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