and concerned her husband was of the news that the place is being flooded, I am even more convinced that was the case. Obviously there will be considerable extra expense added to that now. I find it interesting sad that you try to justify his walking away from the theatre that he accepted $130,000.00 in public donations to "Save" and now just leaves a huge hole in the roof so the weather can destroy the place. Yes, Tim sure seems good at running away from his obligations. However, do you really think that soliciting and accepting $130,000.00 in public donations just a couple of months before running away form his obligations was a legal direction? Yes, Kyle, I made a suggestion and havent brought it up since. You explained and I stopped. Now you keep bringing it back up. You are smart enough to figure out all these things, but you arent smart enough to figure out what upside down means? By referencing Tim, I showed you a case of being upside down. I am not trying to cover his a$$ or justify or defend anything he does. I am using him as an example. For the record, I respect you for not running out on your financial obligations that you made. I agree it was wrong to solicit donations and then close the theater. I was just pointing out that people should have known that their donations came with no guarantee. I donated like others did to save the Majestic. If the Roxy would have asked for donations, I would have donated to save that place too. 20 years ago, I donated to a sports venue to help it re-open. It was a for-profit and I enjoy going there to this day. Tim is a sh!tbag for what he did in regards to the handling of the donations, but other than losing respect, isnt he better off walking away from his obligations. You are fortunate that you can still keep your morals. Everyday I see more and more people being better off because they legally play the system, whether I consider it morally acceptable or not. I find myself more willing to take those legal benefits, even if I find them morally offensive.
|
|