Feb 26, 2010

Horizon Towers never ending story

Horizon Towers are given the go-ahead to go to High Court over costs.
Business Times article here
Straits Times article here

"The latest legal tussle involving Horizon Towers looks set to go into full swing, with the High Court having dismissed the action by the two defendants to strike out the lawsuits filed against them.

This means the court will hear the claims brought by three sets of minority owners against the two former sales committee members – unless the defendants succeed in appealing against yesterday’s decision.

BT understands that the first defendant – former sales committee chairman, Arjun Samtani – will appeal the High Court decision, while the second defendant, Tan Kah Gee, is still deliberating if he should appeal.

The High Court yesterday also ordered both Mr Samtani and Mr Tan to jointly bear the costs of the striking-out application and the court hearing – amounting to a total of $6,000.

The minority owners are suing the two former sales committee members to reclaim close to $1 million in legal and administrative costs which they say they incurred during the lengthy fight to keep their homes."

Feb 22, 2010

Lushhomemedia

My most favoured link site - Lushhomemedia- is discontinuing publishing articles from Straits Times & Business Times with effect from April 2010. This website has been brilliant up to now and I will sorely miss it when it downsizes (or disappears altogether).  I am hoping past articles will remain on the site.It was a perfect one-stop portal for all things happening in Singapore regarding en bloc, legal matters, Government policy changes, market news etc.

I have time, though, to save past important articles and will figure out a way to keep them on-line and linked to my site. As for future articles of interest, I shall use Condosingapore or Property websites as links.

Feb 9, 2010

Neptune Court



So the 2 -in-1 idea of combining privatisation and en bloc together did not gel. Privatisation must be achieved before moving on to step 2.

There is no time frame for this - owners can expect to be hounded for as long as it takes. I have no idea what the sentiment on the ground is like, but with only half of the owners attending the AGM it seems likely people are not too interested in estate matters at the moment. Or maybe, they have already made up their minds one way or the other.

Of course, SIGNING for privatisation and PAYING for it are entirely different matters. An owner is not obliged to pay up immediately; case in point - Tampines Court has owners who, to this day, have not yet paid their privatisation costs to the HDB. They incur a 6% interest rate on the outstanding amount. So, in Neptune Court, it is possible some diligent owners will pay up whilst others may hang back and sign separate deals with a future sales committee/PA/Buyer to cover this outstanding 'expense'. From my past analysis, I believe Tampines Court had owners in Enbloc Round 1 masking their outstanding privatisation arrears as MC debt for others to pay! Sheesh - the trickery of it all.

So, who knows what's happening behind the scenes at Neptune Court. The instigators are always one step ahead of the posse.

One take-away from this episode is how quickly a Government Ministry/Statutory Board can change tack when it is in the way of a greater national agenda (ie the agenda being the destruction of old 'sprawling' estates peopled by average Singaporeans to make way for higher density developments for others). If the Ministry of Finance can lop off $104 million (70%) from their original demand literally overnight - then what's stopping the URA from following suit to lower the cost of the differential premium (the top up to 99 yrs for leasehold) in years to come. A precedent has been set.

After all, if there should come a time when there's an impasse between the Owners, the Buyer and URA - and the stumbling block is a whopping differential premium - then it may well be a case of who blinks first.
.
From Waterfront View/Neptune Court we now have:
.
1) A CPF Board willing to facilitate en bloc by letting the LTSA en bloc statute undermine it's mission in safeguarding CPF retirement savings by waiving the need to replenish fully a CPF member's account in an en bloc sale. CPF loss is not considered financial loss - so if you have used CPF money to pay for your mortgage then beware.

2) the MOF willing to facilitate en bloc by discounting 70% off it's privatisation cost.

If the URA are really sincere about wanting urban renewal at all costs - then let them make the next sacrifice; 70% off the DP is a good start, don't you think?

Feb 8, 2010

Neptune Court & their Enbloc Lawyer

Neptune Court’s residents approve appointment of lawyer

Residents of Neptune Court voted on Sunday to appoint law firm Tan & Au to undertake the privatisation of the sprawling estate.
Sunday’s meeting to amend the constitution, appoint a law firm and approve the privatisation committee lasted three hours amid heated outbursts from some residents.
One complaint was the alleged lack of transparency in how the Neptune Court Owners’ Association (NCOA) had gone about its plans.
“They claim there was an open tender in selecting a law firm, but none of us knew about it and it was done without our consent,” said a long-term resident who did not want to be named.
But addressing the meeting, NCOA’s president Tommy Wong, said: “We selected (Tan & Au) for their talent, experience and capability for detail such that owners will not suffer any financial loss … and their terms of no success, no payment.”
While the previous committee had consulted the law firm some two years ago, this is the first time the NCOA has moved to appoint it.
Some 250 residents, representing fewer than half of the 752 units, turned up for the meeting. In all, 205 residents voted to appoint Tan & Au while 20 objected.
The privatisation committee was endorsed with a majority vote of 146.
There is still some way to go before privatisation becomes reality, with the agreement of 75 per cent of all the owners needed. For now, the Neptune Court Privatisation Committee (NCPC) together with its lawyers plan to meet the Ministry of Finance – which owns the land – and Singapore Land Authority to negotiate a better privatisation fee, said NCPC’s chairman David Ho.
In 2007, the residents were quoted a fee of S$144 million to privatise the 99-year leasehold estate, but in June last year were given a new figure of just S$40 million, which worked out to roughly S$50,000 per unit.
Just down the road, the 480-unit Lagoon View estate last year was quoted an estimated S$12 million, or S$28,000 a unit.
Retired civil servant Yahya Aljaru, 69, and retired manager, Mr Fadzakir Fadzlil, 67, both of whom have resided at Neptune Court since 1975, are looking forward to privatisation and a likely en bloc sale effort thereafter.
“I will take it if they make me an offer I can’t refuse,” said Mr Fadzakir.
“I have simple needs. I don’t need a swimming pool, a snooker room. I will use the proceeds to go travelling and leave some for the kids.”
Channel NewsAsia – 8 Feb 2010

Feb 6, 2010

Size DOES matter

Condos hit a sweet spot even without a tennis court
Business Times - 6 Feb 2010

New homes going for as much as $2,600 per square foot can offer designer furnishings and place you in a coveted district, but they may no longer come with large common spaces or even tennis courts traditionally associated with a private address.

Nowadays, ‘you don’t really get developments with sprawling grounds, where there’s openness’, observes DTZ executive director Ong Choon Fah. ‘Those are actually more difficult to come by.’

As it becomes harder to find prime projects offering large ground spaces and complete facilities, existing developments with these features are likely to stand out. ‘One of the reasons why Ardmore Park is so popular is because it has a beautiful landscaped garden, and the grounds are sprawling. You don’t get many of these, these days,’ says DTZ’s Mrs Ong
.
So luxury homes now have next-to-no facilities... and probably a clear view of their neighbour's bedroom, too. I have seen windows mere spitting distance apart. No privacy, no wind, no light. Some luxury condominiums in the city don't even have a parking space for each unit.
.

Tampines Court may not have the facilities - but that does not mean it can't aspire to have them. We have plenty of space - enough for a swimming pool and 3 tennis courts, we even have a section labelled 'wilderness' by the MC where there's nothing but trees. But I don't think a swimming pool is possible with the make up of our residents. They have rejected it twice before at AGMs so it is probably a non-starter. Nevermind, Tampines Courters should understand they have the luxury of space - and learn to appreciate it. In fact, not having a swimming pool keeps our costs down and the monthly maintenance fee very reasonable - on par with HDB actually. We can carve a niche out for ourselves in simpler ways - landscaping and a gym perhaps. Very soon, when all the big estates have gone the way of the dodo - Tampines Court will come into it's own. Families with children, maids and mother-in-laws in tow can't squeeze into these modern glass shoe boxes and anyone who visits our sleepy estate will think they've hit the jackpot. Permanent Residents, soon to be partially-locked out of the HDB resale market if you believe the newspaper reports, will have no choice but to turn to estates such as ours - lower-end private estates in convenient locations. Even without facilities, we can command ever increasingly higher prices - and don't believe the nay-sayers when they say our value will drop.

Hopefully, after the repainting, retiling and new letterboxes etc, owners will want to plonk down another $100k on landscaping to make TC the Ardmore Park of the east! I am going to push for this at the next AGM. Plants, we want lots of beautiful tropical plants, please!

But remember; developers, flippers, desperado's and the government are all out to rob you of your paid-up 'luxury' estate..... (in case you have forgotten:- we are only 560 units in a site area of 702,162 sqft). I don't know when they will come round again, but they will.
.
I said something along the same lines in a post 2 yrs ago here .
.
Sunday Times - 7 Feb 2010

An industry observer pointed out that most developers are running out of land for mass market projects, so they are very keen to buy.

Now that resale prices are moving up, more people are worried that they cannot get a similar replacement property, explained a consultant who declined to be named.

Still, the problem is the gap between buyers and sellers’ expectations.
So, owners now understand it is about replacement and not mythical money in the bank (or all locked up in CPF). Nothing less than 1-for 1 exchange should be demanded.