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:
1 comment:
Well, the new laws have finally kicked in today :-)
Best of luck.
I'm not from BGV but my estate was also in the midst of a rushed en-bloc attempt before the new law kicks in. Now the SC is back to square one. :-)
Post a Comment