Monday, May 26, 2008
Environmental poisoning/contamination in Huntington/Abbotsford.
If you do not want to read the tale of tangled webs, fraud and perhaps forthcoming fraud – you need to read the environmental pollution/poisoning portion highlighted in red, although the background would be useful for understanding and context.
An interesting tale of tangled webs woven and environmental contamination
I met Wayne McCulloch shortly after I first became homeless in Abbotsford and so have known him for several years.
Wayne is in my economic bracket – abject poverty; when he had some legal and related documents he needed looked at and discussed with him, he could not go running to seek (costly) professional advice.
Wayne’s place is a corner property in Huntington, at the corner of Sumas Way and 4th Avenue. At one point he owned it free and clear but finding himself in a state of poverty, owing taxes and legal fees of close to $20,000 and with no credit rating he was in desperate circumstances.
So a deal was struck with someone Wayne knew. For a ¼ interest apiece the acquaintance and his brother-in-law, a mortgage broker, would secure a $75,000 mortgage which would pay off the monies owed and provide living/operating capital for Wayne.
Flash forward to today. The acquaintance of Wayne’s passed away this past year and the deceased brother-in-law served Wayne with court papers seeking to force the sale of the property. Wayne filed with the court to dispute the matter and did some research and a search for applicable documentation.
So it was that Wayne came to find himself in need of a professional to read the stack of documentation and advise him. Unfortunately for Wayne he is poor and could not afford to pay – limiting him pretty much to one choice – me.
In the interest of honesty I must admit that while I hope I would have done it as a matter of friendship, my car needed work, I live in poverty, Wayne’s a mechanical wizard …and we both got to sooth our pride since each of us had a skill the other needed.
I will spare the reader even a brief summary of the hundreds of pages of documents and copies Wayne has in his files on this and just go with the interesting and “tangled web” documents and facts.
Photographs of the open pipes that lead to the underground oil tanks on the property; a copy of the title that shows nothing about any oil tanks; photos of the flooding that takes place when it rains (the result of the work done on 4th Avenue); the recently received copy of the appraisal for the original mortgage years ago (requested by Wayne in his search for all the documentation he could possibly in any way need); the court/legal papers he was served; the affidavit filled by the brother-in-law in support of his suit and finally the fact that a recent appraisal was done on the property at considerable expense to the brother-in-law – without the appraiser speaking to Wayne in any way, just taking photographs.
The oil tanks were never disclosed when Wayne originally purchased the property – as I said there is no indication on the title that there are underground tanks. Wayne discovered them a few years after he bought the property.
When I asked, Wayne said that both of the people who getting a ¼ interest in the property were aware of the existence of the tanks when the deal was struck, that the plan had been to remove and clean up the contamination themselves.
I have no personal knowledge of this. While I cannot say exactly when I learned about the existence of the oil tanks, I have been aware of the tanks for several years. On my first visit to the property it was not hard to see the location of the pipes – the large steel plates covering them are hard to miss. I am aware of others who are also aware of the existence of the tanks, including local and provincial governments (more on that latter in the environmental calamity portion of the tail) since Wayne has never made any secret of their being there in my presence.
Even if the pipe openings were hidden - the air is tainted with the odor of petroleum products.
I asked the question because the recently received copy of the appraisal that was used to get the original loan makes no mention of the tanks. It does however contain a disclaimer that the presence of unknown environmental issues would make the appraised value incorrect.
When I asked about the original mortgage Wayne’s said that the two new partners in the property arranged the mortgage, that the brother-in-law mortgage broker handled it. Wayne could not remember if he had signed the original mortgage documentation.
The court suit specifically asked that Wayne be excluded from any dealings with the buyer but specifically asked Wayne be held liable for any warranties, guaranties etc. made by the brother-in-law in selling the property.
The appraisal and court suit required an outlay of further money on what, given the existence of the underground tanks and the cost of clean up, is not only a worthless piece of property but for anyone with assets a money pit to clean up.
Why would anyone sink more money into a piece of property they knew was worthless unless … they expected to get those monies and more back?
I pointed out to Wayne that obtaining the original mortgage without disclosing the underground tanks was fraudulent. As the appraisal’s so carefully worded and included disclaimer noted – environment problems render the property worth far less than the appraised value, assessed value or mortgage amount.
That with nothing on the title, should the court grant his petition, there is nothing to prevent the brother-in-law from selling the property without disclosing the oil tanks existence.
Given: the title search included in the documentation does not disclose the existence of underground storage tanks; the first mortgage appraisal did not disclose the existence of the tanks; that the mortgage on the property was obtained without disclosing the tanks, thus fraudulently; that the new, current appraisal was done without talking to Wayne or inspecting the property closely; that the petition to the court sought to ensure Wayne had no contact with any purchaser yet was to be held liable for any warranties made about the property; that the only way for the brother-in-law to recoup his current outlay of thousands of more dollars on a property he knew had underground tanks and was thus worthless; that there was nothing “on record” to demonstrate the brother-in-law knew of the underground tanks.
It seems probable that the brother-in-law intends to sell the property without disclosing the existence of the tanks. The money he is spending and the fact he is petitioning the court NOW suggests there is a buyer for the property.
Without hard evidence the brother-in-law knows about the tanks, he can claim ignorance and dump it all on Wayne.
Needless to say Wayne was somewhat unhappy with this possibility, feeling he was “hooped” and “what to do”.
I said the first thing we needed to do was to ensure the property was not sold to some innocent third party and avoid the can of worms that would open or give rise to.
This is where this tale takes an interesting Environmental pollution, contamination, menace, health threat twist.
I just plowed through all the documentation in the past few days, however I had been asked by Wayne for advice on who you would report his underground tanks to weeks ago, giving Wayne several suggestions.
He has tried the provincial government and Abbotsford City Hall getting no help or action.
Action is desperately needed. The road work done on Fourth Avenue means that every time it rains the property is flooded with several inches of water, contaminated water that leaves an oil film behind on everything it covered. The photos Wayne has frighteningly show the depth and extent of the flooding and the oily sheen of the water.
Every time it rains the property is flooded and the rain water contaminated. This contaminated water flows onto neighbouring properties, into the ditch, the local ecosystem, soil and the Abbotsford sewage system.
This is contaminating, poisoning the ground, the ecosystem and perhaps even the people of Huntington.
Action needs to be taken, not just to prevent this property being sold to some innocent third party, but far more importantly to prevent further poisoning of Huntington.
So it is I find myself writing this story down to share. This is a situation that cannot be referred to an advisory committee with no concrete action taken.
It needs to be acted on NOW.
An interesting tale of tangled webs woven and environmental contamination
I met Wayne McCulloch shortly after I first became homeless in Abbotsford and so have known him for several years.
Wayne is in my economic bracket – abject poverty; when he had some legal and related documents he needed looked at and discussed with him, he could not go running to seek (costly) professional advice.
Wayne’s place is a corner property in Huntington, at the corner of Sumas Way and 4th Avenue. At one point he owned it free and clear but finding himself in a state of poverty, owing taxes and legal fees of close to $20,000 and with no credit rating he was in desperate circumstances.
So a deal was struck with someone Wayne knew. For a ¼ interest apiece the acquaintance and his brother-in-law, a mortgage broker, would secure a $75,000 mortgage which would pay off the monies owed and provide living/operating capital for Wayne.
Flash forward to today. The acquaintance of Wayne’s passed away this past year and the deceased brother-in-law served Wayne with court papers seeking to force the sale of the property. Wayne filed with the court to dispute the matter and did some research and a search for applicable documentation.
So it was that Wayne came to find himself in need of a professional to read the stack of documentation and advise him. Unfortunately for Wayne he is poor and could not afford to pay – limiting him pretty much to one choice – me.
In the interest of honesty I must admit that while I hope I would have done it as a matter of friendship, my car needed work, I live in poverty, Wayne’s a mechanical wizard …and we both got to sooth our pride since each of us had a skill the other needed.
I will spare the reader even a brief summary of the hundreds of pages of documents and copies Wayne has in his files on this and just go with the interesting and “tangled web” documents and facts.
Photographs of the open pipes that lead to the underground oil tanks on the property; a copy of the title that shows nothing about any oil tanks; photos of the flooding that takes place when it rains (the result of the work done on 4th Avenue); the recently received copy of the appraisal for the original mortgage years ago (requested by Wayne in his search for all the documentation he could possibly in any way need); the court/legal papers he was served; the affidavit filled by the brother-in-law in support of his suit and finally the fact that a recent appraisal was done on the property at considerable expense to the brother-in-law – without the appraiser speaking to Wayne in any way, just taking photographs.
The oil tanks were never disclosed when Wayne originally purchased the property – as I said there is no indication on the title that there are underground tanks. Wayne discovered them a few years after he bought the property.
When I asked, Wayne said that both of the people who getting a ¼ interest in the property were aware of the existence of the tanks when the deal was struck, that the plan had been to remove and clean up the contamination themselves.
I have no personal knowledge of this. While I cannot say exactly when I learned about the existence of the oil tanks, I have been aware of the tanks for several years. On my first visit to the property it was not hard to see the location of the pipes – the large steel plates covering them are hard to miss. I am aware of others who are also aware of the existence of the tanks, including local and provincial governments (more on that latter in the environmental calamity portion of the tail) since Wayne has never made any secret of their being there in my presence.
Even if the pipe openings were hidden - the air is tainted with the odor of petroleum products.
I asked the question because the recently received copy of the appraisal that was used to get the original loan makes no mention of the tanks. It does however contain a disclaimer that the presence of unknown environmental issues would make the appraised value incorrect.
When I asked about the original mortgage Wayne’s said that the two new partners in the property arranged the mortgage, that the brother-in-law mortgage broker handled it. Wayne could not remember if he had signed the original mortgage documentation.
The court suit specifically asked that Wayne be excluded from any dealings with the buyer but specifically asked Wayne be held liable for any warranties, guaranties etc. made by the brother-in-law in selling the property.
The appraisal and court suit required an outlay of further money on what, given the existence of the underground tanks and the cost of clean up, is not only a worthless piece of property but for anyone with assets a money pit to clean up.
Why would anyone sink more money into a piece of property they knew was worthless unless … they expected to get those monies and more back?
I pointed out to Wayne that obtaining the original mortgage without disclosing the underground tanks was fraudulent. As the appraisal’s so carefully worded and included disclaimer noted – environment problems render the property worth far less than the appraised value, assessed value or mortgage amount.
That with nothing on the title, should the court grant his petition, there is nothing to prevent the brother-in-law from selling the property without disclosing the oil tanks existence.
Given: the title search included in the documentation does not disclose the existence of underground storage tanks; the first mortgage appraisal did not disclose the existence of the tanks; that the mortgage on the property was obtained without disclosing the tanks, thus fraudulently; that the new, current appraisal was done without talking to Wayne or inspecting the property closely; that the petition to the court sought to ensure Wayne had no contact with any purchaser yet was to be held liable for any warranties made about the property; that the only way for the brother-in-law to recoup his current outlay of thousands of more dollars on a property he knew had underground tanks and was thus worthless; that there was nothing “on record” to demonstrate the brother-in-law knew of the underground tanks.
It seems probable that the brother-in-law intends to sell the property without disclosing the existence of the tanks. The money he is spending and the fact he is petitioning the court NOW suggests there is a buyer for the property.
Without hard evidence the brother-in-law knows about the tanks, he can claim ignorance and dump it all on Wayne.
Needless to say Wayne was somewhat unhappy with this possibility, feeling he was “hooped” and “what to do”.
I said the first thing we needed to do was to ensure the property was not sold to some innocent third party and avoid the can of worms that would open or give rise to.
This is where this tale takes an interesting Environmental pollution, contamination, menace, health threat twist.
I just plowed through all the documentation in the past few days, however I had been asked by Wayne for advice on who you would report his underground tanks to weeks ago, giving Wayne several suggestions.
He has tried the provincial government and Abbotsford City Hall getting no help or action.
Action is desperately needed. The road work done on Fourth Avenue means that every time it rains the property is flooded with several inches of water, contaminated water that leaves an oil film behind on everything it covered. The photos Wayne has frighteningly show the depth and extent of the flooding and the oily sheen of the water.
Every time it rains the property is flooded and the rain water contaminated. This contaminated water flows onto neighbouring properties, into the ditch, the local ecosystem, soil and the Abbotsford sewage system.
This is contaminating, poisoning the ground, the ecosystem and perhaps even the people of Huntington.
Action needs to be taken, not just to prevent this property being sold to some innocent third party, but far more importantly to prevent further poisoning of Huntington.
So it is I find myself writing this story down to share. This is a situation that cannot be referred to an advisory committee with no concrete action taken.
It needs to be acted on NOW.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Report from the principal's office ...
When John Smith started by repeating, almost verbatim the same excuse speech he has been using for the last 2 ½ + years for why council is doing nothing to address homelessness and its related problems; when Councillors Smith, Beck and Harris stated their ridiculous Cheerios Theory – that serving Cheerios in Jubilee Park was at the root of the problems in the Park; I knew Mark Rushton had been correct when he wrote voters needed to vote in a totally new council if they wanted growing problems in Abbotsford such as homelessness to be addressed in an effective, positive manner.
Calling a Pastor on the carpet at City Hall, like a delinquent schoolboy, for daring to practice his Christian values is unacceptable behaviour. Chasing the homeless out of Jubilee Park at great expense when they will only return is pointless. Why does Bob Bos and his Downtown Business Association deserve special treatment by having the homeless in the Park chased into some other Abbotsford neighbourhood?
Other cities, with fewer advantages than Abbotsford has, are making solid progress in addressing homelessness on their streets because they have leadership and common sense, while Abbotsford is unfortunately stuck with spendthrift politicians.
Calling a Pastor on the carpet at City Hall, like a delinquent schoolboy, for daring to practice his Christian values is unacceptable behaviour. Chasing the homeless out of Jubilee Park at great expense when they will only return is pointless. Why does Bob Bos and his Downtown Business Association deserve special treatment by having the homeless in the Park chased into some other Abbotsford neighbourhood?
Other cities, with fewer advantages than Abbotsford has, are making solid progress in addressing homelessness on their streets because they have leadership and common sense, while Abbotsford is unfortunately stuck with spendthrift politicians.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Bruce Beck Blatters on ...
Not wanting to disappoint Councillor Beck’s expressed expectation of reading reaction to statements he made at Wednesday May 7’s City Hall “browbeat the Pastor” meeting, this one’s for you Bruce.
In advancing the Smith-Beck-Harris Cheerios Theory Councillor Beck demonstrated he shared his fellow councillor’s lack of even the most basic knowledge and understanding of the realities of homelessness and addiction.
He also clearly shared his council colleagues’ lack of understanding of the purpose of applying a bandage and the desire to spare Bob Bos and the Downtown Business Association the problems of the homeless on the streets of Abbotsford by once again moving the homeless to other neighbourhoods.
Councillor Beck’s statement that closing down the Food Bank for three days to renovate was the same as the Pastor complying with their demand to never feed again feed the hungry in Jubilee Park, clearly demonstrates: a) his need to sit down and spend some time watching Sesame Street in order to get an understanding of similar things and things that are not similar and b) the continuing need for dictionaries at city hall in order that they can look up and (hopefully) gain an understanding of concepts such as “three” and “never”; even the homeless know that never is a lot longer than 3 days.
Councillor Beck proceeded to speak of spending $10’s of millions of dollars to relocate the city’s seniors group. Now my first reaction was that he was being facetious in that statement, but reflecting on his his spendthrift ways as a councillor of squandering taxpayer’s money ….
What the statement clearly demonstrated was that for covering up, avoiding or mishandling the social problems of homelessness, addiction, mental illness and poverty councillors and the city can find time and money. It is only when it comes to dealing with these social problems that neither time nor resources can be found, and we get the same old “not our responsibility, we have not the wherewithal” speech.
Addressing the social problems on the streets of Abbotsford is not about ridiculous theories, harassing Pastors or chasing the problems from a favoured neighbourhood to a neighbourhood obviously less favoured by council, it is about vision, leadership and responsible, thoughtful action.
In advancing the Smith-Beck-Harris Cheerios Theory Councillor Beck demonstrated he shared his fellow councillor’s lack of even the most basic knowledge and understanding of the realities of homelessness and addiction.
He also clearly shared his council colleagues’ lack of understanding of the purpose of applying a bandage and the desire to spare Bob Bos and the Downtown Business Association the problems of the homeless on the streets of Abbotsford by once again moving the homeless to other neighbourhoods.
Councillor Beck’s statement that closing down the Food Bank for three days to renovate was the same as the Pastor complying with their demand to never feed again feed the hungry in Jubilee Park, clearly demonstrates: a) his need to sit down and spend some time watching Sesame Street in order to get an understanding of similar things and things that are not similar and b) the continuing need for dictionaries at city hall in order that they can look up and (hopefully) gain an understanding of concepts such as “three” and “never”; even the homeless know that never is a lot longer than 3 days.
Councillor Beck proceeded to speak of spending $10’s of millions of dollars to relocate the city’s seniors group. Now my first reaction was that he was being facetious in that statement, but reflecting on his his spendthrift ways as a councillor of squandering taxpayer’s money ….
What the statement clearly demonstrated was that for covering up, avoiding or mishandling the social problems of homelessness, addiction, mental illness and poverty councillors and the city can find time and money. It is only when it comes to dealing with these social problems that neither time nor resources can be found, and we get the same old “not our responsibility, we have not the wherewithal” speech.
Addressing the social problems on the streets of Abbotsford is not about ridiculous theories, harassing Pastors or chasing the problems from a favoured neighbourhood to a neighbourhood obviously less favoured by council, it is about vision, leadership and responsible, thoughtful action.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Ban Cigarettes?
Before commenting on the Posts call for banning cigarettes we need to clear up one major point: does the Post in anyway have financial interests (potential profits) in the nicotine replacement industry?
Cigarettes are merely the most widely used method to feed the addiction to nicotine of nicotine addicts. Unless nicotine is added to the illegal substances list along side crack, heroin, meth etc. most addicts will merely switch from cigarettes to an alternative, legal, method of feeding their addiction. Perhaps becoming patrons of safe injections sites in Vancouver?
Should the Post’s call for making illegal cigarettes and not nicotine (the additctor) be merely an oversight, I am willing to support the Post’s call for adding nicotine to the list of illegal substances and for a prohibition on alcohol.
Not because I think that prohibition or illegalization are good ideas or effective ways to deal with addiction. Rather I think it would prove very salient and educational to the public about, our current policies on addiction and illegalization of those drugs we choose to name as illegal.
I want to urge the Post to stand solidly behind its call for prohibition of alcohol and illegalization of nicotine. Assuming its position is not merely a veiled attempt to get in on the profits, political points and bucks to be made out of the illegalization of drugs.
The post’s original opinion Friday March 21, 2008
The provincial government is continuing its attack on smoking, second-hand cigarette smoke and the people who continue to puff – all in the name of improving health and by extrapolation, reducing healthcare costs and Workers’ Compensation Board claims.
Yet the senior governments won’t do the one thing that would ultimately be the best thing for all accounts – make smoking illegal.
The provincial government ads proclaiming “improvements to B.C.’s tobacco control laws” will “protect the health of all British Columbians and their communities” but doesn’t say what the law’s all about ... spin doctors proclaiming a government’s dedication to health in time for the Olympics while costing pub patrons their entertainment and pub owners their profits.
So what about smoking rooms and cigar stores? And what about drinking? It’s unhealthy too. Will the government tell us all how to live?
Smoking is legal.
Cigarettes are merely the most widely used method to feed the addiction to nicotine of nicotine addicts. Unless nicotine is added to the illegal substances list along side crack, heroin, meth etc. most addicts will merely switch from cigarettes to an alternative, legal, method of feeding their addiction. Perhaps becoming patrons of safe injections sites in Vancouver?
Should the Post’s call for making illegal cigarettes and not nicotine (the additctor) be merely an oversight, I am willing to support the Post’s call for adding nicotine to the list of illegal substances and for a prohibition on alcohol.
Not because I think that prohibition or illegalization are good ideas or effective ways to deal with addiction. Rather I think it would prove very salient and educational to the public about, our current policies on addiction and illegalization of those drugs we choose to name as illegal.
I want to urge the Post to stand solidly behind its call for prohibition of alcohol and illegalization of nicotine. Assuming its position is not merely a veiled attempt to get in on the profits, political points and bucks to be made out of the illegalization of drugs.
The post’s original opinion Friday March 21, 2008
The provincial government is continuing its attack on smoking, second-hand cigarette smoke and the people who continue to puff – all in the name of improving health and by extrapolation, reducing healthcare costs and Workers’ Compensation Board claims.
Yet the senior governments won’t do the one thing that would ultimately be the best thing for all accounts – make smoking illegal.
The provincial government ads proclaiming “improvements to B.C.’s tobacco control laws” will “protect the health of all British Columbians and their communities” but doesn’t say what the law’s all about ... spin doctors proclaiming a government’s dedication to health in time for the Olympics while costing pub patrons their entertainment and pub owners their profits.
So what about smoking rooms and cigar stores? And what about drinking? It’s unhealthy too. Will the government tell us all how to live?
Smoking is legal.
