Comments on: Century Plaza Certificates of Occupancy http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/2009/01/century-plaza-certificates-of-occupancy/ WeKnowUrban.com Blog, discussion and news about loft, high rise, and urban condo living in Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe. Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:08:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bystander http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/2009/01/century-plaza-certificates-of-occupancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1257 bystander Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:15:58 +0000 http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/?p=1265#comment-1257 Please refer again to my comment below. Whether or not buyers were taking an unnecessary risk can certainly not be determined by the developer who wants the money asap, regardless of missing upgrades (remember the unpaid for granite?) and our letters from the city stating that you can not occupy without a final CO. So what were WE supposed to think...take the developer's word for it? I think not. Add to that the document showing that the required inspectors' sign-offs had not taken place when demands for close of escrow (and resulting contracts cancellations) took place, and of course you have a problem. And to continually refer disdainfully to everyone who didn't close as if they are all lowlifes who simply couldn't or wouldn't close is inflammatory as well. Many of these people wanted to live at Century Plaza, as evidenced by the comment from "Real Story" on www.weknowurban.com/blog/phoenix-high-rise-and-loft-condos/century-plaza-sued-by-buyers. Please refer again to my comment below. Whether or not buyers were taking an unnecessary risk can certainly not be determined by the developer who wants the money asap, regardless of missing upgrades (remember the unpaid for granite?) and our letters from the city stating that you can not occupy without a final CO. So what were WE supposed to think…take the developer’s word for it? I think not. Add to that the document showing that the required inspectors’ sign-offs had not taken place when demands for close of escrow (and resulting contracts cancellations) took place, and of course you have a problem. And to continually refer disdainfully to everyone who didn’t close as if they are all lowlifes who simply couldn’t or wouldn’t close is inflammatory as well. Many of these people wanted to live at Century Plaza, as evidenced by the comment from “Real Story” on http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/phoenix-high-rise-and-loft-condos/century-plaza-sued-by-buyers.

]]> By: CP Truth http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/2009/01/century-plaza-certificates-of-occupancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1256 CP Truth Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:57:00 +0000 http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/?p=1265#comment-1256 “bystander”: You continue to insist Century Plaza was somehow doing something inappropriate closing homes under TC of O even after definitive evidence clearly and overwhelmingly shows the contrary: Fourteen buyers who actually closed and moved in with the blessing of the City and multiple lenders who funded their purchase loans. The buyers were never taking an “unnecessary risk” for closing under a TC of O as you suggest. The developer didn’t get a “final” C of O before buyers closing dates because there was no need to do so; buyers could close with the TC of O (and, again, buyers actually did close). I have no idea what you are referring to regarding missing upgrades (but considering you had no intention of closing the absence or presence of such upgrades is moot) and to suggest there were walls missing is just plain wrong and, in my opinion, just inflammatory assertions to forward your negative agenda. The developer made demand for buyers to close only after these buyers failed to close on their scheduled closing date. What was the seller supposed to do? Seriously, to suggest that a seller is wrong to demand performance and terminate a contract when a buyer fails to perform is simply not reasonable or logical The matter boils down to this: those who wanted to close did. You, who refused to close, cling to fallacious excuses for why you did not. “bystander”: You continue to insist Century Plaza was somehow doing something inappropriate closing homes under TC of O even after definitive evidence clearly and overwhelmingly shows the contrary: Fourteen buyers who actually closed and moved in with the blessing of the City and multiple lenders who funded their purchase loans.

The buyers were never taking an “unnecessary risk” for closing under a TC of O as you suggest. The developer didn’t get a “final” C of O before buyers closing dates because there was no need to do so; buyers could close with the TC of O (and, again, buyers actually did close). I have no idea what you are referring to regarding missing upgrades (but considering you had no intention of closing the absence or presence of such upgrades is moot) and to suggest there were walls missing is just plain wrong and, in my opinion, just inflammatory assertions to forward your negative agenda.

The developer made demand for buyers to close only after these buyers failed to close on their scheduled closing date. What was the seller supposed to do? Seriously, to suggest that a seller is wrong to demand performance and terminate a contract when a buyer fails to perform is simply not reasonable or logical

The matter boils down to this: those who wanted to close did. You, who refused to close, cling to fallacious excuses for why you did not.

]]> By: bystander http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/2009/01/century-plaza-certificates-of-occupancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1255 bystander Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:18:10 +0000 http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/?p=1265#comment-1255 We have received not one, but two official responses from the City of Phoenix ourselves (not Mo Glancy) stating that it is NOT LEGAL to occupy units without a FINAL Certificate of Occupancy. But the problem was, Century Plaza was trying to get their buyers to close with only a Temporary. Apparently even the City can't agree on it, which complicates the issue more. So as stated previously, why should buyers take that unnecessary risk, especially when the units were missing various upgrades, etc (even walls!) and weren't done anyway? Why didn't Equus just GET the final COs before demanding that buyers close? The fact that they just got one NOW is what's moot; they began demanding that buyers close within 48 hours or their contracts would be cancelled (and they were cancelled) many months ago. Whether it was or wasn't illegal to move in with only a Temporary, it was at best questionable. I have a copy of the document that various inspectors were supposed to sign off on for our unit; the date is AFTER Equus had demanded that we close, and only 2 out of 6 inspectors had signed the document at that time. So our contracts were cancelled BEFORE any final CO's were issued. Now Equus brags that have them. Great. We have received not one, but two official responses from the City of Phoenix ourselves (not Mo Glancy) stating that it is NOT LEGAL to occupy units without a FINAL Certificate of Occupancy. But the problem was, Century Plaza was trying to get their buyers to close with only a Temporary. Apparently even the City can’t agree on it, which complicates the issue more. So as stated previously, why should buyers take that unnecessary risk, especially when the units were missing various upgrades, etc (even walls!) and weren’t done anyway? Why didn’t Equus just GET the final COs before demanding that buyers close? The fact that they just got one NOW is what’s moot; they began demanding that buyers close within 48 hours or their contracts would be cancelled (and they were cancelled) many months ago. Whether it was or wasn’t illegal to move in with only a Temporary, it was at best questionable. I have a copy of the document that various inspectors were supposed to sign off on for our unit; the date is AFTER Equus had demanded that we close, and only 2 out of 6 inspectors had signed the document at that time. So our contracts were cancelled BEFORE any final CO’s were issued. Now Equus brags that have them. Great.

]]> By: Will Daly http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/2009/01/century-plaza-certificates-of-occupancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1254 Will Daly Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:52:24 +0000 http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/?p=1265#comment-1254 Also, thanks for clarifying how lenders document the existence of a CO. Also, thanks for clarifying how lenders document the existence of a CO.

]]> By: Will Daly http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/2009/01/century-plaza-certificates-of-occupancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1253 Will Daly Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:51:41 +0000 http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/?p=1265#comment-1253 "...the developer posted an email from Mo Glancy, the Deputy Director of Development Services, who stated that the City was allowing occupancy with a T C of O." Here is a copy of the post made by the developer that Jon is referring to: "From: mo.glancy@phoenix.gov   Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:13:36 -0700   To: eli@equuscorp.com>   CC: doug@equuscorp.com <mark.sipes@phoenix.gov>   Subject: Re: Century Plaza TCO's   Eli,   And I'll add for clarification, that it is possible to occupy (or for people to live in) a building with a TCO, depending upon the conditions of the TCO. In your project, there are some units that have received TCO's which allow occupancy of those units.   Thank you,   Mo Glancy   Deputy Director   Development Services Department   602-495-5434 (office)   602-534-7641 (fax) /phoenix/century-plaza/" NOTE: The reason the above post was removed from the site was because the developer threatened me with a law suit claiming defamation. Although the grounds for the suit were in my opinion ungrounded I removed all comments rather than face defending myself against an adversary with presumably much deeper pockets and resources. In my own defense, I think you are confusing me with others. It is true that I did request to see a copy of the Permanent CO. In fact I requested it twice because the first time the developer ignored me. If I was "wrong" to ask for such a document then addressing the issue and clarifying things then would have probably gone a long way toward avoiding misunderstandings with me. Instead it took the developer 30 days to even acknowledge my request and even then he only delivered a Temporary CO with no further explanation. To the best of my knowledge it was not until last week that I saw a Permanent CO. I never claimed that the developer was "doing something inappropriate." I think that my request for the document was very reasonable. The fact that the developer took so long to respond did lead me to question what was going on and I did express that publicly. “…the developer posted an email from Mo Glancy, the Deputy Director of Development Services, who stated that the City was allowing occupancy with a T C of O.”

Here is a copy of the post made by the developer that Jon is referring to:

“From: mo.glancy@phoenix.gov  
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:13:36 -0700  
To: eli@equuscorp.com>  
CC: doug@equuscorp.com  
Subject: Re: Century Plaza TCO’s  

Eli,  
And I’ll add for clarification, that it is possible to occupy (or for people to live in) a building with a TCO, depending upon the conditions of the TCO. In your project, there are some units that have received TCO’s which allow occupancy of those units.  
Thank you,  

Mo Glancy  
Deputy Director  
Development Services Department  
602-495-5434 (office)  
602-534-7641 (fax)
/phoenix/century-plaza/”

NOTE: The reason the above post was removed from the site was because the developer threatened me with a law suit claiming defamation. Although the grounds for the suit were in my opinion ungrounded I removed all comments rather than face defending myself against an adversary with presumably much deeper pockets and resources.

In my own defense, I think you are confusing me with others. It is true that I did request to see a copy of the Permanent CO. In fact I requested it twice because the first time the developer ignored me. If I was “wrong” to ask for such a document then addressing the issue and clarifying things then would have probably gone a long way toward avoiding misunderstandings with me. Instead it took the developer 30 days to even acknowledge my request and even then he only delivered a Temporary CO with no further explanation. To the best of my knowledge it was not until last week that I saw a Permanent CO.

I never claimed that the developer was “doing something inappropriate.” I think that my request for the document was very reasonable. The fact that the developer took so long to respond did lead me to question what was going on and I did express that publicly.

]]> By: CP Truth http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/2009/01/century-plaza-certificates-of-occupancy/comment-page-1/#comment-1252 CP Truth Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:10:31 +0000 http://www.weknowurban.com/blog/?p=1265#comment-1252 The Certificate of Occupancy is a City issued document that is ‘signed off’ by various City inspectors. Only when all these various inspectors sign off does it become valid. Without it, the City will not allow purchasers to occupy the building or their home. Period. Move someone into a home without a C of O and the City will bring a developer’s world to a quick and sudden and crashing halt. Certain posters in here, including you at the time, took issue with the building’s Temporary Certificate of Occupancy status claiming that the developer was somehow doing something inappropriate by having buyers close without a ‘final’. They claimed that the City wouldn’t even allow purchasers to move in under a TC of O and quoted conversations they had with City officials to that effect. In rebuttal, the developer posted an email from Mo Glancy, the Deputy Director of Development Services, who stated that the City was allowing occupancy with a T C of O. Moreover, buyers were actually moving in; definitive evidence enough. As for lenders, a T C of O / C of O is not produced by the developer and a lender does not rely on a “Questionnaire” to determine if one is in place. As a condition of funding, lenders require a copy of the T C of O / C of O or, much more common lately, a digital photograph of it taken by their appraiser. “Questionnaires” don’t even ask if there is a C of O. It would be extraordinarily difficult (besides illegal) for a developer to pull the proverbial wool over the City’s eyes and their buyer’s lender’s eyes. Not to say this has never happened, but to suggest that the developer of Century Plaza was doing it is regrettable. The Certificate of Occupancy is a City issued document that is ‘signed off’ by various City inspectors. Only when all these various inspectors sign off does it become valid. Without it, the City will not allow purchasers to occupy the building or their home. Period. Move someone into a home without a C of O and the City will bring a developer’s world to a quick and sudden and crashing halt.

Certain posters in here, including you at the time, took issue with the building’s Temporary Certificate of Occupancy status claiming that the developer was somehow doing something inappropriate by having buyers close without a ‘final’. They claimed that the City wouldn’t even allow purchasers to move in under a TC of O and quoted conversations they had with City officials to that effect. In rebuttal, the developer posted an email from Mo Glancy, the Deputy Director of Development Services, who stated that the City was allowing occupancy with a T C of O. Moreover, buyers were actually moving in; definitive evidence enough.

As for lenders, a T C of O / C of O is not produced by the developer and a lender does not rely on a “Questionnaire” to determine if one is in place. As a condition of funding, lenders require a copy of the T C of O / C of O or, much more common lately, a digital photograph of it taken by their appraiser. “Questionnaires” don’t even ask if there is a C of O.

It would be extraordinarily difficult (besides illegal) for a developer to pull the proverbial wool over the City’s eyes and their buyer’s lender’s eyes. Not to say this has never happened, but to suggest that the developer of Century Plaza was doing it is regrettable.

]]>