I take back my comment about the CSC's measured and dignified response. There is nothing 'measured or dignified' about our ever volatile exec CSC member's personal rebuttal which only some (majority only?) owners received. I got it in a very roundabout manner.
Hmm, I know Raintree Gardens tendered at $1.8M and got $1.9M. hardly FAR LESS (his capitalization).
Does our CSC member ever 'read the newspaper', does he know 'when property cooling measures were introduced'? Does he know 'if a developer would dare bid for a large pieces of land then'? He sounds so learned, perhaps he should tell us.
He gives only one reason why Enbloc Rd 2 failed - people didn't want to pay Lawyer signing fees. Ah yes, money upfront was just one factor, and not the most important one in my opinion. Old news.
He flatters his committee's negotiating skills where none were needed. Not collecting money upfront until after the Tender is the norm. What's collected after the tender is the STB Application fees, not lawyer fees. The No Sale No Fee model is alive an kicking in collective sales.
He implores us to APPRECIATE the SC (his capitalization) and that he is only interested in his own property. That says a lot.
Again he demonstrates his ignorance of LTSA when he states' who cares how many units anyone has?' Well, the Law does. It is a requirement of all CSC members to declare their interests and holdings in LTSA 3rd Schedule (2). at their instatement and again if their interests change along the way. No one has every seen or read any such declaration by a CSC member in any of the Minutes or on any of the Notice boards.
His final observation is indeed 'astute' and mind blowing --the reason why developers buy land is that they build new developments on them. --- Who knew! All along I thought they were just splashing money about for no reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment