In the post today - a survey form asking owners whether or not they are interested in buying back a replacement unit from the developer at a 'discounted' price. This is not the first time this offer has been floated, a similar letter was sent out last year. Since no price or general ballpark figure was given, I cannot say if this will be generous offer or not- but since they will be selling the new units at at least double the price they are paying us, I would therefore expect nothing less than a 50% discount! I would also demand certain conditions such as comparable unit size, orientation, level, fixtures and fittings, rental for 3 years whilst waiting, guaranteed delivery time etc; everything down in B & W, leaving no wiggle room for them to cut corners - . In other words, 1-4-1, a fair replacement for our homes and in return they get to make huge profits from all the other units they sell in this soon-to-be overcrowded estate(s). I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?.
Let's see how our sister estate, Waterfront View fared in this matter
(Source : New Paper - 3 Feb 2008)
.
TWICE THE PRICE, HALF THE SIZE
.
.
According to a spokesman for Frasers Centrepoint Homes, one of the developers for Waterfront Waves, there are at least five former owners who have bought a total of six units there.
The spokesman said: ‘Former residents return as they feel a sense of belonging in the neighbourhood after living there for years.’
She said owners from the old estate, Waterfront View, were given a day for an exclusive preview and to select units ahead of invited guests. But she added that there would be no discounts for former owners.
She said owners from the old estate, Waterfront View, were given a day for an exclusive preview and to select units ahead of invited guests. But she added that there would be no discounts for former owners.
These residents will have to pay around twice the sum they got from their en-bloc sale, if they choose to buy a similar-size apartment.
Another resident, a 54-year-old retiree who declined to be named, also found himself paying more, just to live in the same estate.
He made a down payment for a 1,600 sq ft, four-bedroom unit, which costs $1.27 million, more than twice the $630,000 he received for his old unit. But unlike other former residents, he is not complaining.
He said: ‘I am glad that they released the East Wing first, which is where my former block, 736, used to be.
‘What’s even better, this time, my view of the reservoir is not blocked. I’m looking forward to watching all the water activities.
‘Where else can you get a unit so near the water, except at Sentosa or Marina Bay, where it is so expensive?’
He made a down payment for a 1,600 sq ft, four-bedroom unit, which costs $1.27 million, more than twice the $630,000 he received for his old unit. But unlike other former residents, he is not complaining.
He said: ‘I am glad that they released the East Wing first, which is where my former block, 736, used to be.
‘What’s even better, this time, my view of the reservoir is not blocked. I’m looking forward to watching all the water activities.
‘Where else can you get a unit so near the water, except at Sentosa or Marina Bay, where it is so expensive?’
.
Well for starters, 5 owners out of a pool of 583 is a very poor return rate. Afterall, this is is a mass market, leasehold property plonk in the middle of the heartlands and if those very people who were enblocked cannot return to their former estate due to the extravagant price of new comparable unts then the developer has lost 578 potential buyers. Note, the article said no discount was given to former owners - perhaps the same developer doesn't want such a dismal outcome from TC.
.
There is a moral obligation on the part of the SC, enbloc lawyer, and PA to do the best they can for all owners. If there are owners out there who want to return, then they should make that possible by using whatever leverage they have left.
.
The man in the article paid TWICE the sum to live in the SAME BLOCK he used to live in. And if that man was an original owner who paid less than $200k for his unit in the 1980's - and is now happy to pay $1.27million....... well, the mind boggles! They say there's one born every minute.
.
BTW: I shall not be filling out this form. I don't intend to move.
.
if TC was sold at a high price and the market collapsed, I wonder if the developer would complain and ask the sellers for compensation.
ReplyDeleteThe argument is not compensation but TC was sold at the lowest price by the SC when the market was going up in Mar 2006.
ReplyDeleteThe reserve price should be adjusted upward but the SC did nothing and just sold TC at the lowest price.
TC residents are trying to rectify the situation in STB and not asking for compensation.
The question about developer asking for compensation is really weird. Since when does anyone care for the developer's earning?
ReplyDeleteUnless the person asking is sympathetic to developers...but why? They are rich from all they earn in the many developments!!!
When a person sells his apartment to a buyer, would he ask if the buyer would make a loss?
The TC en-bloc reserve price was too low to begin with and at point of sale, the price was too low with respect to market movements! Did the buyer come back to sellers, do you want more for the en-bloc?
Hello, wake-up! It's still not to late to strike back at the en-bloc raiders. Look at what Regent Gardens and the rest of the HUDC are doing, fighting back!!!
This thing about the buying back a unit from developer is another blank cheque you are about to agree to if you say yes to the survey.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the floorplan? Will you like the design? Will residents be given first choice to select or get only leftovers? Do you know the floor area? Do you know what facilities will be included?
Do you know the final price? Do you know the maintenance fees per month?
This is another silly ploy of empty promises to show the SC cares... but really?
Hope it is once bitten twice shy for you.
A survey done correctly should have all relevant information in there for you to make an informed judgment to even consider.
In this case, there is none. Don't waste your time to even respond to the survey.
.. all this is with the benefit of hindsight. Over 80% signed on the dotted line. The SC are also owners and stand to lose when the price ran up. This is simply wrong timing. It's time to take responsibility for ones action.
ReplyDeleteWho will take up this buy-back offer? Do you really expect the discount to be as great as the difference between the sale proceeds you received and the cost of a new unit of equal size etc? Dream on. Honestly, you'd have to be some kind of prize idiot to give the developer double what he gave you just to live in the same place!
ReplyDeleteBuy-back? It's all humbug.
"Over 80% signed on the dotted line..."
ReplyDeleteThis is passing the buck. TC residents entrusted the sale of their homes to the SC and agent who did not do their due diligence in getting the right market sale price, instead sold it at 2005 price.
You are right, it's time for the SC and agent to take responsibility for the loss.
"TC resident entrusted the sale of their hoes to the SC"... too simplistic here. Does TC residents here know how to take care of their own assets. This is their home and they entrusted it to people they do not really know?? Do they not read the CSA before signing?? LOL,c'mon, who are you trying to kid here. The SC also own homes in TC and also suffer when the property proces started moving upwards. Again, this is just bad timing and now the residents have to take responsibility for thir mistake of signing on the dotted line, period.
ReplyDelete