Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 - Helsinginkatu 32 - A question of Tax and Construction Fraud?
Fact: The illegal Flamenco Hall at Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 was built without permit and was therefore constructed illegally. We know this because the Helsinki building authority told them and demanded the space to be returned to the state it was prior.
Questions:
If the Illegal Flamenco Hall and venue was never built with city permit.
We can assume that it was never safety inspected. if it was inspected, why were these results never provided?
Why was it never safety inspected?
The ventilation system was changed and never inspected. Why was the ventilation system never inspected for safety?
If there had been safety inspections, would these inspections not have caught the faulty fire alarm system and lack of proper fire escape in the Illegal Flamenco Hall? The same faulty fire alarm system that led to the door being drilled open by the Helsinki fire brigade.
Why did the city building inspectors have no interest in the safety of the building?
Why would the police refuse to investigate, even when it was clearly known the construction work had been done without permit?
If the Illegal Flamenco Hall and venue was built without city building permits.
How were they paying tax on it? Were they paying tax on it?
When they were ordered to remove it or face a penalty, why did Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 turn the space into a commercial storage place?
Did Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 then get permission to use the space for commercial purposes?
Did Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 then pay tax on the commercial storage they were leasing?
Where are the asbestos tests for all these alterations to the basement?
It would appear none were conducted when they “ripped out” the dance floor due to “a leak” (according to construction worker on site). A few months after being ordered to.* The only record that exists is that a test was ordered sometime around 2005 approximately. No record of the test occurring appears to exist with the city records.
*Noting that these later alterations came after the asbestos laws were changed and tightened up. Whereby even if a building has had asbestos removed, if it previously had asbestos, safety checks must be engaged.
The Illegal Flamenco Hall was apparently built by members of the dance hall. Was an asbestos test conducted then? I saw no proof of it. Yet later when working in the basement, whilst denying the presence of asbestos in the building. We see the following pop up in the adjacent basement to where the illegal Flamenco School was.
Where are the asbestos tests from the previous renovations and for any of the buildings?
Where are the tests required after the tightening of the asbestos laws in Finland?
Were tenants in the block made aware of the possibility of asbestos exposure?
Were any neighbouring child care establishments or the nearby swimming hall which receives a number of school children in buses outside Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 made aware that work on an old building with potential asbestos was being done?
If the president of the owners board of Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4, Mikko Koskensyrjä is a qualified insurance broker and risk assessor, whose chief professional concern appears to be the safety and comfort of people in apartments was aware of these potential hazards; why were residents not notified of these potential hazards, including asbestos exposure?
Also, If the president of the owners board of Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4, Mikko Koskensyrjä is a qualified insurance broker and risk assessor,whose chief professional concern appears to be the safety and comfort of people in apartments; why were vigilant safety and sound safety checks not conducted on the building?
Why were private sound tests vehemently blocked and outright ignored?
Why were mechanical tests blocked when requested by later fired Timo Hagner?
Why was Timo Hagner then accused of absconding with building management information and emails?
Why then was Timo Hagner accused of being responsible for the building of the illegal flamenco hall and repeatedly referred to as a crook or shady person?
If the president of the owners board of Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4, Mikko Koskensyrjä is a qualified insurance broker and risk assessor,whose chief professional concern appears to be the safety and comfort of people in apartments; why then did Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4, fight so vigorously and dirtily to keep the illegal Flamenco Hall?
If, as the Helsinki city construction attorney stated, Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4's claim that they had a contract with the illegal Flamenco Hall which prevented them from conducting sound tests, having access to the Illegal Flamenco Hall or moving it due to safety and construction reasons, had no legal basis. Why did deeply experienced and retired attorney Pekka Ruokonen not state this?
Why, when discovering the Illegal Flamenco Hall was constructed illegally, did retired attorney Pekka Ruokonen resort to apparent emailed blackmail attempt of a threat to report the matter if they did not do as he wished?
Especially as, the Illegal Flamenco Hall would be damaging the value of his apartment and as a member of the Finnish Bar Association, Pekka Ruokonen is expected to uphold the rule of law.
Unless, as Pekka Ruokonen mentioned from discussion with Timo Hagner, it was planned that tenants who left due to noise disturbance would be replaced by dancers?
However, as the building owners board of Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 claim, they were not aware of anything, how was this plan known by Timo Hagner, and Pekka Ruokonen?
Especially as, Pekka Ruokonen’s main defence, as dubious as it is, is that; as he has never opened any correspondence with Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 or attended any meetings nor read any information regarding any Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 owners meetings?
Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4 has a number of businesses within its block, including Kuikka, a HOK-Elanto owned bar that is arguably one of the more high class and expensive bars in the Kallio district. How does the building pay apparently 0 taxes?
How does a building paying 0 taxes, afford a full pipe renovations? This seems to be an accountancy thing I am missing. But it is likely, possible, but curious. As the information seems scare, which is odd considering Finland’s famous transparency.
Keeping in mind there was said to be no asbestos in the building, one of the oldest in the district. Why then did HOK-Elanto employees working at Kuikka seem adamant that the building had asbestos and their renovation was being done either by a different company or differently?
Why did Mikko Koskensyrjä, a qualified insurance broker and risk assessor,whose chief professional concern appears to be the safety and comfort of people in apartments; injected himself so vigorously into the fight for the Illegal Flamenco Hall, including making false police reports, threatening legal action and blocking a tenant from leaving with their deposit?
Why was this any of Mikko Koskensyrjä’s concern?
If retired attorney and husband to Salme Sandstrom, Pekka Ruokonen could state the flamenco hall was causing a disturbance at a building meeting about the matter,
Why then did Pekka Ruokonen continue to refuse his tenant his deposit and fair by tenants rights standards compensation for letting an apartment under false pretense that it was habitable?
Why was Pekka Ruokonen so aggressive when it came to request rent receipts? Any normal landlord would be fine with this as a way of settling up a tenancy?
Why did Mikko Koskensyrjä inject himself into a consumer complaint against Pekka Ruokonen, to attempt to give a negative character statement about the tenant and scan badly folded over printouts of emails to misconstrue communication?
Why are Helsinki Police reluctant to investigate construction fraud and breaches of health and safety law and tenancy law in Asunto Oy Kristiinankatu n:o 4?
There are many questions.
Do you have any answers?
Were you a resident of Helsinginkatu 32?
Do you wonder as to whether you were exposed to asbestos or other hazardous waste common to old buildings?
Do you have questions?
