Mystery flyer could have been sent by anyone. It was in a stamped envelope - so this guy spent $168 on postage.
At the upcoming meeting people can make their feelings known and SC should take their cue from the floor and be open to suggestions. If the majority want to raise the RP (and I mean a strong mandate coming from the floor) then the SC should reconsider. The SC are the agents for the Majority and must take direction from them.
The present RP is looking on the low side now but the 80% was reached very recently on the back of that RP and if the SC ACT FAST and there is indeed more than 1 bidder out there then it is worth one roll of the dice*.
*To avoid any misreading here (perhaps my euphemisms are unfamiliar), I am not advocating for the RP to be raised at this point. I am assuming the 80% has been legitimately reached and the SC are ready to launch the tender soon. There could very well be 6 bidders out there salivating at the thought of clinching Tampines Court, there could very well be a bidding war, we could very well surpass our RP.
Or it could go the other way.
*To avoid any misreading here (perhaps my euphemisms are unfamiliar), I am not advocating for the RP to be raised at this point. I am assuming the 80% has been legitimately reached and the SC are ready to launch the tender soon. There could very well be 6 bidders out there salivating at the thought of clinching Tampines Court, there could very well be a bidding war, we could very well surpass our RP.
Or it could go the other way.
If there are no bidders or only 1 private offer, then the SC ought to hold firm against possible MA/Lawyer pressure to take the 'only deal on the table'. The SC are not obliged to sell at the RP (High Court somewhere). TC is better positioned than Rio Casa (in my opinion) and should command an equal price. The Flyer author is correct in saying we can get a higher price down the line as the supply of large plots of land in developed areas dwindles. Even if we are the last HUDC to go, we will get a higher offer than today. There is no need to be overly anxious about selling now, there will be other opportunities down the road.
The one thing that should not happen is the RP being lowered using the Mechanism outlined by the Lawyers. That would probably bring matters to the High Court.
The one thing that should not happen is the RP being lowered using the Mechanism outlined by the Lawyers. That would probably bring matters to the High Court.
..
Rd 4 can theoretically happen immediately after Rd 3 if there is a 50% requisition, 2 years if there is only 20%
The writer makes an allegation that several SC members own between 2-9 units in TC (directly or indirectly). That seems rather a lot and pretty doubtful. You'd have to be talking about a consortium of some kind.
I only found one SC member owning 2 units; (Strata Roll 2015) but I cannot know about any 'indirect' ownership.
The CSC's response to the letter was surprisingly measured and dignified. They actually made good counterpoints on the RP - but on the allegations on ownership they should be a little more pro-active and less defensive.
Perhaps now is a good time for all members to restate all their interests in the estate? Has there been a change in any member's ownership since their instatement? If so, LTSA says they have to declare in writing and put up a notice.
I went back to the Minutes of the 1st EOGM :
2.4 Each of the members of the collective sales committee gave a brief description and declared their interest being in the Collective Sales Committee
No details - and 'declared their interest being in the CSC' is not the same as declaring their interest in the estate (how many units they and family members owned directly or indirectly).
Perhaps the minutes were badly written, but now is a good time to clear the air regardless.
First is Mr Vasan's letter. Second MA resigned. Third MA came back and now this?
ReplyDeleteSo much drama
Everyone should be transparent about their interests. If someone has 9 units, it is new information, but after you absorb that fact, do you end up with a different conclusion? Do you think he will have a greater or less conflict of interest (against you)?
ReplyDeleteOne needs to put aside envy of the mighty windfall for that SC member if he indeed has 9 units. To put up this notice with no basis with a malicious intent - if I were me and if not for the enbloc, I would have reported it to the police. (Not with any intent to seek punishment for the person who put the notice, but to set the record straight for my own self in front of other SPs.)
Don't put the blame on majority SPs. Why would they do that ? Most likely is either the anti-enblocers SPs or competitors. Both have good reason to try sabotage the enbloc. It's time for majority SPs/MA/SC to be united to see this round of enbloc through. Don't waste any more time. Fast actions are necessary at this stage. Don't get distracted by this kind of negative actions which will undermine successful enbloc. Such are expected at this stage.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the current RP base on your calculation using RLV? That already meant it is fair based on the recent Gov land sales in Tampines region. Now that we see others successfully enbloc at a higher ppr value, suddenly we want to throw all these out of the windows and set a higher RP? If the others had enbloc at a lower ppr value, then would we follow suit and set a lower RP too or would we start waving the RLV at the SC again and said they have set the RP too low? At the end of the day, as I have mentioned somewhere else before, we can work on whatever scientific calculation on what should be the RP be. But what we will get will depend on how the developers value our lands. If none think we are better than Rio Casa, we will get lower. If they think we are better, we will get higher. We can think what we want but it does not matter to them.
ReplyDeleteThe letter writer is I'll informed. You can only retract your agreement to the CSA within 5 days after the day you signed. The letter is just another kindergarten style attempt to cover up ones greed.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you trying to provoke this time. Are you in the majority? No right? So pleaee don't tell the majority what to do in the coming meeting. It doesn't mean that we cannot get higher than our current RP. Why need to raise it highet to jeopardize our chance of getting more developers to bid ? Please leave the majority alone and you no need to speak or suggest anything on our behalf which may stir up unncessary emotion & rock the boat !
ReplyDeleteYes! RP is already set. Please don't suggest any change anymore & complicate & delay the launch for tendering ! The coming meeting is primarily just for lawyer & MA to brief the SPs in the tendering procedure & answering queries. Anti-enblockers, for once, please respect the majority's rights. Thank you!
DeleteJust curious, how much legal fee did antienbloc SP spent in first round ?
ReplyDeleteFYI: About $270,000.
DeleteUnless I've not read all sources properly, I don't see any confirmation that following the cooling off period, 80% is confirmed. Wasn't this expected on Friday?
ReplyDeleteThis lack of update is surprising as it's this % which is more important than what is published on the flyers.