175 Owners to receive about $1.9 million each
Contrary to the Sale Committee claim - that 'the RP was set about 2% lower than the GLS in the region'; there are, in fact, no histirocal residential GLS sites in Potong Pasir. The SC has no way of knowing how the RP of Raintree Gardens was set. We would need to see their RLV.
The SC reveal on their FB page that the GLS site they are referring to is now called The Poiz (on Meyappa Chettiar Rd sold Aug 2014). I am floored by this.
That GLS was slated as 'commercial and residential' with a GPR of 3.5 and now has 731 units and 88 shops & restaurants. This is not apple to apple. They have shot themselves in the foot again by not doing background checks on the information doled out to them by the MA. The Poiz is right next to the MRT station and no doubt will be linked underground the way Bedok Residences is just a lift down to the Bedok MRT station. Raintree Gardens therefore aimed very high if they compared themselves to this prime site! Excellent job by that smart and gutsy SC.
What does this mean for us? Instead of looking at the poor Tampines Ave 10 GLS - perhaps they should be measuring our RP against mixed commercial & residential properties beside an MRT station, too. That should up the RP considerably! If it's good enough for Potong Pasir then it's good enough for us.
The SC reveal on their FB page that the GLS site they are referring to is now called The Poiz (on Meyappa Chettiar Rd sold Aug 2014). I am floored by this.
That GLS was slated as 'commercial and residential' with a GPR of 3.5 and now has 731 units and 88 shops & restaurants. This is not apple to apple. They have shot themselves in the foot again by not doing background checks on the information doled out to them by the MA. The Poiz is right next to the MRT station and no doubt will be linked underground the way Bedok Residences is just a lift down to the Bedok MRT station. Raintree Gardens therefore aimed very high if they compared themselves to this prime site! Excellent job by that smart and gutsy SC.What does this mean for us? Instead of looking at the poor Tampines Ave 10 GLS - perhaps they should be measuring our RP against mixed commercial & residential properties beside an MRT station, too. That should up the RP considerably! If it's good enough for Potong Pasir then it's good enough for us.
At the end of the day.. all this talk using the comparative method means nothing because all we need to see is the RLV. Developers do not use the comparative method, so neither should we.
The RP is set only by doing a residual land valuation - NOT by linking it to old GLS sales, which serve as a loose indication only. Every site has it's unique set of pros and cons.
WHERE IS THE RLV?
GIVE IT TO US.
THIS IS OUR ESTATE AND WE DEMAND TO SEE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE SETTING OF THE RESERVE PRICE.
Without this in hand, the SC Committee et al. can collectively go to hell.
Below URA GLS Sites. Figures in RED are my own. GPR is calculated using reverse math where not given
Date of Award
|
Location
|
Type of Development Allowed
|
Lease (years)
|
Site Area
(m2)
|
Site Area (sqft)
|
Calcul’d GPR
|
GFA
(m2)
|
No. of Bids
|
Successful Tender Price
|
$psm per GFA or $psm per GPR
|
$psf ppr
|
Planning Area
|
30-Sep-16
|
Fernvale Road | Residential |
99
|
17,195.9
|
185,095.1
|
3.0
|
51,588
|
14
|
$ 287,100,000.00 | $ 5,565.25 | $ 517 | Sengkang |
1-Jul-16
|
Martin Place | Residential |
99
|
15,936.1
|
171,534.8
|
2.8
|
44,622
|
13
|
$ 595,100,000.00 | $ 13,336.47 | $ 1,239 | River Valley |
30-May-16
|
Bukit Batok West Avenue 6 | Commercial and Residential |
99
|
14,696.7
|
158,194.0
|
3.0
|
44,091
|
11
|
$ 301,160,000.00 | $ 6,830.42 | $ 635 | Bukit Batok |
13-Apr-16
|
Jalan Kandis | Residential |
99
|
7,045.6
|
75,838.2
|
1.4
|
9,864
|
9
|
$ 51,070,228.00 | $ 5,177.44 | $ 481 | Sembawang |
26-Feb-16
|
New Upper Changi Road / Bedok South Avenue 3 | Residential |
99
|
24,394.0
|
262,574.8
|
2.0
|
51,228
|
8
|
$ 419,380,000.00 | $ 8,186.54 | $ 799 | Bedok |
18-Jan-16
|
Siglap Road | Residential |
99
|
19,309.6
|
207,846.8
|
3.5
|
67,584
|
8
|
$ 624,180,000.00 | $ 9,235.62 | $ 858 | Bedok |
11-Dec-15
|
Clementi Avenue 1 | Residential |
99
|
13,037.8
|
140,337.7
|
3.5
|
45,633
|
6
|
$ 302,100,000.00 | $ 6,620.21 | $ 615 | Clementi |
17-Nov-15
|
Alexandra View | Residential with Commercial at 1st Storey |
99
|
8,398.5
|
90,400.7
|
4.9
|
41,153
|
10
|
$ 376,880,000.00 | $ 9,158.02 | $ 851 | Bukit Merah |
11-Nov-15
|
Lorong Lew Lian | Residential |
99
|
14,001.5
|
150,710.9
|
3.0
|
42,005
|
11
|
$ 321,000,000.00 | $ 7,641.95 | $ 710 | Serangoon |
13-Aug-15
|
West Coast Vale | Residential |
99
|
18,908.7
|
203,531.6
|
2.8
|
52,945
|
6
|
$ 314,100,000.00 | $ 5,932.57 | $ 551 | Clementi |
4-May-15
|
Tampines Avenue 10 | Residential |
99
|
15,660.4
|
168,567.1
|
2.8
|
43,850
|
12
|
$ 227,780,000.00 | $ 5,194.53 | $ 483 | Tampines |
1-Apr-15
|
Paya Lebar Road / Sims Avenue | Commercial |
99
|
39,230.7
|
422,275.7
|
4.2
|
164,769
|
6
|
$ 1,671,688,888.00 | $ 10,145.65 | $ 943 | Geylang |
31-Mar-15
|
Sturdee Road | Residential |
99
|
6,111.5
|
65,783.6
|
3.5
|
21,391
|
16
|
$ 181,189,000.00 | $ 8,470.34 | $ 787 | Kallang |
12-Mar-15
|
Jurong West Street 41 | Residential |
99
|
17,803.5
|
191,635.3
|
2.8
|
49,850
|
9
|
$ 338,118,000.00 | $ 6,782.71 | $ 630 | Jurong West |
28-Nov-14
|
Upper Serangoon Road | Residential with Commercial at 1st Storey |
99
|
10,097.1
|
108,684.3
|
3.0
|
30,292
|
11
|
$ 276,774,000.00 | $ 9,136.87 | $ 849 | Hougang |
13-Oct-14
|
Lorong Puntong | Residential |
99
|
10,502.8
|
113,051.2
|
2.1
|
22,056
|
18
|
$ 173,570,000.00 | $ 7,869.51 | $ 731 | Bishan |
28-Aug-14
|
Gambas Crescent / Sembawang Avenue | Business 1 |
30
|
15,665.0
|
168,616.7
|
2.5
|
NA
|
4
|
$ 35,000,000.00 | $ 893.71 | $ 83 | Sembawang |
20-Aug-14
|
Meyappa Chettiar Road | Commercial and Residential |
99
|
16,149.4
|
173,830.7
|
3.5
|
56,523
|
15
|
$ 471,618,000.00 | $ 8,343.82 | $ 775 | Toa Payoh |
8-Aug-14
|
Fernvale Road | Residential |
99
|
16,603.9
|
178,722.9
|
3.0
|
49,812
|
4
|
$ 234,933,000.00 | $ 4,716.39 | $ 438 | Sengkang |
8-Aug-14
|
Fernvale Road | Residential |
99
|
17,413.9
|
187,441.7
|
3.0
|
52,242
|
3
|
$ 252,122,000.00 | $ 4,826.04 | $ 448 | Sengkang |
4-Jul-14
|
Woodlands Avenue 12 | Business 1 with an integrated Heavy Vehicle Park |
30
|
39,229.1
|
422,258.5
|
2.5
|
NA
|
5
|
$ 76,900,000.00 | $ 784.11 | $ 73 | Woodlands |
21-Apr-14
|
Prince Charles Crescent | Residential |
99
|
24,964.3
|
268,713.5
|
2.1
|
52,426
|
7
|
$ 463,100,000.00 | $ 8,833.40 | $ 821 | Bukit Merah |
17-Apr-14
|
Woodlands Square | Commercial |
99
|
18,568.8
|
199,872.9
|
3.5
|
64,991
|
8
|
$ 633,999,000.00 | $ 9,755.18 | $ 906 | Woodlands |
13-Mar-14
|
Yishun Avenue 9 / Yishun Avenue 6 | Residential |
99
|
20,553.8
|
221,239.3
|
2.8
|
57,551
|
5
|
$ 278,800,000.00 | $ 4,844.40 | $ 450 | Yishun |
24-Jan-14
|
Geylang East Avenue 1 | Residential |
99
|
6,238.1
|
67,146.3
|
2.8
|
17,467
|
16
|
$ 145,890,000.00 | $ 8,352.32 | $ 776 | Geylang |
15-Jan-14
|
Upper Paya Lebar Road | Residential |
99
|
20,077.6
|
216,113.5
|
2.8
|
56,218
|
7
|
$ 392,300,000.00 | $ 6,978.19 | $ 648 | Serangoon |
Excellent piece of research work and rebuttal! Well done! Day by day, the SC/MA is pissing us off more and more !
ReplyDeleteEverything can be found with a few clicks of the mouse. I am getting really annoyed with them now.
DeleteAren't we all on the same side? They work for us, don't they? We paying them?
ReplyDeleteDon't appreciate being snookered by one of our own.
BEWARE: Ethically Challenged, Morally Bankrupt, Blissfully Ignorant in our midst.
We need a Guardian Angel to protect us. SC, are you up to the task?
Tread carefully. We're watching you closely.
SC, Let's face it. Every agent would want to sell low for quick sale. That's why we need SC to control them to get the best price for us. SC is appointed by SPs in good faith, so you have to listen to our views (some are more professional and knowledgeable than MA) instead of just follow MA's advice. The fact that you only received 45% inspite of all the tactics both MA/SC used and proposing ridiculous 1.3m when other MA/SC manged to sell at 1.9m already proved that MA is not as good as you may think they are ! Pleae pull up your sock & act in the interest of all SPs and control the MA! They have no right to force us to sell low! TC belongs to all SPs and not SC alone. So you have a duty to perform & we trust you will do it well for the benefit of all SPs including yourself.
ReplyDeleteIt's deceptive to reference 'THE POIZ' as comparison. Is it Misrepresentation?
ReplyDeleteDeviously Creative + Childlike Gullibility is a dangerous combo.
There's renewed exuberance with enhanced RP and better chance for 80% to be reached.
This case, however must pass muster at the High Courts. It will be contested. It's a legal wonderland for lawyers.
SPs should seek Eldan Law's advice on all possible legal potholes. What's your liability as a signatory? How do you think the MA and SC rep will perform in the dock?
Refer to recent THOMPSON VIEW case where Conflict of Interest, Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care, under the First Schedule of the Estate Agents Regulations 2010 was mentioned. (link avail this Blog under Decisions)
EnBloc enrichment is well publicised. EnBloc misery less so, but there are many.
I'm not legally trained. I welcome it if you're skeptical of my comments.
Protect yourself, doublecheck everything, seek second opinion if you must.
The smell of MONEY has clouded many judgement. There's no security in numbers, 80% or otherwise.
It's a Right Royal Mess we're in.
Too many Unsavoury characters involved in this. So sad, with Honesty and Integrity we could all have 'LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER'