Deterioration of Charlotte Court has produced unhealthy mold

Donna Morris from Charlottetown, PEI writes: I am one of those interviewed for the Guardian story on Charlotte Court, and I’d like to thank those who have voiced support for we who live at Charlotte Court, and for seniors in general.

Despite protests to the contrary, I can cite and prove two instances in 2009 in which residents of Charlotte Court were not dealt with in good faith by this government, a government I voted for, incidentally. Both happened after respectful, but unproductive communication with MLA Kathleen Casey and then Seniors Minister Currie and his staff.

The first occurred after the Guardian published my letter to the editor on May 21, 2009, saying that Charlotte Court was badly in need of repairs. One of my stated concerns was the black residue that leaks from under the roof flashing around the entire upper perimeter of the building. Early that same morning, painters suddenly appeared here and began painting over the black residue that is only visible from heavily-travelled North River Rd. This was a clear, resident-witnessed case of intentionally hiding the problem.

The second instance is just as troubling. Mould has been a major concern here for many years. Tenants believe it’s the source of varied health problems such as respiratory difficulties, allergies and rashes which abate or disappear entirely when they’re away from here for short periods of time. This concern has been voiced, unheard, to government for years, and I share it.

On June 22, 2009, citing IRAC’s Rental of Residential Property Act, and including a doctor’s letter, I requested an environmental and air quality assessment of my unit, as well as a copy of the eventual report, to which I was entitled.

An environmental company called ALL-TECH Environmental Services Ltd. performed the inspection on July 16th and issued their report to government dated Aug.11th, 2009.

By Oct.9th.I had not received a copy of the report. I telephoned our designated housing representative, and unfulfilled promises were made to supply it.

On Oct.19th.I made a formal and legal Access-to-Information request and a day later, I received the report. The reason for the lengthy delay became clear recently, on Feb. 11th, 2010, when that same housing rep disclosed what had happened. My report had been intentionally buried downtown.

Only the force of law had produced it. I was not getting it otherwise. I was also reminded, with an implicit message that I should be grateful, that the name of a technical expert had been supplied with the report, to interpret it for me. Not so. All that was pushed through my letter slot was an envelope which enclosed the report and the attached business card of a housing executive. Nothing else.

What was in the report? Twenty pages of highly technical information that would require expert technical advocacy in order to force any action at Charlotte court. I did not have the financial resources for that route.

The final sentence in ALL-TECH’s two-page introductory summary is this: This summary should not be used alone. The report must be read in its entirety.

Had there been a more conciliatory response to our Guardian story by government, I would not have disclosed these two incidents, for they reflect badly on former Minister Currie’s watch, and the present one.