Does Whistler Follow Their Own Covenant?

BAW4.2Recent blogs have focused on the Phase 2 covenant in Whistler, and how in our case a manager is using the covenant to shield incredibly aggressive behavior.

While individual Whistler government officials have at times has seemed quite sympathetic to the situation, their public comments have steadfastly maintained “this is not our problem, this is a dispute between private parties.”

That unfortunately is a deeply misguided approach.  In addition to neglecting the impact on the entire Phase 2 real estate model that the City’s avoidance creates, the City’s head-in-the-sand policy it also just mistaken.

The Whistler Phase 2 covenant explicitly requires that the manager be approved by the City of Whistler.  

Let’s think about that for a minute.  The same covenant that says everyone should work with a single manager also sets up the requirement that the manager first be approved by Whistler.  This isn’t some idle phrase – there is quite a bit of language in the covenant about this approval.

This makes sense.  It’s the kind of oversight and assurance that investors from around the world would expect.  If the City of Whistler stands behind a manager, and condones the managers’ practices then it makes sense to say to everyone who owns property in the project under normal circumstances there should be one manager.

Perhaps in setting up this approval step, the City wanted to ensure that managers were a good fit for projects, had the right resources, or brought other necessary assets to its projects.  In a small city that depends on the effectiveness of brands like the Four Seasons and the Pan Pacific to succeed, this is a totally logical step.

But what happens when the City doesn’t approve a manager?  As far as we know the manager at our project was never approved by the City, and it’s hard to see that given what’s happened how he could ever be approved now.  After appointing himself unilaterally and without the consent of other owners, he has used property without paying for it, stripped locks off owners’ units, and locked people out.  We remain locked out of our own property now.

Now, given that Whistler apparently never approved this manager, how can they say this is a private matter?  The manager is either claiming authority under a covenant that doesn’t apply to him since he wasn’t approved, or worse yet, Whistler has or will sometime in the future approve of this manager.

Does Whistler want to be seen as a place that either explicitly or implicitly approves of this?  Their own covenant says they have to approve management in order for the covenant to apply, but they act as if none of this has anything to do with them.

We’ve never seen any documentation suggesting the manager at Nita Lake Lodge was approved by the RMOW.

Apparently Whistler sets up rules, puts requirements in place, forgets that it needs to do some pretty important things, and then just steps aside when there’s a problem.

We wonder if Whistler has approved managers at other projects, and what else about its own rules it doesn’t understand or follow?

They can say it’s a private matter, but when they set themselves us up as the gatekeeper, forget what their own rules say, and then simply duck, you can see why people would lose confidence in the City and in the Phase 2 real estate model.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes