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