R: Meeting Minutes 11/2/2012

Further to my post Fishing for contact details about the SC trying to obtain owners contact details from the management office:  they wrote in their recent minutes:

"The Management Council (MC) does not want to provide their contact particulars to SC . Many such residents are complaining to SC  that they are not receiving updated notices on enbloc process. SC is trying to reach out to as many SPs as possible. However, the MC office has informed to SC member, Mr Srinivasan that there is no bar for SC to go door to door to find out details of tenanted units.

The SC also discussed on the issue of putting up notices and as per SC understanding the notices are required to be put up in the notice boards available  in the Building as per the strata act. The SC decided to seek clarification from MC on this issue."

Perhaps the residents who complain to the SC about not receiving updated notices could, at the time they are complaining, offer the SC their emails/handphone numbers; that would solve the problem!

The default position is NOT that everyone in the estate would be happy for the management office to hand over their contact details to the SC and by necessity, the marketing agent! Some of us actually protect our emails addresses and number from those who would send us spam.....

R: Another Blog reprimanded over a comment

I came across the Blog 'Yawning Bread' which had a legal letter requesting that a comment be removed and their letter posted.

3. The allegations against our client that you have referred to in the Blog Comments have been put up primarily by a person who calls himself “scroobal’ on the internet. The allegations are false and scurrilous.

4. Our client has instructed us to try and trace “scroobal’ in order to sue him. But the internet being what it is. “scroobal’ has been untraceable so far.

5. Likewise, others who have repeated the allegations made by “scroobal’ have so far been untraceable.

6. Our client’s instructions are to commence proceedings against anyone who makes such allegations against our client.

7. We request that you take down the Blog Comments, and publish this letter in full on your website.

Ditto for my blog

The wicked witch is dead

Need a break from all this 
en bloc brouhaha

Enough is enough. My blog has been compromised and as such I feel it cannot continue at this time. The CSA is out there and people will sign or not as they see fit, and we shall  have to wait out the year for the outcome.

Slan agus beannacht

Oops, back from the dead to reply as it concerns me directly:...

RE: "WITHDRAWAL OF OFFENSIVE POSTINGS IN THE BLOG OF “TAMPINES COURT ENBLOC/ANTI-ENBLOC & BEYOND” on the SC Blog:-


There are a  few more emails missing from the correspondence between the SC Chairman and myself with regard the Anonymous comment deletion. Thought I might as well add them for completion.

	Feb 2 (12 days ago)

Mr.  (Chairman),

By the way, would you like to have your letter above posted in full on the blog? I will oblige, if so.

Regards

(itshometome)

	Feb 2

Dear (itshometome)

Yes the SC would like you to post the letter in full. Thank you.
Regards
(Chairman)

	Feb 5

Dear (itshometome)

I have requested the letter to be posted in full but as of now I have not seen it. Could you please do so as you have said. Thank you.

Regards
(Chairman)

Feb 5

Mr. (Chairman)

I posted it immediately after the last email (Feb 2nd) . I always do what I say.

I have changed the heading to make it clearer for you to spot.

http://www.tampinescourt.net/2012/02/slipped-through-net.html

(Itshometome)

	Feb 6

Ms (itshometome)

Thank you.
(Chairman)

Let's get this straight

The issue of 1-4-1 exchange was decided by the SPs at EGM 4 and as far as I am concerned, that is where the matter rests. Talking about it now is a moot point and I have nowhere and at no time brought the subject up again on this blog since EGM 4.  

I have nothing whatsoever to do with the present ding-donging drama being played out between the sale committee and an SP in the estate on this matter. The first time I heard about the commotion was through the notice board, and the first time I heard about the recent  flyer was from another SP. It may seem incredulous that I should claim such innocence but those are the facts, these regrettable incidents happened without my knowledge. I have tried to stop the nonsense since but am stuck between a rock and a hard place; I cannot condone the SP in his actions but neither can I lambast either side in this matter. I am therefore remaining neutral and mum on the matter and hope all parties concerned can iron out their differences without resorting to drastic measures. 

It is also unfair to land upon 1 comment made by 1 Anonymous poster amongst thousands of other comments. A comment I don't even pretend was posted accidentally but rather because it seemed harmless to me at the time.  I did not see it's 'insidiousness' perhaps because of it's cryptic S'inglish style and would not have let it pass if I had.  I removed it IMMEDIATELY on the Chairman of the SC's request as he found it offensive, so it wasn't even up that very long. By posting all comments from all sides,  I endorse none.

I came across the Blog 'Yawning Bread' which had a legal letter requesting that a comment be removed and their letter posted.

3. The allegations against our client that you have referred to in the Blog Comments have been put up primarily by a person who calls himself “scroobal’ on the internet. The allegations are false and scurrilous.

4. Our client has instructed us to try and trace “scroobal’ in order to sue him. But the internet being what it is. “scroobal’ has been untraceable so far.

5. Likewise, others who have repeated the allegations made by “scroobal’ have so far been untraceable.

6. Our client’s instructions are to commence proceedings against anyone who makes such allegations against our client.

7. We request that you take down the Blog Comments, and publish this letter in full on your website.

Yes, I am a fierce critic and stickler for detail - and not without merit judging by the number of amendments/u-turns/withdrawals made over the past year.  Someone has to play devil's advocate otherwise owners will be fodder for the en bloc canon.

Fishing for contact details

At the EGMS, the sale committee asked owners present at the meeting to leave their names, units and contact details such as email addresses and hand-phone numbers if they wanted to be contacted by the marketing team/SC and receive material about the collective sale etc. All well and good, there were those that did just that and so were happy to receive whatever emails/text messages going around. (They have my contact information but, alas , never send me any information, perhaps I am on a blacklist of sorts?). I presume those eager at the beginning were the same ones who signed up early, and once signed, the marketing team/SC would have  no further need to contact them. Those fish have been hooked and  landed.

Other owners did not leave their contact details - for whatever reason, but presumably because they did not want to be contacted through their hand-phones or receive unsolicited marketing material.  There is no compulsion to give over your personal details even when the sale committee is legitimately elected. They simply do not have that kind of power. So, what is the marketing agent/sale committee to do when they run out of honestly gathered contact details? 

They could:

1. earn their marketing fee the hard way and go door to door
2. look up land line numbers in the phone book one by one
3. get their skids on and set up a better website/blog and post material accessible to owners 24/7
4. send their flyers through SingPost bulk mail

1, 2 &3 cost time and energy and 4 spondulicks. There is a fifth way and that is to get their hands on a ready-made list of owner contact details and bypass owner permission altogether.

And who would have such a ready-made list?    Answer: the management office.

I read the minutes of the last Management Council meeting on the Notice Board today and apparently there was an attempt to get such a list from the office. Now, the office cannot hand over a list of owners details to third parties, nevermind the sale committee. The LTSA rules only specify that the sale committee can request for and receive the Strata Roll on paying a fee (in fact the BMSM allows any owner such liberty) and the strata roll does not reveal contact numbers, only names and addresses.

Thankfully, the management office did not hand over the telephone numbers/email addresses. The Management Council members also made an emphatic stand on the matter as they understood perfectly well how such a thing would compromise their neutrality in the collective sale and that divulging private information would be a gross abuse of position on their part .......  and in my opinion, might even be a reportable offense to the BCA (btw; I am not on the MC in case you think otherwise).

Signing

Signing Fees

THE FOLLOWING TABLE IS UNOFFICIAL - it is just a compilation of my understanding of the fees payable on successful completion/unsuccessful attempt of this collective sale.

In the Schedule 3 Scope of Solicitors fees, note how item  2(a) is payable on successful completion of sale, whilst for items 2(c),(d),(e),(f) there is no time stated. I have married this with clause 11.18 in the CSA and conclude that these items have to be paid for by the 80% under 'further sums' as and when requested and therefore must be paid for in cash. These sums seemingly go into the ESF (en bloc sale fund) administered by the SC. If the sale is successful, then these costs will be accounted for under solicitors costs. I imagine 'further sums' in the ESF will include other Valuations among other things. A lot can be covered under the open-ended wording of the Resolution 2.3 passed at the EGM4 (" and other incidentals").

I WILL AMEND IF SOMEONE POINTS OUT ANY ERROR! PLEASE CHECK WITH THE SC IF YOU WANT CONFIRMATION.

It is right that those keen on the collective sale should pay upfront for the signing fee/disbursements/valuation/ method of apportionment report. Signing the CSA is not to be taken lightly and those who would sign on a whim or a 'let's see' basis will think twice.  It is not a frivolous undertaking, the end goal is not just about 'making money' as signing the CSA means you are agreeing to legally force  up to 112 families out of their homes.

22 Mar 2012

SC held an Emergency meeting to resolve to open a Bank account with Bank of India for the purpose of depositing the ESF funds.

That the Account be operated upon by any 2 of the following SC members:

And verified and confirmed by any 2 of the following SC members:

28 June 2012

SC held a meeting and decided to slash the ESF fee to $40/ only per unit. The balance of $180 to be collected after the 80% is reached (and presumably before the application for sale to the STB).

The ESF was seen as a barrier to signature collection.

The $220/unit payable to the Solicitor on signing the CSA remains.

27 July 2012

Looks like they are sticking with the $220 ESF afterall. Notice on board today said that owners were to bring the usual 2 cheques to the next signing session on 30th July 2012

03 September 2012

The latest notice on the board states that there will be 3 signing sessions in  September - and that owners were to bring along 2 cheques: $250 payable to the solicitor and $40 for the ESF

RLV ATTEMPT

This post was first put up sometime in 2012 - and changed a few times ... not sure when it was last modeified

The Reserve Price is a calculation, arrived at by computing the Residual Land Value of the site after deducting all the various components.

First let me go to 2 examples of RLV's - they are not the originals from Round 1, but a spreadsheet based on reverse calculations from data given.  One RLV was more detailed than the other. Both over-estimated the DP/DC by between $22 - 32 million. The actual DP/DC payable was $107m (unless of course, that did not include the lease top-up, but just the DP component ...... which gives me pause for thought.....). Another point to ponder is the fact that TC is actually not 99yr leasehold , but rather 101 yrs 6 mths from 1 Dec 1985. Every detail translates into $millions here and there. The new lease will be to 99yrs.

Anyway, have a gander

SINCE THE RESERVE PRICE IS NOW over 1 YEAR OLD - THE SALE COMMITTEE REALLY OUGHT TO GET A VALUATION DONE TO DETERMINE A NEW RP. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO PROPOSE A RP IN 2011 AND SIT ON IT UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE.

The below table  is already OUT OF DATE

I have plugged in the selling price of a new unit at $1200psf

If I plugged in $1150psf:-

I have given a high ballpark figure of $300m for the DP and Lease Top-up, much higher than even the present MA's estimate. 

I have used the higher end values for construction costs ; a generous $323 psf

The land financing is a total guess, but $25m higher than the current MA's to be on the safe side.

'Efficiency' is very important and at the STB round 1, the 2 formal valuations showed 100 and 110% efficiency, and the 'experts' on the panel didn't bat en eyelid. . This is quite the norm in mass market developments as my tracking  here seems to indicate.  The formal valuations added in the bonus GFA when computing the RLV. The present MA's calculation is only 95% GFA (incl balcony bonus) out of a possible 110%;    10 -15% less than in round 1.

I have not done a comparative sales method as this method is almost totally subjective and therefore quite useless. Developers use the RLV method, so we should, too.

The word you hear most often is that the RP has to be REASONABLE.  Now, reasonable means different things to different people.

The MA's 'Reasonable'

Reasonable here means the developer gets far in excess of the 10% profit,  and the MA a guaranteed sale for their commission.

The Owners 'Reasonable'

Many owners still look at their units and can't quite believe they are worth $1.7 to $1.9 million. They are right, their individual units are not worth $1.7 to $1.9 million, the developed LAND is. Their notion of what is reasonable is dictated  by their state of indebtedness, their needs and their bank account balance . Emotion and non-objectivity play havoc with 'reasonable'.

What owners must realise is that 'Reasonable' has to be a calculation. First you must establish the TRUE value of the site through a proper, independent valuer and then collectively decide on the 'reasonableness' of any discount (the carrot).

After that, the SC has to keep an eye on the mass market/DC changes every 6 months  and adjust the RP (upwards only) when required. This is their job, basically, if they do nothing bit sit on the agreed RP and issue platitudes instead of action, then they are completely useless as a SC.

Anonymous said:

There were two URA land sales in year 2010 in Tampines/Simei area which provide good benchmark for the land value of TC. 

The data will prevent SC from underselling TC.  

1. WaterView Site: 8 bids, Result - $421 psf/ppr. $421 psf/ppr will translated TC's land value to $827,702,419 = $1.47m per unit(702,157sf * 2.8 * $421 psf/ppr)  

2. Simei plot (My Manhatten) - 18 bids, Result - $523 psf/ppr. $523 psf/ppr will translated TC's land value to $1,028,238,710 = $1.83m per unit (702,157sf * 2.8 * $523 psf/ppr)  

Hence, $1.47m to $1.83m (may include DC/DP) is a fair estimation of TC land value in year 2010. URA's Release of 4th quarter 2010 real estate statistics on 28 Jan 2011 revealed that prices of private residential properties increased by 2.7% in the 4th Quarter 2010 and 17.6% for the whole of 2010.  

With the latest round of Government measures in Jan 2011, the prices increases may be slower in year 2011 and 2012 but the increases should be projected into land value.  

With the above data, $1.7m is a fair minimum RP for TC tender in year 2011.  

Please note that there were 8 bids and 18 bids received for Tampines and Simei sites respectively in year 2010 URA tender. 

Please recalled the PA (Round 1) said in the STB Hearing about TC tender result with only 1 bid received in year 2008: -  

"we launched a tender, okay, we launched a tender to gather feedback ..." - 

"The market speak for itself..."  

(Note: In the same year 2008, WaterView site also received 1 bid in URA tender.)  

The same PA started to advertise all positive points about TC when they were selling individual unit after Round 1.  

This is a good reference for us to access the commitment and marketing skills of PA selected for Round 2.  

When PA starts to talk bad about TC, we should know they are trying to sell low and get their commission. 

 Regards

Popping up like mushrooms

The following posts are old posts. I will update REPLACEMENT COST when I have done some research on the matter.

________________________________________________________________

               _______________________________________________

New condominiums and executive condminiums are popping up like mushrooms in  outer Tampines / Pasir Ris / Bedok Reservoir area.

Tampines Court and it's prime location in TC: walking distance to 3 shopping centres, 4xFairprice, Cold Storage,  food centres, wet market, PIE, Safra, CC, MRT, even a butterfly park, you name it, we got it. Everything you need at your doorstep. 

.

As units get smaller, the psf gets higher. What will the price be like in 2 years time for new units in this area? We can't even afford a full sized unit at today's price. And yes, I expect nothing less than a new unit for all this collective sale trouble, and no, Pasir Ris is not equivalent to Tampines and is just too far flung for comfort so why would you swop what you have for there? Next stop Batam.  The Flora Drive area is a nighmare for traffic plus the fact that it has no shops nearby. It's also in a hole.
The secondary market will not be lower than today's launch price - so even at this point in the game, we know we are being outpriced in the still rising market.

If the market keeps rising - then the RP should rise in tandem.

DEVELOPERS' WINDFALL

2018
THIS IS A VERY OLD POST THAT NEEDS UPDATING. I will update the charts below but it will take time, as the computer that stored the charts crashed a long time ago and all data lost (before the days of cloud storage).


One way to prove that it is the developers and NOT original owners who are the ones to reap the benefits of a collective sale is to follow the money. Many new developments are coming on line on former en blocked estates so it is only now we are able to take a closer look and put FACTS on the table.

I am looking at the ex-HUDC estates and the new estates rising in their ashes. Also land sales in the area and their emerging condominiums.

Waterfront View and Tampines Court are almost the same size - so what happens over there is a good indication of what will happen to TC should it have a collective sale. Our plot ratio is 10% higher at 2.8 and those who think that is a small matter, well it is not, it translates into many millions more for the developer.

If you have a gold bar to sell, you don't sell it for the price of silver.

TO DATE 
CAVEATS LODGED
( 4 FEB, 2012).


THESE TABLES ARE MY OWN - THEY ARE NOT OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY.    
AS I TYPE IN THE DATA MANUALLY, THERE MAY BE ERRORS. 
MY SOURCES ARE HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE, PULLED TOGETHER.

 Waterfront View /  Waterfront Collection

Waterfront Collection has passed the $1.5 Billion mark 

 Gillman Heights / The Interlace

 Amberville / Silversea

 Minton Rise / The Minton

 Farrer Court / D'Leedon

 Tampines Court (Round 1)

 GLS / Waterview

GLS / My Manhattan

GLS / Oasis@Elias                                                                                                                  

GLS / Hedges Park Condominium

GLS / Archipelago

GLS / Seastrand

An unreserved apology

The offending comment has been removed and I apologise again for letting it pass inspection, I should have erred on the side of caution.
.
I do not endose comments - it would be impossible as then I would be taking everyone's side - because comments come from all quarters.
.
There was only one comment to post. A later comment was not very flattering for the SC and so, not wishing to offend them further, I did not post it.

I am unable to furnish details of comments posted anonymously as they arrive in my inbox without identification. It is not possible to trace an IP address through Blogger. Sorry.

.
All comments look like:

My reasons for not signing the CSA

There is insufficient legal protection for owners, the 33 covenants are too burdensome, the RP is not guaranteed, the inclusion of a provision to lower the RP is worrisome as the mechanism and timing for lowering RP is vague and open-ended. Owners can sign for unspecified supplemental agreements.   I worry that I might not get what is declared in the Method of Apportionment and that my actual nett sales proceeds will be lessened significantly.  More than 1 valuation at close of tender is tantamount to price fixing. There is no re-affirmation from owners. There is no 1-4-1 exchange as a safeguard against a low sale price. There is no fixed completion date once the S&P is signed.