2008年2月24日日曜日

Anticipating more problems

2/24, Sunday
The assistant wrote me and asked if I'd had any further thoughts. I wrote the following:

I had a further concern about the floors, which Putnam mentioned he was fixing. I'm not sure what he was intending to do. However, I think dealing with the floors will likely be more complicated than he thinks and potentially problematic, and hence I am not authorizing the fixing of the floors.

The floors were already scratched when I first bought the apartment many years ago. I had looked into re-polishing the floors several years ago and found that it would take several layers of coating over several weeks. It would be one thing if the rental were unfurnished, but because it is furnished, it's not a simple situation. The workers would have to empty the apartment to have access to the floor in its entirety--otherwise, they will either endanger the rugs and furniture, or form a checkerboard floor where part of the floor is polished and the part under the furniture and rugs are not, which I would definitely not authorize--I'd never be able to rearrange the furniture again, and it would seriously detract from the resale value of the apartment. In addition, I have two pieces of furniture that are both very heavy and fragile- the Indian marble top table, which is a unique art piece, and the grand piano, which I don't want moved without supervision by someone from my side.

The grand piano has to be moved by professional piano movers, not regular movers. In order to move it out of the unit, the grand piano has to be tilted on its side, which, if done improperly, can damage its action and touch; piano movers are trained to minimize this damage. Each instrument is unique: I had played literally over a dozen pianos - including about eight of the same make - in order to find a piano that had a touch that complemented my style and repertoire. That piano isn't a vanity item - it is the means of my livelihood. Replacement costs of a grand piano are upwards of $25,000, for which I will hold Putnam liable if there is any change in the touch and action of the instrument.

The floors are exactly the same now as they were when he came to look at the apartment in October 2007. They are merely scratched - there are no termites or anything that would constitute a safety hazard. 90% of the wood floor in the apartment are covered by furniture and rugs, which serve the aesthetic purpose of covering up the scratches. If he still insists on going ahead, he will be liable for all expenses of moving my goods properly and paying for any damages, as well as dealing with the expense of polishing the floors. I really think it's too fraught with potential problems, and he saw the apartment as it was, and hence I am not authorizing it.

You'd also told me that he'd left the keys at the concierge for the installation of lights. I did not authorize the installation of lights - it's fine if they're stand-up lamps, but anything that involves installation into walls and ceilings would leave gaping holes and scratches on them, and I don't want that. When he leaves, I would have to repaint the place to cover these defects up, which would involve time and expense. The expense to repaint the apartment would be in excess of $5,000 because of the multi-toned nature of the scheme, and the cost of packing, moving furniture to another location, and reinstalling the furniture to allow for the re-paint would be in excess of $5,000. Putnam will be held responsible for these expenses.

Both my original lease and the pro-forma document of the building say that no reparations can be made without the owner (and the management's) consent.

As said before, I think the demands to replace the stove and remove my personal effects have a reasonable basis. However, I would need to arrange both from my end, and before I proceed, I need to get the rent paid for this month to 1) cover the costs and 2) ascertain that Putnam intends to make good on the contract. Also, the cane-back chair is the oak chair that was on the original inventory, so I do not feel that I should be obliged to move it. Likewise, I don't think I should be required to remove the rest of the furniture. The way the original inventory was set up was to present what was already in the apartment, and I specified in italics what was optional in terms of removing items; Putnam had indicated items to be removed beyond my offer, and I did so out of courtesy, not obligation. Putnam said in one of his emails that the furniture had been moved to one closet, and it seemed acceptable to him.

FYI, the maintenance department sent me an email confirming that the stove has been checked and adjusted; they think it's safe. I have not received confirmation from the maintenance department as to whether the bathroom faucet needs an outside plumber. However, my understanding of the situation is that it is a small leak that will not lead to flooding in the apartment or anything that constitutes a safety hazard.

If he can't live with the apartment as it now stands (plus a new stove and removed personal effects but not furniture), and he still refuses to pay the rent and comply with the building's need for a background check, I suggest he write up a request to cancel the two written agreements we both signed. My lawyer can then review it and see about a witnessed return of both sets of keys, to be documented, so that we can determine the rent accrued up to the day that the keys are returned.

0 件のコメント: