This blog has been created for all of you to express your opinions and comments on the enbloc process of BGV. Please feel free to express and share your opinions, comments, ideas, experiences, anything.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog has been created for all of you to give your comments and opinions on the proposed enbloc sale of Botanic Gardens View. Please feel free to express your opinions and comments, share your ideas, your enbloc experiences, etc.
Our Home, Our BGV
Enbloc at BGV
- Botanic Gardens View
- We are a group of residents staying here at Botanic Gardens View asking for 3 simple things for this whole enbloc process: TRANSPARENCY, EQUITY & ACCOUNTABILITY. Email us at enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com
Labels
- 8 Napier/Eng Lok (2)
- AGM (1)
- annual general meeting (1)
- apportionment (10)
- cas (2)
- Collective Exchange (1)
- Collective Sale Agreement (24)
- collective sales committee (10)
- conflict of interest (3)
- csa (16)
- CSC (9)
- En bloc Law (3)
- En-bloc Sale (24)
- enbloc (17)
- EOGM (16)
- harrassment (1)
- Home (3)
- indemnity (1)
- Introduction (1)
- Letters to Owners (11)
- liability (1)
- Management Council (4)
- Owners Meeting (4)
- proxy (2)
- PSC Update (3)
- reliability (1)
- Reserve Price (6)
- Sale Agent (5)
- sales committee (19)
- signing (7)
- STB (2)
- Support Group (3)
- survey (2)
- validity (1)
- voting (3)
16 comments:
Singapore is now in an en-bloc fad....though the prices are seem too good to reject....really worry if I can get back a home like now - same location same floor area at the price offered!
There is no way I will be able to buy back a unit in this area again, with the same floor area, even with the "too good to be true" prices they are going to offer. Absolutely NO WAY! Have you seen the prices of the new developments around our area?!
Thanks to the owner who started this blog. I was surprised when I received the letter. I thought the en-bloc attempt was dropped, little did I know that some selfish people are still going ahead with this!
I have no intention of signing any agreement, especially if the protem sale committee has kept all of us in the dark. I won't trust what they or their agent have said, especially when they claim they're working on our behalf!
We totally agree with you! The protem sale committee has no regards for any of our interest except their own, which is trying to push for a quick sale before the new enbloc legislation kicks in. We dislike the way they have totally ignored our views and opinions at the first owners' meeting on 13 Jan 07. There has been no transparency at all, much less equity and accountability.
Please pass on this blog link to others in our estate. It is time that we, those who truly love our homes, put up a stand.
It would be good if you could leave your contact via email. At least, we can get in touch with you if need be.
This estate is more than 30 years?? Then it time to go enbloc! I am pretty sure such a building will have the perennial interfloor water seepage problem because the waterproofing is totally useless by now and it's a big headache for everyone. Besides this, I am sure there will be other maintenance issues related to plumbing and sewerage pipes. If the money is good, go for it!!!
Many thanks for your comments on the 30 year old building. I think next time you go into some of the older 1970s era CBD business buildings, or the first generation HDB flats, I strongly advice you bring a bag when you use their toilets. Sewage pipes being old and all that, after all.
Oh wait, there's plenty of those 1970s or earlier buildings around still, perfectly well maintained and healthy. DBS Building, OCBC Building, Singapore Power, to name a few. Why, they don't smell of sewage or have leaky roofs. I wonder why's that?
Not every old building needs to be demolished. If that's the case, why not put Raffles Hotel, Istana, City Hall in the list of old leaky stinky buildings?
It seems that you are not comparing apple with apple. DBS, OCBC and heritage buildings like city hall etc. are commercial buildings and these building owners have deep pockets as opposed to an ageing residential estate. If the sinking fund is insufficient to cover all the major maintenance cost, who pays? residents right? How much they have to fork out depends on the extent of the works required. So if you do not make use of this opportunity to enbloc now, then when? I am sure you do not wish to enbloc at a time when the property market is in a depressed state, right? So when sinking funds run out and every resident needs to contribute to the repairs of this ageing estate and if the sum of money to fork out is huge, then some may wish to sell in the open market. And perhaps at that point in time, the market is at trough of the property cycle. So is it wise not to go enbloc now when the market is red hot?
Anonymous wrote: If the sinking fund is insufficient to cover all the major maintenance cost, who pays? residents right? How much they have to fork out depends on the extent of the works required.
Interesting comment. A question: how many estates have actually had surveys done on what are the necessary future major maintenance costs that will be incurred in the next 5-10 years? I can say that I have yet to hear from any, including those so-called 'old' estates. It is by hearsay, or it is commonly assumed, like you must have when you heard this is a 30 year old estate, that maintenance costs will be so exorbitant that it makes more sense to sell. So perhaps to follow through the argument of the aging rationale, then prior to any en-bloc, it should be legislated that a survey must be conducted to evaluate future costs towards maintaining the property, how much owners have to pay into the sinking funds for such repairs/updates/upgrades, and then owners can decide if such costs should be borne by them or they should collectively sell. It makes for greater transparency after all
Anonymous wrote: So if you do not make use of this opportunity to enbloc now, then when? I am sure you do not wish to enbloc at a time when the property market is in a depressed state, right?
Actually, you are conflating the aging rationale (which should be the responsibility of a management committee) and the market rationale (which should be the responsibility of a sale committee). Let's say you have a 30 year old estate (defined by most as old) but it has been kept in tip top condition; its rentals are great and sale prices of units are on the increase. The owners have a substantial sinking fund because the management committee has decided to increment it annually in preparation for major repairs on a 10 year cycle. Should the aging rationale apply, irrespective of the market conditions? Why sell an estate that has been refurbished/rejuvenated?
Sure, some estates are run down (some intentionally so), but there are estates that are very well kept, but because of some eager owners keen to cash in on the enbloc frenzy, decided to trigger the enbloc process in hopes of selling off for a profit. Even though the estate would not qualify as 'old' in any way but age.
So it's erroneous to use the aging rationale with the market rationale because it automatically and stereotypically assumes that old properties will need to be demolished because they're run down and in need of major repairs.
Anonymous wrote: So when sinking funds run out and every resident needs to contribute to the repairs of this ageing estate and if the sum of money to fork out is huge, then some may wish to sell in the open market.
By LAW, it is the responsibility of all proprietors and the management committee to upkeep the estate. INDEPENDENT of any enbloc potential. In other words, the law clearly requires owners to pour in whatever sum of money to upkeep the place. Failing to do so, MCs can be dragged into court. That's why it is required for sinking funds to be sufficient for any major repairs. Some MCs have done a good job of projecting the funds required, some aren't. And some push for estates to deteriorate so they can collectively sell. But the point is that it is legally required that funds are available to make sure the estate is in "good and serviceable repair, (including where necessary, renew or replace" (Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act).
I urge residents of BGV to think long and hard before jumping on the enbloc bandwagon. I know a number of people who have sold their property in an enbloc sale and have regretted their decision because they are unable to get a new place of in same location and same floor area for the price offered. Nobody gains except the developers. Don't let greed blind your common sense.
There were a few news articles on residents who regretted selling, and on residents who regretted their decisions to go enbloc, especially after signing the CSA.
The residents of BVG should really consider carefully. With the CSA, once you have signed on it, there is NO retracting of your signature. You are stuck, giving power to the sales committee and property consultant to do whatever they deem fit. And that is SELDOM in our best interests.
With the enbloc frenzy, property prices just keep going up. Whatever amount gained from the enbloc sales is NOT enough to buy back a similar unit in the same area!
The monetary gain is only short-term. What you are losing in the long term is FAR, FAR MORE than that, especially with a home like BGV. Is it worth it? THINK very carefully about it.
Do you seriously think that the current red hot property market will go on forever? In 1996, our market peaked and thereafter property prices plunged almost 50%. Only from 2004 did the market bottomed. In early 2006, two units at BGV were sold for between $860,000 and $900,000. The latest transacted price for the same size type of unit is $1,765,000. This is a 100% increase. If through the enbloc you can get much more than this, I will go for the enbloc. With the money, I can rent a decent place for 6 years and buy back a similar sized unit at a cheaper price in a much newer development in the same location.
Just have the patience to wait for the market crash and you can pick good units at great discounts.
True, the current red hot property market will not go on forever. BUT aren't you just wasting money renting a place to stay first for the 6 years and then buy back a similar sized unit in the same area?? Don't you know rental prices are also going up, even for the heartland areas in the Central and the East, like Clementi, Marine Parade? And I am not even talking about renting in the same area as BGV.
You said "Just have the patience to wait for the market crash and you can pick good units at great discounts". What make you so sure that people are going to sell thier units, especially if they had bought the units at a higher price??
There are a lot of uncertainties that you can't account for. One thing is for certain: if you don't go for the enbloc, you will definitely still have a unit in this unqiue area of Botanic Gardens!
Well, based on just what you said shows that you are a permabull of the Singapore property market. Just because a buyer bought at a high price does not mean he cannot sell at a lower price. If that is the case then how do you account for the crash in 1998 when those who bought Ardmore Park at close to $6m had to sell off @ $3.5m? A loss of more than $2m? How do you then account for a buyer of BGV in 1996 for a 1775 sq ft unit sold at $1.4m and you can pick a similar one up of the same size in 2001 at $850,000? Such is the state of market cycles and history will repeat itself again and again. It is all economics!
Residents of BGV or those who call it "home" - we sympathise with your plight because our home Teresa Ville at Lower Delta Road is going through the same trauma. We share your problems, worries & concerns. We have linked your website to ours at www.saveteresaville.blogspot.com
Good Luck
Save Teresaville Action Group
After the enbloc - IF you are still able to afford a NEW replacement private apartment (esp in the prime/popular areas but I suppose this comment may apply in other areas too), you should be mindful that in addition to plundering more of your CPF/private savings and hocking yourself to your eyeballs now (no more up to your neck only):
(a) the shoe-box sizes of new apartments because URA has abolished minimum dimensions to qualify as a "room";
(b) the "ovens" you will be moving into under BCA's new "Sustainable Construction" policy with the all-glass facades where you will be live out your life as zoo exhibits for all to gawk at;
(c) you are probably paying for The World's Most Expensive Planter Boxes at $3,000-upwards per sq foot with excessive provision of planter boxes and narrow ledges they call balconies (because it costs the developer one-third to build and yet sell at the same price as built-up usable space);
(d) you are locked into a merciless spiral of much higher maintenance costs - it won't stay at $700-$800 per month forever because the myriad of water features (infinity pools, mini water cascades, water walls, etc) are energy-hungry and glass facades have to be cleaned by MCST's foreign labour which - in 20 years time - will likely cost 6 times more;
(e) your toilets outnumber your bedrooms (ever wonder how much rebates developers get for buying lots of bathroom fixtures/fittings and wine chillers, refrigerators and dryers that you don't need but won't get a refund for either if you say no).
You would need to be mad to sell your homes in what must be one of the most fabulous areas in Singapore. I would DIE to live beside such beautiful gardens. Don't believe the rot the enbloc group come up with; it's becoming a slum, aging estate, water leakage, strike while the iron is hot, retire to a smaller home (read shoe-box in ulu land). It's the same story in every enbloc estate. Get yourselves on the MC. Force them to be transparent. Form a group. Hire a lawyer experienced in representing minority appealers at the STB. They know all the dirty tricks the SC , enbloc lawyer and worst of all, the porperty agent can get up to.
Post a Comment