Missing-In-Action Letter

We have received news from some residents that they did not get a letter from John Lee dated 23 November 2007, and would like to ask other blog readers and concerned owners if they received this letter or not? And if not, is this the beginning of a selective and systematic means by which the sales committee (yet to be elected!) seeks to exclude passing on important information to people they suspect will not be in favour of the sale? If it is just a plain error, then we expect that the letter should be available to all owners again, but if it ISN'T an error, then WHAT ELSE are they keeping from you as a legitimate owner of BGV? This is a serious cause for concern.

Another point to note is that the letter was sent by and signed off as from John Lee, Member, BGV En Bloc Sales Committee. It would seemed: either they never did disband as promised in their various letters to owners or they have already elected themselves as the Sales Committee even before the EOGM on 1 December 2007.

Tags: Botanic Gardens, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore Botanic Gardens, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, singapore

Yet Another Resident Speaks Out

We received comments from a fellow BGV resident who calls him/ herself "Concerned Resident". We feel that Concerned Resident's comments warrant a post on its own as he/ she has made very valid and salient points that concerns us all who are BGV residents and owners. . We have reproduced his/ her comments verbatim and we urge BGV residents and owners to read this post carefully.


Concerned Resident wrote:

"I am a resident in BGV.

I am surprised and disappointed that the previous sale committee has decided to re-start the en bloc sale process again, after their previous attempt failed to get majority support.

I have serious doubts about whether the same committee will be able to carry out their responsibilities effectively, based on what happened with the previous Collective Sale Agreement, where:

(a) the committee agreed to the commission of the property agent on a so-called "reduced" basis, while at the same time setting a reserve price and agreeing to an incentive commission rate which in fact increased the commission from 0.30% to a blended rate of 0.59% - nearly double the original rate! This was not spotted by the committee - the property agent only admitted this after an astute resident pointed it out at the 1st meeting! I don't know how the committee could still claim at the meeting that they had worked on the CSA very carefully for months to achieve the best agreement for residents.

(b) the committee agreed to the property agents' commission rate on the basis of $1,500 psfppr, and at the same time set a reserve price of $2,000 psfppr and agreed to an incentive rate of 1.5% for prices above $1,500. This meant that the property agents did not need to do anything to "earn" the incentive commission for the amount between $1,500 and $2,000! Again, pointed out by a resident.

(c) despite repeated questioning at the 1st and subsequent meetings, the CSA did not contain the formula for apportionment of the sale proceeds to owners. Even though it was said to be set out in the 5th schedule, there was no such formula in that schedule. This was not amended, even up to the very last meeting (2 months after the 1st meeting!), where the lawyer admitted that it had not been done. Again, this point was brought up by residents. It was not spotted by the committee, neither did the committee follow up to correct this critical error, after it had been pointed out at the 1st meeting! And apportionment of the sale proceeds is such a fundamental issue.

Saying that the committee members are volunteers doing this on their own time (as was done at one meeting) is not good enough - committee members who accept the position owe fiduciary duties to the owners, as well as a duty to owners not to be negligent, and to do a good job. The basic, fundamental errors mentioned above were pointed out by owners and not spotted by the committee members. Who knows what other errors were in the CSA which had not been spotted or pointed out?

If owners had suffered losses due to such errors or negligence, the committee members should be held accountable, and they should be required to indemnify owners against such consequences. As agents of the owners, the committee members owe fiduciary duties to the owners and should be held to the highest standards. Instead, the CSA contained provisions to excuse them from all liability!

If there is to be a new CSA, owners should insist that to protect their interests, the CSA should include an indemnity from the committee members jointly and severally. Also, the CSA should not contain any clauses that exculpate the committee members from errors or negligence. The Horizon Towers saga should serve as an instructive warning to owners of what could happen if things go wrong. In such a situation, owners should have recourse against the committee members who put them in trouble.

Further, in order to have a better assurance that the sale committee will be able to carry out their responsibilities and to answer for their liabilities if anything should go wrong, much more information should be provided about the members of the committee. There should be full and frank disclosure of their backgrounds, relevant experience, whether they are residents, how long they have been owners, and any current or potential conflicts of interest. Just knowing their names, addresses and occupations is not enough, especially when owners give the committee such great powers under the CSA to deal with such an expensive asset as their home."

"The previous attempt for an en bloc sale of BGV failed without getting anywhere near the required consent level. This was despite a last minute attempt to get owners to sign the collective sale agreement by:

(a) increasing the reserve price sharply: and

(b) arguing that the property bubble was about to burst, and owners had to sell at that point in time, or they would miss the peak.

In response to these:

(a) The sale price is not within the control of the sale committee. It is a result of market forces. And the sharp increase in the reserve price, coming less than 2 months after the sale committee set the original reserve price, calls into question what the actual achievable price for BGV should be, and what advice had been given by the property agents in relation to the initial reserve price and the increased reserve price. If a sufficient majority had signed the CSA based on the original reserve price, owners would have missed out on the nearly 20% "increase"!

(b) since the sale did not go through at that time, according to the committee's own argument, this would mean that owners have already missed the peak. So why is the committee still trying to do an en bloc sale now? Are they simply trying to get a quick return on their en-bloc investment, at whatever price they can get? This would explain why the original sale price was set at a lower level, as it would facilitate a quick sale, rather than trying to get a sale at the best price.

Selling at this time would mean that owners who have a long-term view would lose out, as BGV, by virtue of its location, will always be valuable as a super-pime location, and its value will inevitably increase over time. BGV is like a New York condo overlooking Central Park, or a London home next to Holland Park - the location will ensure its increasing value in the long run.

Also, and as important, having an en bloc sale would ignore the effects that it would have on residents' lives, such as those with children going to schools in the neighbourhood, or elderly residents who enjoy the Botanic Gardens and the security of a familiar environment. Why should owners who choose to live in BGV, with all its convenience and advantages, be forced by others to sell out at a time not of their own choosing, and to re-locate, probably to locations which are less convenient and less desirable?

For the reasons above, I am totally against the en bloc attempt. And as a resident, I will object to any use of the Management Corporation funds for the en bloc process, when the EOGM can be requisitioned by only 20% of the owners. The use of the MC funds should only be allowed if approved by the necessary majority at a duly convened General Meeting."

Tags: Botanic Gardens, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore Botanic Gardens, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, singapore

Before the EOGM...

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents,

1. Another attempt is now being made to force us through the painful and damaging process of an attempted en-bloc sale. We have seen the notice for the Extraordinary General Meeting on 1 Dec 2007, and we have serious reservations about it. Apart from the numerous minor procedural errors (the proxy form appears to be for the election of a Council member, for instance), there are major questions unanswered. First and greatest: Should there not be a vote first on whether the owners want an en-bloc sale committee at all? We believe that this is the obvious first step, since it is far from clear that the majority of the owners actually wish to leave their homes in Botanic Gardens View.
   


2. In the interest of transparency and fairness, we have some proposals, which we hope that you will support:
   
   (a) The EOGM should first vote on whether it wishes a Sale Committee to be formed or not. To go straight to electing members of a committee without this preliminary stage will pre-empt the decision of the meeting, be prejudicial to the interests of the majority and may leave the outcome of the EOGM open to subsequent legal challenge.
   In addition, the EOGM may not be valid due to the lack of a motion for the formation of a Sale Committee and various other defects in the Notice.
   
   (b) The vote should be by secret ballot. Secret balloting is a voting method in which a voter's choice remains confidential and the aim is to ensure that the voter states his or her sincere choice without fear of intimidation or otherwise. We realise that this is unusual. But the fact is that concerns have been raised with us by some of our fellow majority owners. They fear intimidation and even criminal actions against them by their neighbours if they reveal that they oppose an en-bloc sale. An open vote may lead to pressure being put on those present to vote otherwise than how they wish.
   


3. In the interest of transparency, openness and in order to remove any possibility of undue influence by any party, we therefore propose the following procedure for the EOGM:
   
   (a) The first vote will ask whether a Sale Committee should be formed or not.
   
   · The MC will give a form asking this question to the representative of each share value and proxy-holder present at the EOGM.
   · Those present will be asked to identify themselves to the MC so that each share value will only be represented by one person.
   · NOTHING ON THE FORM WILL IDENTIFY THE NAME OR ADDRESS OF THE VOTER
   · Each form should be stamped by the MC to prevent duplication.
   · The form will require a simple Yes/No answer.
   · Abstentions will not be counted.
   · Each share value representative will complete the form, then immediately put the completed form into a sealed box held by the MC.
   · The votes will then immediately be counted in public by the Chair and Secretary of the MC.
   · The result will be announced immediately by the Chair of the MC.
   · If the majority of those present and voting oppose the formation of the Sale Committee, there will be no further action and the EOGM will end.
   
   (b) If the majority in the first vote support the formation of the Sale Committee, we will proceed to the next step:
   · The MC will, as before, hand out a form listing the persons nominated for the Sale Committee.
   · NOTHING ON THE FORM WILL IDENTIFY THE NAME OR ADDRESS OF THE VOTER
   · Owners and proxy-holders will then tick “Yes” or “No” against each name.
   · Abstentions will not be counted.
   · Each share value representative will immediately put the completed form into a sealed box held by the MC.
   · The votes for each nominee will then immediately be counted in public by the Chair and Secretary of the MC.
   · The results will be announced immediately by the Chair of the MC.
   · If three or more of the nominees are supported by a majority of those present and voting, they will constitute the Sale Committee.
   · If fewer than three of the nominees are supported by a majority of those present and voting, no Sale Committee will be formed and the EOGM will end.
   


4. We believe that this proposal will lead to a fair and equitable vote, that will more accurately reflect the views of the owners of Botanic Gardens View. We will shortly propose to the MC that this procedure be adopted at the EOGM. If the MC refuses to consider this proposal, we will raise the issue at the EOGM. We hope that you will be able to support this procedure.
   


5. We recognise that some owners would indeed be interested in an en-bloc sale if the terms were right. Those of you in that position may wish to consider some issues that have been raised before and that remain unanswered. For instance, in an en-bloc sale, how will proceeds be apportioned? Will owners be paid according to the floor area of their flats or by share value or by some other means? We would point out that any means of apportionment except by floor area will mean that owners of three-bedroom flats will lose out; you will receive less than a fair value for your homes. What will the other terms of the Sale Agreement be? Will it take heed of the lessons of the Horizon Towers case?
   


6. The property market continues to rise. This is not in fact good for the victims of an en-bloc sale. Those of us who have no other home but Botanic Gardens View will be left high and dry. There will be nowhere affordable that will not be inferior in location, size, legal status (ie freehold or 999-year lease), maintenance costs and convenience to Botanic Gardens View. We will gain nothing and lose what we already have.
   


7. We urge you to attend the EOGM and oppose the creation of another Sale Committee.
   
   

Best regards,


Vanessa Chan
Blk 9, #10-09

Wong Hwei Ming
Blk 9, #09-17

Tags: Botanic Gardens, Botanic Gardens Mansion, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore Botanic Gardens, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, real estate, singapore

Things to CONSIDER before the EOGM

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents,

If you have not heard, the existing protem sales committee has decided to conduct the first EOGM on 1 Decemeber 2007, under the new regulations, to nominate themselves as your devoted representatives for the en bloc sale. We would like to recap the highlights of their strategies to entice you into believing that the sale is a good thing.

1. They worried you with economic disasters and financial tsunamis, to get you to sign.


2. They brought in a big gun from STB, to get you to sign.


3. They tried to ridicule the blog and belittle/ dismiss the hard efforts of us owners, to get you to sign.


4. They waved the new regulations as a scare tactic, to get you to sign.


5. They increased the Reserve Price after they said they could not, to get you to sign.


6. They threatened to stop the sale if you don’t sign.


7. They threatened to disband the SC if you don’t sign.

Given the above points..

What else do you think they will do to get you to sign?
Just how far will they go to get you to sign or if you don’t sign?

Before the EOGM, we would like you to think very carefully with regards to the following points:

If it is so easy to renege on their word to disband, can you honestly trust them with a deal that is potentially worth half a billion and more?

We have seen in the past few weeks more en bloc sales that have exceeded the $2000 mark despite certain predictions about the economy.

Is now really the best time to sell?

We think now is not the most optimal time to sell.

Whose interests is the existing sale committee working for? Themselves or every stakeholder in the estate?

We are convinced that, given their tactics, they serve their own interests rather than every subsidiary proprietor, every tenant, every owner and resident of the estate.

Are they following the new regulations properly and fairly?

We do not believe so. The driving reason for the changes in en bloc law is to make the process more fair, more transparent and the sale committee more accountable to all subsidiary proprietors. One important change is for all owners to be actively involved in the sale process – they are able to vote on matters starting from whether to have an enbloc sale to who should be their agent, law firm, what the terms and conditions are in the Collective Sale Agreement etc. It remains to be seen how we as owners will be able to vote for these and already we’ve been told we cannot vote on whether to conduct the sale or not – that the sale will continue and we need only vote for the sale committee members.

If you feel, for various reasons, that the sale should not continue at this point in time, please contact us. We need your support now more than ever. If the first EOGM goes through, it means nothing will stop the sale committee from having their way and selling our super-prime estate in a few months’ time.

Apathy is not an option this time round.

Tags: Botanic Gardens, Botanic Gardens Mansion, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore Botanic Gardens, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, condo, condominium, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, real estate, singapore

The En-bloc Madness Continues...

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents,

We are very sorry to report that the fight to save our homes is not yet over. The former Sale Committee, having disbanded, has now decided to relaunch the whole process "with immediate effect". We attach for your information the letter dated 15 October 2007 sent by Mr John Lee, the head of the former Sale Committee.

He is now calling for a General Meeting of the owners in order to elect a new Sale Committee. In order for a General Meeting to be called, 20% of the ownership by share value must support it. If a new Sale Committee is formed, the majority owners, who have already refused to support his proposals, will be put through this entire painful, expensive and damaging (to our interests) process again.

In the few days since the new en-bloc regulations came into effect, there has been no change in the reasons to oppose selling Botanic Gardens View en-bloc. We therefore urge you, as fellow owners, as always, to consider the matter carefully and seek independent legal advice, before making your decisions. We ourselves, and owners who have contacted us, will not be signing this document and we hope that our other fellow majority owners will do the same. Since the majority of the owners have already refused to support an en-bloc sale, we see no reason to recreate the Sale Committee.

The possibility of this en-bloc madness hanging over our heads for the next 12-24 months is very real, and frustrating for some owners. If you feel that this attempt should not be restarted at this point in time, please contact us.

Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming
things.unfair@gmail.com
Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or through this blog

We will be updating the blog with more details at a later date.

Post-Amendment Update

Dear Owners and Residents,

On 8 October 2007, CBRE wrote a letter to all owners addressing the amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the signing status and "moving forward". The letter is reproduced here for those who did not receive it. It stated that 74 units or 50.68% have signed the CSA although it did not state which date this was valid at. It also stated that the law firm Rajah & Tann "has advised that the CSA has been invalidated and the entire process would have to be reinitiated".

The two important points in the letter are that CBRE "believe [they] should be able to achieve the 80% mark if given more time" and that they "will keep you updated of further progress".

We also received an email from another owner of BGV requesting the immediate disbanding of the current protem sales committee (PSC), of which we quote 2 paragraphs from his email:

"Should there be any further endeavour, I wish that none of the original members of this Sales Committee be voted in for the mere fact, that thus far, there is no transparency as many of my legitimate queries have been ignored.

I was amazed that CBRE also did not response to my queries too in spite of reminders. Therefore, I hope that CBRE is not ever to be the marketing agent for BGV."


We want to raise several points in light of these two correspondences :

1. Is the left hand talking to the right? Is CBRE not aware of the PSC's and Mr Lee's letters (14 September 2007 and 25 September 2007 respectively) which stated quite clearly, twice, that "the current en block effort will come to a halt and the Sales Committee will be disbanded" should they fail to achieve 80%? If that is the case, without an existing committee, how can (a) CBRE continue to work on behalf of BGV (b) "further progress" be possible?
2. If the PSC is not disbanded contrary to their explicit and repeated statements of intent, because they are heartened by the possibility that 80% can be achieved "if given more time", what people of integrity are the members of the PSC if they would state one thing and do another?
   
3. The honorable thing that the PSC needs to do now would be to disband the PSC and stop the effort, and inform all owners of this, in accordance with their intent dated 14 September and 25 September. Otherwise, none of their words can be seen to hold any truth and neither can owners have confidence in people who do not hold to their words.
4. Despite efforts to scare (with tsunamis and the threat of the en bloc failing), entice (with increased asking price), and offer suggestions that clearly show the lack of understanding of owners of BGV, the fact remains that about half of the estate do not believe in the collective sale, whether at this time or at all. We have heard of Spanish Village going up for tender at $1700 psf ppr, and rumours of an estate in Newton going en bloc at $2300 psf ppr. The market has already continued to climb up in these 2 months.
   
5. If despite all of the above, CBRE and the PSC is going to go ahead with continuing their efforts, then be prepared for the following: (a) Given the new amendments, every agent and law firm will be trying to calculate new costs for their work, and the beginning year will contain fees that are not indicative of the market rates (not stabilised, not benchmarked); it'll be a time for firms to make a mark up in their profit margins, undoubtedly citing more work required of them. (b) Many sales committees, agents and lawyers are still unclear of the protocols for the new amendments with regards to EOGMs. To continue now would be to see a repeat of the confusions that happened in 1999 when the LT(S)A amendments kicked in then. (c) The existence of a PSC that is as non-transparent and do not have the integrity to honor their words.
   

This en bloc "effort" has now split our humble community into two, causing for some irrevocable damage to neighbourly relations. If you feel enough is enough, the agents and committee have given their best shot and failed, let's have some peace in BGV and let's move on, please contact us. We are compiling a list of owners who feel that, for various reasons, the collective sale is not to their advantage or their wishes. Your support will be greatly appreciated.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic gardens, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc

New law takes effect 4 October 2007

According to the Ministry of Law, the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act takes effect today on 4 October 2007. This means that by law, the existing en bloc sale of BGV is not legitimate, especially since the "sale committee" has not been elected in by the Subsidiary Proprietors, nor was there an election on whether to conduct the collective sale or not.

The sales committee letter dated 14 September 2007 stated that the increased reserve price was an incentive to push owners to sign the CSA, so that "enough owners will come forward to join our CSA to bring us over the 80% mark before the date of implementation of the Amendments or 15 October 07, whichever is earlier." It further stated: "If we do not achieve the 80% before the new Amendments are made law, the current en block effort will come to a halt and the Sales Committee will be disbanded."

The date of implementation of the Amendments has occurred today. We noticed that the first 8 weekly mandatory notices around the estate were put up for only ONE day since they have now been covered by minutes of the 11 Sep Council Meeting. This is ILLEGAL - they are to be affixed to "a conspicuous part of each building" and covering them up will negate the purpose of having the notices up in the first place.

We spotted the notices yesterday - they stated that 73 units of 146 total signed (50%) dated 2 October. Putting aside the fact that all notices were conveniently covered by the minutes, if the 80% mark has not been achieved as of midnight 4 October 2007, will the existing sales committee agree to graciously halt the sale attempt and disband?

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, collective sale

Fear and Doubt, Tsunamis and Eggs - Responding to Mr Lee's Letter

Dear fellow owners of Botanic Gardens View,

We have become aware that two letters were circulated recently, one on 14 Sept 2007 from the Sale Committee and one dated 25 Sept 2007 from Mr John Lee (reproduced here). Some of us did not receive the first letter, either by post or by e-mail; we have not yet established how widely the second has been circulated. We urge the Sale Committee, collectively and individually, to ensure that ALL owners receive copies of their communications, in order to avoid concerns about the lack of transparency that results from partial circulation. For the information of all owners, the 14 Sept letter is available online via a private secure link from us; please email to us by clicking here or to enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com.

The Sale Committee continues to put pressure on owners to sign the Collective Sale Agreement. At least one of us has been subjected to continual telephone calls from CBRE, including to a family member at his workplace. Nonetheless, we continue to recommend strongly to owners that before doing so, they should seek independent legal advice. By signing the CSA you will hand over all control of this matter to the Sale Committee. At least one of the owners of Botanic Gardens View is also an owner in Horizon Towers and signed their CSA. Since the matter is now the subject of legal action we will not go into details. It is enough to say that she has reason to regret having done so.

We would like to mention a number of points that may be of interest to owners. The URA has never explicitly stated that it will in reality (rather than in our hopes) permit a developer to rebuild up to a plot ratio of 1.8. We cannot blithely assume that it will do so. The URA has, however, confirmed to us that the existing development restrictions on this plot will remain. The height limit of 4 stories (due to this plot’s proximity to the Botanic Gardens) will be retained for any new development (as shown here). And of course, there is currently no interested developer in sight anyway.

Another to which we would like to draw your attention is the reserve price. The Sales Committee has said that it has increased the reserve price. However, we have received no formal notification of this from the lawyer, Rajah & Tann, and therefore we cannot treat this as an official increase. This sudden change of mind also has implications for the Collective Sale Agreement, in that some owners will have signed under the old reserve price and some may have signed under the alleged new one, which may cause confusion (at the least) in future. Not to mention that there is no indication of what is the formulae used for apportionment and in particular, valuation. We paid for our units on the basis of their floor area, level and facing, not on the basis of share value. Will the price be apportioned fairly between three-bedroom units and two-bedroom ones? The Collective Sale Agreement is silent on this rather important point.
We are also disappointed by the tone of the Sale Committee’s letter. Contrary to what they pretend, one estate is not interchangeable with another. The location of Botanic Gardens View has unique and irreplaceable value, as we have pointed out before. Calling owners “plain stupid” because we prefer to stay in this location rather than in an inferior one is insulting and patronising and reveals perhaps more desperation than common sense.

Mr John Lee in his letter has implied that the Sale Committee’s failure to attract interest in the Collective Sale Agreement is due to “fear and doubt” spread by bloggers hiding “behind the cloak of anonymity”. We are somewhat confused by this, since our identities are not hidden (our names and addresses and contact information are all written at the bottom of this post and the previous letter distributed by mail and reproduced on this blog). We prefer to attribute owners’ reluctance to a clear understanding that their interests are not in reality being served by this attempt to evict them from their homes. Mr Lee claims that the forced sale of Botanic Gardens View into an overcrowded market would give owners a “nest egg”. Perhaps, for someone for whom this is not a primary (or sole) residence. For the rest of us, however, where exactly is the “nest egg” that he speaks of when it must be spent on somewhere that is smaller, more expensive and more inconveniently located than here? A nest egg, after all, requires a nest first. Not to mention that any other location may itself be subject to an en-bloc attempt in the near future!

We would also like to highlight to Mr Lee that we are ourselves owner-volunteers. If the en-bloc was not attempted, we would not have to put in our energies, time and expenses (from our own pockets) to keep owners informed and let owners hear another perspective so that they may make informed decisions.

In short, dear fellow owners, we hope that we will all continue to think the matter over carefully and be advised by our own independent legal advisers. Do not let a false sense of urgency push any of us into unconsidered decisions. A Sale Committee that acts in good faith and has the owners’ support has no reason to fear the new Amendments, which are after all designed to protect the interests of owners.

We remain, fully identified, fully resident, fully owner-volunteer,

Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming
things.unfair@gmail.com
Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

Note: A blog reader has posted 7 comments in separate posts anonymously. We will attend to your responses in due time.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic gardens mansion, collective sale, enbloc sale, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, en bloc, collective sales, singapore

Minutes and Comments from the Owners' Meeting 8 September 2007

It took us a while to compare notes and compile this, but we now have what we think is a comprehensive set of minutes and comments on the 8 September 2007 meeting.

For your information, the revised RP was done after this meeting, and of course, the Parliament has now passed the new amendments, which means it is now law.

Because the document is over 6 pages long, we have decided not to include everything in here. Readers can go to scribd (an online document storage site) and download or view the entire minutes here. We have included our overall comments below instead (it is the same as the last part of the document). We suggest you read the document on scribd first.

Overall Comments

During his brief about the new amendments, Mr Gan repeatedly pointed out that the new amendments will be other than them being a hassle (waste of time, effort and money), Mr Gan neglected to mention the benefits for us owners with these EOGMs which is to discuss the selection of property consultants, lawyers with all owners, to discuss the terms and conditions of CSA and SPA, apportionment methods and so on with all owners. Thus, showing transparency and accountability and fairness. He said that if every owner agrees that the SC has been very transparent, then there should be no need to follow the new amendments. However, we question whether the SC has been transparent or not – failure to provide slides, failure to provide formula for apportionment and valuation, failure to call for a meeting with sufficient time for owners, hard push to obtain 80% rather than taking the effort to conduct matters properly.

Mr Gan finally said that if he were to speak honestly, he will not do the sale for BGV under the new amendments because it would be laborious for him – he has to witness the signing, explain and clarify to owners with queries, sign off the notice of consent level every 4 weeks. In effect, it is more work for him. If it’s more work, even discounting the new amendments, what happens when things get complicated (eg legal complications that appear)? Will he back out because it is more work and most costly? We have to seriously question the ‘honesty’ of Mr Gan as a lawyer that is committed to the sale if he can say that under new amendments he will not do the sale since it’s too much work and effort.

Mr Gan also mentioned that it is not stated in our CSA that the sinking fund and maintenance fund will be given to us rather than go with the purchaser. But in the SPA when the tender goes out, they will try. So that means it is not a guarantee we have the funds returned to us. Did you know that under the new amendments, all management and sinking funds will be returned to the owners? That we don’t have to ‘try’ but we are entitled to the funds. We believe that there’s a substantial amount left in the sinking funds, and it should be duly returned to us, especially under the new amendments.

CBRE Mr Lake spoke saying the volume of successful transactions in the last 3 months (June:20, July: 12, August: 6) have been trending downwards. Mr Lake pointed out one strategy that exists at the moment is to hit 80% at whatever price you can, then worry about price later. He raised the spectre of Pacific Mansion and Rivershire where they raised their RP but did not succeed in a bid that satisfied the RP. He said that this is not the right basis or approach. The gist of the message is to hurry because the market might be turning down. However, we would like to point out a few things:-

1. CBRE’s own report in the Straits Times on 18 September painted a very rosy outlook for the property market (“Investment Sales to hit $50B in ’07: CBRE”) where the article cited CBRE’s bullish prediction of Singapore ending the year on a strong footing with sales hitting an all time high. Residential investments (en blocs) comprise a large proportion of their prediction and target.
2. If he is disdainful of the strategy of pushing up the RP to obtain 80% as Pacific Mansion and Rivershire did, why did he approve the SC decision to raise the RP up by more than 10%? Does this not defeat Mr Lake’s careful analysis of surrounding market rates which was his justification for arriving at $2000 in the first place?
3. What if the higher RP does not achieve a successful tender? Is the SC empowered to decrease the RP (even below $2000) without the consent of the owners? The CSA is silent on this matter. After all, 5.2.1 states clearly amendments of a substantial nature must be made only with written approval by all Selling Owners, and yet we wonder if written approval was obtained for raising the RP (which the SC is entitled to under 14.(b)(ii) but it is still a substantial amendment). What if he/she does not approve of the amendment, especially if it is a downward revision of the RP? Again the CSA is silent on this matter. After all, 24.6 of the CSA states that “The Selling Owners hereby irrevocably represent agree and undertake from time to time and at all times to ratify and confirm whatsoever the Solicitors and/or the Property Consultants shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this CSA”. In other words, anyone who signs the CSA shall “ratify and confirm” anything done by virtue of the CSA. That is carte blanche to do anything they want in our books.

As a sidenote, we noticed that the new RP in Mr Lee's letter are different in 2 places. Do see if you can spot it. Some say it's a minor amount, but an error is an error.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc sale

Another Resident Speaks Out

This was received from another resident of BGV, who calls him/herself "BGV Resident"...! We reprint this email verbatim, and add our own comments below. It goes to show that when the Protem SC becomes pushy, rather than becoming more transparent, they are actually becoming less so. We only anonymise the newly increased reserve price (henceforth $Y).

BGV Resident writes:

"I have just read the fresh circular letter from Mr John Lee today. Funny how he says he doesn't have any problem with the new law - as if he has a choice - and goes on to say that they have been guided by the same principles of "transparency and accountability". Is that why: -

1. there was no proper survey to show whether even more than 50% owners wish to embark on the enbloc exercise?
2. there was no general meeting called to properly initiate a sales committee?
3. the self-styled protem sales committee took it upon themselves to choose for all owners, the agent and lawyer, and inform owners only after the fact?
4. we are told that one member of the sales committee is employed by a "property developer" but we do not know which developer, and cannot decide for ourselves whether there is truly no conflict of interest, as Mr Lee claimed at the August owners' meeting?
5. Mr Gan the lawyer was proudly introduced as Deputy President of the Strata Titles Board at the August meeting while he was at the same time acting for the committee to move this CSA along, as if there is no conflict of interest?
6. till this day, the slides presented at the August owners' meeting (containing vital explanations, estimates, figures and other proposed terms) have not even been circulated to all owners, even though this was requested at the meeting?
7. we have no explanation of how the figure of $Y psf ppr was decided upon, as opposed to any other figure? [The only clue in the letter is that it says Ardmore Park went for $2337 and for some reason their new figure is close to this (rather than the latest figure in the list, $1810 psf ppr for Grangeford.) What would an up-to-date valuation report of BGV say - we are way off or on the mark?]
   

I also wonder why Mr Lee is concerned about the coming legislative changes regarding EOGMs etc, since Mr Gan the lawyer was so confident in explaining during the August meeting that his drafting of the CSA (paragraph 25 on page 18) would take care of any changes to the law and that the CSA would not be badly affected.

Finally, the last page of Mr Lee's letter shows what a sad state they are in - to argue that we should move to other enbloc-possibility condos (out of the frying pan into the fire), some even older than BGV, and to even faraway Punggol 21 (forgetting the fact that we currently enjoy living near the one and only original Botanic Gardens, Tanglin Mall, Orchard Road, Bukit Timah Road and Holland Village, in a location that people would die for and is not replaceable by any of those he mentioned)! Talk about comparing apples with pears, as far as Punggol 21 is concerned."

Many thanks to BGV Resident for your honest response. We would like to add the following as well:-

1. It is really a bitter pill to swallow when Mr Lee's letter on "Where to Stay" lists out places that are condos that are ONGOING en blocs (eg Pandan Valley, Normanton, Pine Grove, Ridgewood etc), or even Punggol 21, when he himself lives in his comfortable bungalow nearby (as verified in the White Pages). It is questionable if the chairman even stays in BGV. It really doesn't matter to him if you miss Botanic Gardens because it's only a stone's throw from his home.
   
2. Is the PSC's idea of transparency one where a letter is sent out on the 4th Sep 2007 for an Owners' Meeting on 8th Sep 2007? Sure, everyone received the letter (eventually) but how many could change their appointments at the last minute, especially during the school term break, to attend an urgent meeting with Mr Gan? Less than 40 people turned up including the PSC.
3. How transparent is the PSC when they failed to inform you that URA refuses to support the PSC's application for a 10 storey redevelopment? That the maximum allowable height in the event of a total redevelopment is STILL FOUR STOREYS? We will inform you in the immediate future our own discussions with URA and what we found out (especially about the 1.4 vs 1.8 plot ratio).
4. Does the revised RP $Y mean that CBRE will benefit from the excess fee charge (since it already exceeds $X as stated in the last agreement)? Or will $Y be fixed at 0.38%?
5. Where is the calculation for valuation that is a part of the method of distribution? It was promised (along with the slides) to everyone that the valuation formula and rationale would be sent to all owners.
   

Is the sale done in 'good faith'? It is beginning to appear that good faith is beginning to go out the window in the rush to get that 80% that the PSC desperately needs.

Tags: Taman Serasi, Botanic Gardens View, en-bloc, collective sale

Reserve Price Increase - Trying to Pre-empt the New Law

Apologies for the lack of update. We've been busy compiling our notes and comparing them from the last meeting. We'll be putting these notes up shortly as well as our comments on them.

In addition, another letter arrived from Mr Lee. This time they have increased the Reserve Price (RP) by about 18%. We knew this was going to happen as it is a common tactic by agents and SCs to bump up the RP when the signature collection has stagnated, things are not moving along, or when they are facing a deadline.

And what deadline is this? Not the worry about financial market tsunamis, but of a Law coming into existence. Here's 3 things to think about before you sign the dotted line:

1. A bump of 18% is significant. CBRE and the PSC obviously knows that this can be done. So why start at the amount stated in the CSA (henceforth named "X")? Improved market conditions (but didn't he worry about tsunamis?)? Or is it because $X is easier to secure a sale with a buyer? In other words, rather than getting the best possible value for your property, by initially starting with $X, the PSC has opted for the FASTEST way of selling your property. Put it another way, if 80% signed at $X on the 5 Aug, then ALL of us would not have received the 18% extra present.
   


2. By increasing the RP, they are now pushing for the FASTEST way of getting 80%. But this beckons - if they can bump up by 18%, does that not speak volumes about HOW MUCH MORE THE ESTATE IS WORTH? Think about it this way - from not signing, you have just witnessed an 18% increase in value in your unit in less than 2 months. We reiterate our point - that we as owners need not worry about how valuable our estate is - we KNOW it is valuable, and it should be us who dictate the selling price. Eng Lok didn't become the highest en bloc sale of its time because it followed the market; it LED the market.


3. The latest letter was very silent of concerns by owners about the Horizon Towers situation. Lately there are even more cases being brought to court or STB that are contested on legal grounds. Increasingly, points of law around the sale and the CSA are brought to question. Considering that the sale of the property will be of the same range as that of Horizon Towers and it is likely that only major developers like CDL, SC Global, HPL, Capitaland, etc will attempt to buy the estate, what are the consequences for majority owners if major issues are brought up at STB hearings or in court that might lead the case to be dismissed? Issues that are may be recognised and prevented under the new Law because it will force things to become systematic, transparent and fair? We are ultimately small buyers versus a major developer if it comes down to lawsuits and there is no written guarantee that what happened to Horizon Towers will not happen to us.
   

We will post our notes of the 8 September Owners' Meeting and you can judge for yourself if you feel safe signing your rights away in the increasingly risky process of en bloc sales. We ask for your patience as this is not a matter anyone wants to take lightly. It isn't simply a matter of signing on the dotted line, as much as the PSC would want you to believe.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic gardens mansion, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore

Owners Meeting (again) this Saturday 3pm

By now, most of you would have received yet another CBRE letter about another owners' meeting this Saturday. At such short notice, they are pulling out all stops to get you to sign the CSA as soon as possible, before the new Law kicks in. We find this strange as some of us have yet to receive the presentation slides from the first CBRE owners' meeting that was promised to everyone. When contacted, CBRE changed the story and said that they will give the slides out ONLY to owners who make the effort to contact them. I guess that's earning their $834,000+ fees for you.

They have invited Mr Gan Hiang Chye of Rajah & Tann back to address the following issues:

1. The Horizon Tower Case - What went wrong?


2. Understanding the Strata Title Board Application and avoiding its pitfalls?


3. The Amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act and its implication for ongoing Collective Sale.

If you don't know this, Mr Gan is a big gun in the en bloc business. Not only is he a partner with Rajah & Tann and no less, the lawyer handling our BGV en bloc, he also is the Deputy President of the Strata Titles Board! A man wearing these many hats is highly respectable and his advice will carry a lot of weight, especially if he can offer definitive answers to many concerns us owners have.

It surely must be expensive to invite him back - on a weekend no less - and we certainly hope our legal fees are not going up by the minute! Still, when you go for yet another owners' meeting (maybe they should just label the Function Room the "En Bloc Room"), do think about these:

1. So far, we've had Mr Jeremy Lake, Executive Director of CBRE and Mr Gan Hiang Chye, Deputy President of STB dropping by our humble home. Doesn't this speak very highly of our estate's super-prime value? Short of a Member of Parliament visiting to tell us how choice our location is, don't you think it's clear from their presence that there will be other boats to come by, as pointed out in the recent letter to owners?
   


2. The law firm and marketing agency are not paid the bulk of their fees unless the sale is successful. Will they be objective and fair in their representation of legal and en bloc matters? Would it not be more advisable to seek independent legal advice?
   


3. Is there a conflict of interest when a senior member of the STB, who on the one hand should be neutral, objective, and ideally not be involved in the sale process, has agreed to come to BGV to talk about vital concerns at the explicit request of the protem sales committee, who on the other hand is very obviously pushing hard to get owners to sign away their homes and investments?
   

Tags: Taman Serasi, Botanic Gardens View, Botanic Gardens Mansion, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale

Nearby Replacement Unit Values

We do the homework so you don't have to! In the CBRE presentation, some estates were named as viable replacement homes for those wishing to use your 'windfall' to buy a unit nearby. Let's look at those estates suggested:

One Jervois

• TOP Dec 2014. Means it won't even be ready should the en bloc succeed (along with 6 years rental to wait for it!)

Waterfall Gardens

• TOP Dec 2010. Won't be ready should en bloc succeed. 2.5 years rental required.
• Estimated average increase in unit value = $60+ per month
• Assuming increase is constant, a 2196 sqf unit will be worth approx $2700psf by completion or $5.9m.
• Units are therefore OUT OF REACH price wise
  

Grange Residences

• TOP 2004. Units are available now.
• Estimated average increase in unit value = $70+ per month
• Assuming increase is constant, a 2487 sqf unit will be worth approx $3400psf by completion or $8.4m.
• No smaller sized units are possible in this development.
• Units are therefore OUT OF REACH price wise
  

The Equatorial

• TOP 2002. Some units are available now.
• Estimated average increase in unit value = $65+ per month
• Assuming increase is constant, a 1722 sqf unit will be worth approx $2340psf by completion or $4.0m.
• That means you will not have anything left over, or may have to top up.

Regency Park

• TOP 1990. En bloc potential which means you may have to move again.
• Estimated average increase in unit value = $80+ per month
• Assuming increase is constant, a 2250 sqf unit will be worth approx $3000psf by completion or $6.7m
• No smaller sized units are possible in this development
• Units are OUT OF REACH price wise
  

Fontana Heights

• TOP 1985. En bloc potential which means you have to move again.
• Estimated average increase in unit value = $61+ per month (with $1950psf asking due to speculation)
• Assuming increase is constant, a 3466sqf unit will be worth approx $2560psf by completion or $8.9m
• No smaller sized units are possible in this development
• Units are OUT OF REACH price wise
  

This is not including the others in the CBRE list, or the nearby estate like 8 Napier with its $4000psf asking price NOW.

So out of these properties, when you take into account the fact that replacement values are not the prices NOW but 11+ months or more later, most will be out of reach.

If you think the picture described above is too bullish, today's Straits Times and Business Times both reported that economists are projecting strong growth this year and 2008, particularly in the construction industry where our buyers will be from. This despite stock market and export problems. Likewise, a noted property director said in yesterday's Business Times that the fundamentals in the property market are still strong, with most BGV owners still hitting the undersupply situation by 2008 (you will have to compete with other en bloc owners for replacement homes). This will definitely inflate prices in the prime districts, as people capitalise on the supply shortage and the huge demand generated from en bloc millionaires (just think of the owners of 1362 Farrer Court/Leedon Heights/Tulip Gardens/Spanish Village units alone who will be looking for replacement homes as well in 2008, possibly at the same time as all of us).

It isn't simply a matter of how much money you're getting now, for those who are home owners. It's a question of whether you can find a suitable replacement home in the near future, should you agree to sell BGV now.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, Botanic Gardens Mansion, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, collective sale, collective sales

Letter to All Owners of BGV - 30 Aug 2007

This letter was sent out to all owners of Botanic Gardens View, dated 30 August 2007. We are reproducing the letter here.

Dear fellow owners of Botanic Gardens View,

We represent a number of owners do not wish to sell our apartments in an en-bloc sale. We do not refer to ourselves as “minority owners”, because we are not in the minority. Despite the pressure that has been brought to bear, there is no evidence that the majority of the owners, particularly the resident owners, actually wish to go against their own long-term interests and sell their apartments into an overcrowded market. This being the case, we ask our fellow owners, both resident and non-resident, to consider the following points:

1. At the meeting on 5 August, one of the Sales Committees presented a Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). We will not comment about the terms, since these are for each owner to consider. However, we would like to emphasise that a CSA is a binding legal document, with significant legal obligations and financial consequences for anyone who signs it. Signatories of the CSA give up important rights and acquire equally important obligations. As the Horizon Towers case shows, changing your mind after signing will entail a great expense of time and money. We would therefore urge all owners to take independent legal advice and consider carefully not only what is in the CSA but what is not, before they sign.



2. For our fellow owners’ consideration, we attach a table setting out some of the discrepancies we found when we ran the method of apportionment and calculation of the minimum sale price through a spreadsheet. We note various errors, from the simple calculation error on Schedule 3 (Error 4) to differences when the Sale Proceeds are calculated based on the defined apportionment ratio (Error 3) to a discrepancy of over $7000 (Error 1). We urge you to double check the figures yourself; enter the values as defined in Schedule 3 and 5 in a spreadsheet and ensure decimal values for apportionment ratio are set to 6 points as defined in Schedule 5. (The table is sent to all owners via post)
   



3. At the recent August meeting, it was suggested that owners who sell could buy replacement properties in developments such as Fontana Heights, Grange Residences, One Jervois, Regency Park, The Equatorial and Waterfall Gardens. Now, apart from the risk that these developments too will suffer an en-bloc attempt, the fact of the matter is that none of them offers the same combination of advantages that Botanic Gardens View has in terms of (i) location, (ii) size, (iii) layout, (iv) land-holding tenure and again, (v) location. Even if we were able buy any apartment in these developments (which is not guaranteed), we would inevitably lose out on at least one and possibly all of the above factors. We are in effect being told that in exchange for losing our property here we can pay out more and get less in return. There is no logical reason why we would wish to do that. Those of us who live here precisely because of this location will inevitably lose out, since it will not be possible for us to buy a unit in a redeveloped Botanic Gardens View. 8 Napier, the former Eng Lok Mansions, will be selling for S$4000 per square foot. There is no reason why a redeveloped Botanic Gardens View should be sold for a lower price. The reserve price proposed by the Sales Sub-Committee is certainly not going to cover that.



4. This leads us to our major point: We were told at the 5th August meeting that we should go for an en-bloc sale because the market may be reacing its peak and we will “miss the boat” if we do not sell now. We respect the professional expertise of the agents, and the opinions of the owners who wish to sell, but the truth is that their interest is in making the sale, rather than helping all owners to maximize their long-term benefits. The loss of amenity to the residents is not a factor for them, since it will not be a factor in the sale price. Before worrying about “missing the boat” we need to ask ourselves whether the boat’s destination is anywhere that we want to go to, and just as important, whether there will not be other boats in future. Given the number of developments that are now on the market for en-bloc sale, or which have already been sold, we also need to ask ourselves whether we are truly maximizing value by selling now into a market that is already loaded with properties, in which we might well be forced to reduce our reserve price even further in order to find a buyer. This would make no sense at all.



5. Property booms come and go. This one will indeed end at some time. So what? We are strongly of the view that Botanic Gardens View’s unique and irreplaceable location will ensure that its value will be maintained regardless of the property cycle. As one of the few remaining prime parcels in the centre of town, Botanic Gardens View would in fact be even better placed for the future. And in the meantime we residents will continue to benefit from its many and irreplaceable advantages. We should not let ourselves be pushed blindly into signing legally-binding documents without thought or professional advice.

Any owners interested in further discussion can contact us (Click on name to email):

(a) Vanessa Chan (Blk 9, #10-09)

(b) Wong Hwei Ming (Blk 9, #09-17)

or through this blog.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic garden view, botanic gardens en bloc, botanic garden en bloc, collective sale, property, enbloc sale, enbloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, en bloc, collective sales

The New Law, the CSA and You

Dear residents and owners of BGV,

We thank CBRE and John Lee for their letter dated 27 August, including a reprint of the email by John Lee as well as 2 supporting emails in favour of Mr Lee’s insight into the future. We believe strongly that it is a gross misrepresentation when the consensus level is based on partial signatures and not fully verified, completed, witnessed and legally recognised signatures.

We’re sure Mr Lee is aware of this blog and the previous posting on his email. The BGV blog is for all owners and residents, whether you agree or disagree with the sale. We aim to update the blog every few days with new comments on the en bloc sale, and we have many issues that we would like to bring to light. It remains to be seen if these issues will be addressed or ignored.

The climate for en bloc sales has changed because of two major factors totally unrelated to the financial market. First is the Horizon Towers lawsuit that is specifically directed at the majority owners who signed the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). Second is the new Amendment Bill to the Land Titles (Strata) Act which will be made law in early October. The first is hardly mentioned in discussions around BGV sale because many people are not aware of what rights they have, and more importantly what rights they surrender or do not have when they sign the CSA. As a nominated MP said recently, “just like any other commercial transaction, there are very real commercial and legal risks in collective sales”. Every owner must be aware of the liabilities and risks involved (something the new en bloc Law plans to address). Yet, in response to the new Law, CBRE and the PSC are trying to circumvent it by pushing as hard as possible for the 80% consent to be achieved before the Amendment Bill is made law. We find this ironic - and question this hard sell and push to sign - since the new Law is specifically aimed to improve and increase transparency and accountability of the PSC to all owners. The tighter procedures are ultimately good for all owners but by hoping to avoid it, what is the message that the PSC is sending out about being transparent and accountable to all owners? Maybe it’s too much of a hassle? After all, as pointed out in today’s Business Times, while consultancies believe the new Law will make the process “time-consuming”, add costs, slow down the process, are these the central issues that should drive the sale, or should it be that owners are kept properly informed, the process is completely transparent, and the PSC accountable to all owners?

Pros and Cons of Signing Now

We would like to highlight the disadvantages of signing the CSA at this time:

• You cannot sue any member of the PSC. In fact, not only can you not sue the PSC, they are completely indemnified in the 2nd longest standing clause in the document. To rub salt to the wound, the PSC is entitled to include majority owners as co-defendants etc
• On the other hand, you as an owner who signed the CSA can be liable for anything that may cause the sale to abort. This clause is the LONGEST standing clause in the document. It shows who the lawsuit arrow may be aimed at when things get ugly
• You can’t sell your unit unless you have a buyer who must agree to the collective sale (no matter how he/she disagrees with it)
• You give the PSC rights to agree to any terms and conditions the Purchaser may require, and to approve the sale and purchase agreement on your behalf; you have no say in the eventual terms of the sale.
• You bear the costs and expenses for any legal proceedings
• You give the rights to the PSC to conduct the sale by any mode (including private treaty which often is not transparent and may not offer the best value; there’s a reason why the new Law mandates sale by public tender or auction only)
• You do not know what the outcome of BGV STB hearings and appeals will be. Look at the problems facing the majority owners at Horizon Towers now
• You will quickly realise the costs to yourselves if STB does NOT AGREE to the sale.
• You agree to pay for the STB application costs up front
• You do not know if the entire application will be dismissed by STB because the sale does not comply with the new Law (unless 80% is achieved before it commences)

Advantages of being an owner who does not sign the CSA :

• You pay nothing unless STB AGREES to the sale
• No one can sue you as you have not signed any legal document
• You can retain all the rights to your home
• You get the same sale price as everyone else if STB allows the sale

For example, you would have noticed that the agent fees have been revised from 0.3% of the old sale price to 0.38% of the new sale price. Did you know the revision is effectively an increase in the agent's fee of $834,971.73 or $75,906.52 per month over 11 months of the agent’s work (using their timeline). This is not including the % excess or GST (in excess of $55,000). Will you be able to question this?

Not under the old en bloc Law. But under the new en bloc Law, yes, since it has to be properly considered and even voted in a general meeting.

We therefore urge you to seriously consider the en bloc sale, and the agreement that they are pushing you to sign. Given the new Law, there is an element of uncertainty about the repercussions of it on BGV’s sale, and it makes more sense now to wait, see what new rights you are entitled to, and how more accountable and transparent the PSC has to be to you. Consult an independent lawyer about the terms and conditions, bearing in mind the new Law and Horizon Towers. Remember that while some of the clauses in the agreement are 'standard', that doesn't make it right or fair to owners.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic garden view, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, collective sale, collective sales

Beware of Tsunamis and Hurricanes!

A number of owners have received via email an update from Mr John Lee of the Pro-tem Sale Comiittee (PSC) dated 17 Aug 07, which we have included in the Comments section for those of you who did not receive it.

We would like to thank Mr John Lee for his detailed analysis of the “Future Uncertainties”, and of the impending hurricane, tsunami and assorted scarring of the world economy. Mr Lee paints a picture of a very gloomy outlook in the future, one dominated by a global recession which will affect all countries. Mr Lee is entitled to his strong beliefs about the pessimistic future, undoubtedly from his experiences in an investment company.

We find it strange, therefore, that a systematic search through various media sources including Asian Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Business Times, New York Times, London Independent, plus 30 other news sources, in the past 6 months revealed only four articles that talked about a global recession (Straits Times 19 Aug 07, Australian Financial Review 4 Aug 07, Montreal Gazette 2 Apr 07 and New Straits Times 6 Mar 07). All 4 articles pointed out that a global recession is not forthcoming.

For example, just recently, Sunday Times reported that “experts polled by the Sunday Times do not believe the sub-prime crisis in the United States will lead to a global recession” (19 Aug 07). The Business Times (17 Aug 07) also argued that the domestic economic growth will not be dampened; it'll be driven by booming building and construction activities that are not going to halt. David Lum from Daiwa Institute of Research pointed out that the “building and construction driver is not going to slow down at all, and that driver is good for a few more years, not just this year”, contrary to Mr Lee’s forecast of a downturn in fairly soon.

Perhaps we should turn to another Lee for his views. Minister Mentor Lee, founding father of modern Singapore, over the weekend assured Singaporeans that the market nervousness will go away soon. He asserted that "whatever the troubles, they will go away in weeks, if not months. What we are absolutely sure of (about) East Asia is that it is set to grow. Nothing will change the long-term plans and growth of China and India, and the rest of Asia”. MM Lee also stated that Singapore’s future is secure, and that “economic growth is here to stay for the next 10, 15 years or more”.

Ultimately, whether you believe Mr Lee or MM Lee is up to your own beliefs about the future, your risk disposition and whether you simply need the cash now or not. If you take Mr Lee’s gloomy outlook, then by that logic, if the tsunami and hurricanes are at your doorstep, it would make sense to individually cash out your property investment now, as opposed to taking the riskier route of going for an en-bloc which can take anything from a year to two, without a guarantee of a sale until legal completion.

On the other hand, experts will tell you that in the face of volatile economies, the best thing to do, if you are not strapped for cash, is to wait and hold out. The land value of Botanic Gardens View will always appreciate in the short and long term future.

Furthermore, and importantly, if developers are becoming more cautious, then perhaps we may already be too late in maximising our land value. After all, the MD of Credo has reported that developers have “bought more than they ever intended” and will be slowing their purchases down (ChannelNewsAsia 18 Aug 07). Will we then expect to see the PSC lower the reserve price, to make it more ‘realistic’? Or to put this in another way, to ensure that the sale goes through, even though it may not be the true potential value of the land?

Whether you believe we’re too late or not, wouldn’t it be better to just wait and see what happens in this "increasingly unfavourable economic situation", rather than push for the sale and get a less than satisfactory sales proceed?

You can believe Mr Lee or MM Lee. But regardless of which side you take, common sense tells you that you are the owner of a unit in a land that will always be in demand, and that you can afford to be patient, rather than be persuaded by hurricanes, tsunamis and assorted disasters.

(For those owners who did not receive Mr Lee’s email, you can find it in the comments section.)

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic garden view, botanic gardens, botanical gardens, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, real estate, singapore

"Say No to En bloc" Support Group is Encouraging

Dear BGV residents and owners,

Many thanks for your words of kind support. We've been gathering a steady stream of owners and residents who believe that an en bloc sale at this time is inappropriate as well as those who would simply prefer not to sell.

We understand that some people are fearful of retribution from pro-sales owners - that they'd get their cars scratched, homes vandalised, etc. That's why they'd prefer to remain anonymous (while showing support).

As a colleague who's been through an en bloc and lost his home can verify, anonymity is an imaginary thing :-

1. The CSA contains a table with lists of names, and columns for owners to sign (along with a witness's signature).
2. When an owner signs the list, there is nothing stopping that person from 'glancing' through the list, checking which of their neighbours are delaying the sale.
3. There's nothing to stop the owner from asking the agents if so-and-so ("a fellow resident I can persuade, you know") has signed yet.
   
4. There's also nothing to stop SC members (who have primary knowledge of who signed and who didn't) from telling other owners in a friendly chitchat who has or hasn't signed.

The only group of people kept in the dark, are those who have not seen the CSA. Who have not signed. Those who for various reasons believe they shouldn't, or wouldn't, sign the CSA.

We're open to more support, as well as suggestions on how to protect the identities of people while at the same time allowing everyone to be part of the Say No to En bloc Group. Some pro-sales people can be aggressive. But we strongly believe that people who want to protect the right not to sign, or the right to have a home in BGV, can be equally vocal and principled.

So please continue to email us, even if it's only to say hi as an expression of support! Or if you have any issues with the current en bloc, feel free to let us know!

Email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Tags: Taman Serasi, Botanic Gardens View, Botanic Garden View, Botanic Gardens Mansion, 8 Napier, 8Napier, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore

Starting a Support Group for Those who LOVE BGV

Today is a big day for BGV. There is an owner's meeting organised by the Protem Sale Committee (PSC) and CB Richard Ellis. I urge everyone to attend it, even if you are against the sale. This is not to show that people are interested (a common misconception.. just because I attend means I want to know more about selling my home meh?), but to gather information about what certain self-interested parties are trying to do to our precious homes.

Date: 5 Aug 2007 (Sunday)
Time: 2pm
Venue: Singapore Botanic Garden, Function Hall

It'll also be a chance for those of us who wish to remain staying in BGV to be known to one another.

I propose that we set up a Say No to En-Bloc support group, or SNEG for short.

Why need this? Simply put - knowledge is power and in any enbloc exercise, the people who hold the knowledge of what goes on is the PSC and their agent. Owners who object, who do not wish to sell, who do not believe in selling for various reasons, are usually left on their own or worse, left in the dark. A support group will allow those of us who wish to keep BGV to become a group to offer support, solidarity and a strong communication channel among like-minded people. Just like the PSC is a group of like-minded owners, a SNEB group is like-minded as well, but with the wish to keep BGV as their home.

At the Owners' Meeting, flyers will be distributed to anyone who wish to join the group. Or one of us may approach you.

But only if you speak up about your opinion about the whole enbloc thing! So please don't be afraid to express your views. After all, if nothing is done, we might find our home rapidly sold off, and the conveniences that we take for granted (like taking an easy walk to Botanic Gardens where the Function Hall is!) will be forever gone.

Even if you couldn't make it for the meeting, please do email us to show your support: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Tags: enbloc support group, en bloc support group, collective sale, property, enbloc sale, enbloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, en bloc, condo, collective sales, real estate, singapore

Glaring Questions

Many of you have received the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA) from CB Richard Ellis by now. Isn't it really nice that a full CSA, and not a draft, has been prepared and ready for signature collection without any consultation with all owners at all? Given that they are planning to sign the CSA on the same day they present it, it almost certainly means that the PSC will not be entertaining any amendments to it.

So here are some questions you can think about, and maybe even ask at the Owners' Meeting:

1. Who is the Protem Sale Committee? A list of 8 names are provided with their business credentials. But who wants to know how rich or high up the food chain they are? What is important to owners should be: (a) Is a member an OWNER-OCCUPIER (and how long they've stayed in BGV) or is he/she an OWNER-INVESTOR (renting out their units)? (b) What enbloc experiences have they had? The Horizon Towers fiasco (as documented in Dr Minority's blog) shows very clearly a slightest technical error can undermine the entire process, so you want people who are representing you and people who know about enbloc. Not just people who are keen to sell.
2. Why is the PSC not officially nominated and elected in an EOGM? This is a requirement in the new enbloc laws and the law states very clearly (no matter how the CSA writes it) that it will apply to all enbloc cases that have not achieved 80% when it becomes gazetted. So if the PSC is not formally elected in an EOGM, things get into trouble. Now what should be of interest to owners is WHY not hold an EOGM to present, nominate, second, and ratify the PSC? An Owners' Meeting to nominate the PSC is NOT the right place because it doesn't require that everyone is informed (an EOGM does that by law) and it doesn't require that everyone attend.
3. Why is the ending of the CSA in two parts - 6 mths after the first signature and the possibility to extend the expiry date up to 12 mths after first signature? Why have 6 mths there at all? Why not leave it at 6 mths to give everyone a peace of mind (if they cannot achieve 80% in 6 mths, then the whole thing is obviously not going to happen)? Yes, legally the PSC has 12 mths to collect the 80% but one would expect the whole point of having 6 mths there is so that people will not be left 'in limbo' over the whole enbloc process!
4. Why is the method of apportionment purely by unit size ONLY and not by other methods such as 50/50 mix of unit size and share value or other valuation methods? Unit size works if most units in BGV are similar-sized but we have a mixture. The current method gives advantage to the smaller flats (ave of $2700 psf) compared to larger flats (ave of $2300 psf). The method of apportionment also ignores the fact that when the flats were purchased, the higher the flat, the more expensive it was. Now, it doesn't matter if you have a ground floor flat or a top floor flat - everyone gets the same amount!
5. Why is there no mention of the sinking fund and what is going to happen to it? For that matter, will the sinking fund be 'locked aside' which means any urgent repairs may not be possible during the entire 22 mths of enbloc process?
6. What happens if a 2nd CSA which covers collective exchanges appear? Will a person who signs the first CSA be stuck and not allowed to sign the 2nd one, even if it is a better deal?
   

There are many other glaring questions about the CSA (eg success-based fees of agents, indemnity clauses, impending legislation, RP/CSA revisions etc). It just shows that there is still a lot of consideration to be made before we jump right into signing the CSA.

Remember - once you've signed the CSA you:

• lose all rights to object to the sale during the STB mediation/hearings.
  
• lose all rights to have a say in any RP/CSA revisions
  
• give up your rights to the sales committee who can make decisions for you
• give up your ability to sign another CSA that might come along, one that might offer a better deal (eg collective exchange, higher RP)
  

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Owners meeting, collective sale, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale

Update on 8Napier

Further to the last posting on the new development at Eng Lok Mansion, Business Times has provided new information on "8Napier" on 17 July 2007.

No of units: 46
Price range: $4000-$4500 psf
Developer: Napier Properties. Director Mark Wee & Tony Tan, former Parkway boss.
Details: 10 storeys, 40 apartments of 3-4 bedroom units, and 6 penthouses. All penthouses are duplex ranging from 4000 sq ft to 6000 sq ft and are expected to be sold by auction. Smallest 3 bed unit is just over 2000 sq ft and priced at about $8 million. Some units are already sold to a mix of Singaporean and foreign buyers. Current plan is to limit sales to just 10-12 units.

'We may sell another dozen or so apartments when our showflat is ready on site in a few months' time. But we plan to keep the rest of the project, including the six penthouses, for sale after the project is completed, which will probably be around end-2009' said Mark Wee.

'All the units come fully loaded with top-notch lighting, sound system and kitchen equipment, bathroom fittings and the like, so that our buyers do not have to do any renovations as we are fitting the units to the highest standard currently available in the Singapore market. This should minimise the hassle of moving in' said Mark Wee.

Points to note:-

• A replacement unit for owners if they want to stay in the same location and have to buy a unit in 8 Napier will cost only $8 million for a 3 bedroom 2000 sq ft unit. In the latest offer from CBRE, how much more will you have to pay out of your own pocket to buy a replacement unit?
  
• $4000-$4500 psf currently. That is the market benchmark for the area and I'd doubt any developer who buys BGV will attempt to sell new units at anything less than what 8Napier is marketing.
• Napier Properties are holding back units till end 2009, especially the prime penthouses. This shows their confidence in the market, and their expectation that they will achieve even more than $4000-$4500 in 1 and a half years time. Given the latest estimate of 20% increase in property price per annum, it would be fair to say they should be targeting about $5000 psf by end 2009.
• In a Business Times report dated 10 Nov 2006, they priced the units at a 'high $2000 psf' but 6 mths later, revised it to $4000-$4500 psf.
• That report also cited Mark Wee as stating that some of the priciest real estate in global cities like New York and London is around famous parks, and 8 Napier, which is just two minutes' walk to the Botanic Gardens, will be in that league. If 8Napier is in this league, what about BGV which is 30 seconds away from the Gardens?
• Profit to developer? They bought Eng Lok at $128million ($1218ppr) in Mar 2006 but they stand to gain a cool $344million (less development costs and proceeds). This for an estate half the size of BGV. What a steal for Napier Properties. Will this happen to us as well, to be sold on the cheap?
• To say that we have a goldmine on our hands, a piece of real estate around a famous park, is an understatement. But some people don't really care.
  

Tags: 8 Napier, 8Napier, Eng Lok Mansion, Napier Road, Botanic Gardens View, Botanic Garden View, en bloc, singapore, en-bloc, collective sale, enbloc