Welcome, Sale Committee, to the blogosphere! SC Meeting No 6 MINUTES can be found here
"As the Managing Committee is not obliged to help us in any way", and I should hope not! They are there to take care of the maintenance matters in the estate and not to take sides. I don't want them showing favour and using MCST funds (or waiving fees which amounts to the same thing) for a select group of owners. We all pay the same fees and we should all respect the neutrality of the MC/MA.
"Interested SPs can email their request to : (email address) for a copy of the CSA and give their comments/views on the draft CSA if any".
I expect anyone who reads the draft will have a lot of comments/views. It really is a diabolical document but I will say no more until all owners receive their draft copy.
On the other hand, I see the vice-chairman and chairman valiantly trying to get it right by starting a blog and asking owners to help them in their task. I don't mind helping the good guys, but.........
I worry about how the sale committee votes; '(2) A decision of the majority of members of the collective sale committee present and voting at any meeting of the collective sale committee shall be a decision of the collective sale committee (3rd Sch)' Since there is an even 12, what happens in a tie? When they kick out the sole minority owner, the flipper group will be in control.
I do not wish to inadvertently aid a flipper group who are on the path to gaining a voting majority on the SC.
After reading the minutes of the 6th meeting posted on the Notice Board ( and now their Blog), it is clear that the marketing agent and lawyer are going to be intransigent on the CSA. On one point the MA threatened to quit (and it was underlined as if it really matters) if a certain clause was inserted that seemed eminently reasonable and what owners would want to see. The Vice chairman must have put up a vigorous fight on behalf of the real owners and managed to have an option put in for owner consideration.
If the MA and lawyer object so strongly to the provision suggested by the V-Chairman; "that the SC cannot sell by Private treaty at a price not less than the Valuation amount or Reserve price whichever is higher", then that portends to only one thing; TC is being prepared to be sold for less than the RP.
The excuse given mocks our intelligence: "if it so happens that the price is slightly less than valuation amount , say even by few hundred or few dollars . This will defeat the very intent of collective sale process". So, a developer will not raise his offer by even a few dollars to secure the sale? That a developer will be willing to walk away from a multi-million dollar gold mine over a few hundred dollars? That there will be no effort at all made at negotiation? If they can't negotiate a few dollars, then surely we have the wrong guys.
Alternatively, let the owners decide, I want to see reaffirmation from owners before any Sale Contract is signed. Owners must not make the same mistake twice.
The flippers on the committee and in the estate would not like to see owners take up this option and if the MA quits because of it then so be it. Expect him to threaten as much at the meeting, but remember this legal document will be binding on you, the terms have to be agreeable to you and he has no say in it whatsoever. The eventual sale price - and not just the reserve price - has to be agreeable to you.Alternatively, let the owners decide, I want to see reaffirmation from owners before any Sale Contract is signed. Owners must not make the same mistake twice.
This sudden bearish sentiment and lack of confidence in his own reserve price is in stark contrast to the bullish picture he painted on his appointment just a few weeks ago. Just as the premium was no where guaranteed in the last CSA, this time round the RP itself is in jeopardy. When the marketing agent refuses to cement in a reserve price he himself proposed, that surely must send up a flare.
I'm afraid the SC missed out an awful lot of stuff, but that is not surprising since they couldn't have had a lot of time to fully examine the document before the meeting. There is no need for haste, indeed, the slower the better on this item.
UPDATE: 17th September rescheduled to 24th September
Oh no. First we should not allow the agents and the lawyer to dictate what WE want in the CSA.We engage them NOT the other way round.
ReplyDeleteA private treaty following after the tender or auction, the sale price MUST NOT be below the Reserve Price or the Valuation whichever is higher. How can the SC allow the agent to threaten us by quitting if that clause is inserted? Let them quit.
This is really not normal in enbloc sales for most developments. If that is the case, Laguna would have been sold. Laguna's enbloc has this clause to protect them.
Please TCers, do not be fooled.
I agree, we should never allow ourselves be intimidated by agent threatening to quit if CSA does not satisfy them. They are suppose to protect owners' interest and not themselves or that of the developers. Didn't they know about CEA rules?
ReplyDeleteLet us hold a poll and see if the agents have a right to treaten the SP. If that is the case les us hold an emex eogm and vote them out if they are not able to fix a reserve price i.e after all deductions and it must be at least a minimum of 1.8 after all deductions if not FORGET IT>>>
ReplyDelete