Update added 5 September 2015: The name on the video displays in our lobby and mail room has recently been corrected to the proper "Market Street at Town Center Condominium." Yea!
I say that our name is Market Street at Town Center Condominium, and I support that contention later in this post. Unfortunately, there are at least three instances where we don't seem to know our own name.
The sign on the brick wall in front of our building is incorrect in that it adds an "s" to Condominium. We are one condominium, not multiple condominiums. While we have many units in our condominium, we are just one condominium.
The title screen on the video display in our lobby wrongly refers to us as Market Street at Reston Town Center, inserting the word "Reston" while leaving off the word "Condominium". (This problem has been corrected; see the update at the beginning of this post.)
We are incorrectly named Market Street @ Town Center Condos in the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Virginia "State Corporation Commission" 5 August 2005. That name substitutes "@" for "at" and "Condos" for "Condominium". You can view reports in which that wrong name is used by going to https://sccefile.scc.virginia.gov/arsearch , entering our Corporate ID 06426175 in the box at the lower left, and clicking on "Search".
Our condominium instruments recorded in Fairfax County Land Records 19 October 2004 are clear that our name is Market Street at Town Center Condominium. For example, Article II of our Declaration states "The condominium established hereby shall be known as MARKET STREET AT TOWN CENTER CONDOMINIUM." (See page 37 at http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/CMC.pdf) Also, Section 1 of Article I of our Bylaws twice states our name as "Market Street at Town Center Condominium". (See page 5 at http://www.marketstreetattowncenter.com/docs/BylawsV4.PDF)
I urge our Board of Directors initiate action to have the sign, the video display, and the Articles of Incorporation revised to show the correct name of "Market Street at Town Center Condominium" instead of the incorrect names discussed above.
I encourage Market Street at Town Center Condominium Unit Owners to comment on this or any Unit Owner Association issue by emailing me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or, better yet, by joining and posting in my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Burned-Out Light Bulb Replacement
At last night's meeting of our Market Street at Town Center Condominium Board of Directors, I described a problem with burned-out light bulbs in our Fitness Center, and was disappointed with the response of our Association President.
I explained that two of the recessed lighting canisters concurrently had one of the two bulbs in each canister burned-out for more than 24 days. The President's response implied that it is okay for bulbs to remain burned-out that long if no one informs our Community Manager, Mrs. Carr, of the burned-out bulbs.
I say that it isn't okay for bulbs to remain burned-out that long. Management should have a procedure in place to periodically check for burned-out light bulbs and replace them--without relying on reports from residents of burned-out light bulbs.
A procedure I think would be good would be to have an Association worker check for and replace burned-out light bulbs in the common elements every Monday afternoon and Friday morning. This procedure would mean we should never see the same bulb continue to be burned-out for more than four days. Residents could still report burned-out bulbs if they thought waiting until the next Monday or Friday would be too long, perhaps for safety reasons.
Mrs. Carr can use any reports she receives of burned-out bulbs as a means to check that her light-bulb replacement procedure is working properly.
For the latest information on this topic, please see later posts at this link: http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=interestinghistory&action=display&thread=46
If you wish to comment on this or any issue regarding our Unit Owners Association, please register and do so on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/ And/or email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com
I explained that two of the recessed lighting canisters concurrently had one of the two bulbs in each canister burned-out for more than 24 days. The President's response implied that it is okay for bulbs to remain burned-out that long if no one informs our Community Manager, Mrs. Carr, of the burned-out bulbs.
I say that it isn't okay for bulbs to remain burned-out that long. Management should have a procedure in place to periodically check for burned-out light bulbs and replace them--without relying on reports from residents of burned-out light bulbs.
A procedure I think would be good would be to have an Association worker check for and replace burned-out light bulbs in the common elements every Monday afternoon and Friday morning. This procedure would mean we should never see the same bulb continue to be burned-out for more than four days. Residents could still report burned-out bulbs if they thought waiting until the next Monday or Friday would be too long, perhaps for safety reasons.
Mrs. Carr can use any reports she receives of burned-out bulbs as a means to check that her light-bulb replacement procedure is working properly.
For the latest information on this topic, please see later posts at this link: http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=interestinghistory&action=display&thread=46
If you wish to comment on this or any issue regarding our Unit Owners Association, please register and do so on my forum at http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/ And/or email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Town Square Park: Going up in Smoke?
Those in charge of the Town Square Park here in Reston Town Center should remove all cigarette butt receptacles from the Park. Or, failing that, they should remove as many as possible, beginning with those farther west.
I want the ash receptacles removed from the Park because I believe they encourage smoking in the park. Each additional cigarette butt receptacle helps send the message that it is completely okay to smoke in the park, especially near a receptacle. Moreover, those receptacles toward the west end of the Park could result in smoke entering homes in the nearby condominiums when the weather is suitable for open windows.
Does anyone doubt the danger of second-hand smoke? And some people find cigarette smoke repulsive regardless of whether it is dangerous. I don’t see why non-smokers in the Park or nearby homes should have to put up with tobacco smoke originating in the Park.
I first noticed a cigarette butt receptacle in the Park a couple months ago, in the southeast corner of the Park. A week or so later, I saw a second ash receptacle 50 feet or so west of the first. A couple weeks after that, I saw a third toward the northwest corner of the Park. Today I saw a fourth, also toward that northwest corner of the Park. I am beginning to wonder how many cigarette butt receptacles must be in the Park before those in charge of the Park think there are enough.
I am NOT suggesting prohibition of smoking in the Park. But I am requesting removal of the ash receptacles to avoid the appearance of approval for smoking in the Park. If there must be any cigarette butt receptacles in the Park, the number should be one, two at the most, located at the far southeast corner of the Park.
If you wish to comment, you can email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or, better yet, please register in my forum and then post your comment there in this thread: http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=19&page=1
I want the ash receptacles removed from the Park because I believe they encourage smoking in the park. Each additional cigarette butt receptacle helps send the message that it is completely okay to smoke in the park, especially near a receptacle. Moreover, those receptacles toward the west end of the Park could result in smoke entering homes in the nearby condominiums when the weather is suitable for open windows.
Does anyone doubt the danger of second-hand smoke? And some people find cigarette smoke repulsive regardless of whether it is dangerous. I don’t see why non-smokers in the Park or nearby homes should have to put up with tobacco smoke originating in the Park.
I first noticed a cigarette butt receptacle in the Park a couple months ago, in the southeast corner of the Park. A week or so later, I saw a second ash receptacle 50 feet or so west of the first. A couple weeks after that, I saw a third toward the northwest corner of the Park. Today I saw a fourth, also toward that northwest corner of the Park. I am beginning to wonder how many cigarette butt receptacles must be in the Park before those in charge of the Park think there are enough.
I am NOT suggesting prohibition of smoking in the Park. But I am requesting removal of the ash receptacles to avoid the appearance of approval for smoking in the Park. If there must be any cigarette butt receptacles in the Park, the number should be one, two at the most, located at the far southeast corner of the Park.
If you wish to comment, you can email me at rasmussen305@gmail.com or, better yet, please register in my forum and then post your comment there in this thread: http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=19&page=1
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Town Square Park: Going to the Dogs?
Dogs have been defecating and urinating throughout the Town Square Park since it opened a few years ago. Signs in the Park require dog walkers to pick up feces their dogs drop, but my wife and I see more and more dog feces left in the park. We find such droppings particularly annoying in the large grassy area in the southwest corner of the Park and on the concrete sidewalks in the park.
Dog feces on the sidewalks annoy us because we have to watch carefully to avoid stepping in them and then tracking them into our home. Dog feces in the large grassy area annoy us because, in nice weather, we see many people--especially children--running, playing, and rolling in the grass in the same spots where we have seen dogs defecating and urinating. That can’t be good from a public health standpoint.
Those in charge of the park are considering creating a dog relief area (or “drop zone”) in the little-used northwest corner of the park. People walking dogs in the Park would take their dogs first to that dog relief area before taking their dogs anywhere else in the Park. If dogs must be allowed to use the park, this seems like an improvement, but in my view, dogs should be permitted nowhere in the park except in that dog relief area.
At a meeting on the issue last night, there was controversy regarding where in the Park the dog relief area should be located. A sizable faction of the people at that meeting supported locating that dog relief area in the west third of the large grassy area in the southwest corner of the Park. As the lesser evil, I would prefer continuing to let dogs relieve themselves throughout the Park rather than making a third of that much-used grassy area into the dog relief area.
If you have comments on this issue, please register in my forum and make your comments in this thread: http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=18&page=1 Or, if you prefer, email your comments to me at rasmussen305@gmail.com.
Dog feces on the sidewalks annoy us because we have to watch carefully to avoid stepping in them and then tracking them into our home. Dog feces in the large grassy area annoy us because, in nice weather, we see many people--especially children--running, playing, and rolling in the grass in the same spots where we have seen dogs defecating and urinating. That can’t be good from a public health standpoint.
Those in charge of the park are considering creating a dog relief area (or “drop zone”) in the little-used northwest corner of the park. People walking dogs in the Park would take their dogs first to that dog relief area before taking their dogs anywhere else in the Park. If dogs must be allowed to use the park, this seems like an improvement, but in my view, dogs should be permitted nowhere in the park except in that dog relief area.
At a meeting on the issue last night, there was controversy regarding where in the Park the dog relief area should be located. A sizable faction of the people at that meeting supported locating that dog relief area in the west third of the large grassy area in the southwest corner of the Park. As the lesser evil, I would prefer continuing to let dogs relieve themselves throughout the Park rather than making a third of that much-used grassy area into the dog relief area.
If you have comments on this issue, please register in my forum and make your comments in this thread: http://mstcuoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=18&page=1 Or, if you prefer, email your comments to me at rasmussen305@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
