View Full Version : Review law on en bloc sales
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_495516.html
Feb 27, 2010
TREASURING HOMES
Review law on en bloc sales
IF MONDAY'S advice to treasure our homes and not use them to make a quick buck is to be heeded ('Homes are for keeps, not speculation: PM'), the Government should review the law permitting collective property sales.
Such sales exercises invite speculation in the private property market at the expense of a home owner's security.
I have not lived in peace for the past three years because my neighbours voted to go en bloc. The main argument of the pro-collective sale lobby had nothing to do with urban renewal. It was about reaping a windfall.
The bid at my condominium, Green Lodge in Toh Tuck Road, fell through last month, but there is nothing to stop my neighbours from trying again.
I dissented because I treasure my home for the reasons implied in Monday's report: It gives me peace, familiarity and stability in the twilight of my life; and it is my nest egg which I do not wish taken away from me by others' temptation to make a fast buck.
But how can I take good care of my treasured asset if I have no control over it?
The power to sell my home lies not in me but in 80 per cent of my neighbours. And that is why the law must be changed.
Tan Keng Ann
Selfish, if 80% think it is better to sell, it probably is, since you are in the twilight years give the younger ones a chance to make some money, the building you are living in is probably decaying and costs alot to maintain, sell it and move to somewhere smaller and newer and live out your twilight years peacefully.
proud owner
28-02-10, 15:13
Selfish, if 80% think it is better to sell, it probably is, since you are in the twilight years give the younger ones a chance to make some money, the building you are living in is probably decaying and costs alot to maintain, sell it and move to somewhere smaller and newer and live out your twilight years peacefully.
aiya its a tough decision lah
old people are less open to changes ..especially things of memory and sentimentals
so i cant say who is right and who is wrong
but i do agree ... if the building is 30 yrs and up .. time to go ....
our weather really kills the building
Understand the point of sentimentality but unfortunately only landed property owners can enjoy this, it is reality that if you live in a strata unit, you have no control over how long you live in it.
proud owner
28-02-10, 15:33
Understand the point of sentimentality but unfortunately only landed property owners can enjoy this, it is reality that if you live in a strata unit, you have no control over how long you live in it.
thats true
in fact i was just thinking about it last night ..the only property that you can have full (almost if govt dont buy back your land) is landed house ...
condo to me is for investment ( speculation ? hard to draw the line between the 2)
The enbloc needs to be finetuned alright. Now it is too cumbersome and tedious. To take through the whole process is rather tedious and costly coupled with challenging timeline. Should simplify it.... >80% ok. <80% can put rest.
After 30yrs, 60% majority should be enough to approve. If not, get the anti enbloc-ers to foot the repair and maintenance lah. Old people maybe don't mind old building, but what about others? So owners who cannot stand to stay in old buildings have to sell at low cost and cannot pursue option of selling at better price??
The pro-enbloc-ers normally don't want to speak to medias to be seen as profiteers, but hey in democratic society votes should count. Should not be minority with loud voices.
Selfish, if 80% think it is better to sell, it probably is, since you are in the twilight years give the younger ones a chance to make some money, the building you are living in is probably decaying and costs alot to maintain, sell it and move to somewhere smaller and newer and live out your twilight years peacefully.
cannot say like this lah..
u know when ppl reach their twilight yrs moving house is a major hassle leh, and u cannot blame them for not wanting to have some certainty at that point in life.
I mean just look at that old one at oxley, u think he want to move? lol
i dont see why the rest of the old folks shld move when that 1 person can get special treatment.
proud owner
28-02-10, 22:23
cannot say like this lah..
u know when ppl reach their twilight yrs moving house is a major hassle leh, and u cannot blame them for not wanting to have some certainty at that point in life.
I mean just look at that old one at oxley, u think he want to move? lol
i dont see why the rest of the old folks shld move when that 1 person can get special treatment.
ahhaha and that 1 person can even make the other neighbouring buildings remain low (4-5 storey) or no windows ...
new2mondrian
01-03-10, 09:07
ahhaha and that 1 person can even make the other neighbouring buildings remain low (4-5 storey) or no windows ...
tell me about it. my property at Kim Yam should be able to build up to 28 storeys, BUT it has an artificial cap at 10 storeys under URA guidelines... why the artificial cap??? Proximity to someone's residence I guess. sigh....
it will take a long long while for the artificial cap to be removed such that the building can be restored to its original limit of 28 storeys, such that en-bloc can be viable. but in the meantime, everything is 10 storeys.... :(
proud owner
01-03-10, 09:45
tell me about it. my property at Kim Yam should be able to build up to 28 storeys, BUT it has an artificial cap at 10 storeys under URA guidelines... why the artificial cap??? Proximity to someone's residence I guess. sigh....
it will take a long long while for the artificial cap to be removed such that the building can be restored to its original limit of 28 storeys, such that en-bloc can be viable. but in the meantime, everything is 10 storeys.... :(
hang on tight bro .... nobody lives forever ... in fact i believe SC global family owns the land around that area ...waiting .....
new2mondrian
01-03-10, 10:44
hang on tight bro .... nobody lives forever ... in fact i believe SC global family owns the land around that area ...waiting .....
yup, I agree. that's why the old old apartments ard oxley/kim yam area which are all caught by the 4-10 storeys rule (when under the plot ratio they all can build up to 28 storeys) are all worth lookg at.
yup, I agree. that's why the old old apartments ard oxley/kim yam area which are all caught by the 4-10 storeys rule (when under the plot ratio they all can build up to 28 storeys) are all worth lookg at.
Nobody lives forever but dynasties can last hundreds of years :D
new2mondrian
01-03-10, 11:18
Nobody lives forever but dynasties can last hundreds of years :D
that is absolutely correct! it would be foolish to price in the potential premium into a purchase in that area, but nonetheless, anything $800 to $1k psf is still worth looking at. Rental yield is pretty decent, not to say that if building height restriction is removed, the whole block will hit jackpot together. :)
hang on tight bro .... nobody lives forever ... in fact i believe SC global family owns the land around that area ...waiting .....
is it? i thought is FEO ... the usual suspect :cool:
After 30yrs, 60% majority should be enough to approve. If not, get the anti enbloc-ers to foot the repair and maintenance lah. Old people maybe don't mind old building, but what about others? So owners who cannot stand to stay in old buildings have to sell at low cost and cannot pursue option of selling at better price??
Maintenance is everyone obligation. Everyone knows it when they buy. They have no right to not pay just because they don't want to.
If they don't want to pay, don't buy in the first place lah!
Owners who don't want to stay in old buildings should think about it before they buy old buildings.
Having been through enbloc myself , the greed & loathing it generates is something to behold.
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_496472.html
Mar 2, 2010
Protect reluctant parties in en bloc sales
MR TAN Keng Ann's letter last Saturday ('Review law on en bloc sales') revealed the unfair predicament suffered by a good number of people amid the frenzy of many collective property sale exercises. Instead of leaving them alone to retire in peace and contentment, young speculators callously go out of their way to make home owners like Mr Tan miserable, all to make a quick buck.
I am not involved in any collective sale, but from what I have heard from friends who are, the situation is dire and shameful. Meetings of condo owners to discuss such sales are invariably boisterous. Some turn ugly with owners hurling verbal abuse at one another, with those who refuse to sell on the receiving end. They are also harassed between meetings.
It is clear that those who put pressure on reluctant owners have much to gain if the sale goes through. Some speculators have bought several units earlier in anticipation of a successful sale. It is purely business and their aim (and that of the would-be developers) is to make money. The feelings of people like Mr Tan do not concern them in the least.
Yes, the law must change if we are serious about curbing speculation. It would protect the interest of owners who cherish their homes. Why take away the rights of owners who are not interested in the money and want to stay put? Besides, many of the condos involved are not by any stretch of the imagination obsolete in design, or in a state of disrepair.
Lee Seck Kay
Maintenance is everyone obligation. Everyone knows it when they buy. They have no right to not pay just because they don't want to.
If they don't want to pay, don't buy in the first place lah!
Owners who don't want to stay in old buildings should think about it before they buy old buildings.
Having been through enbloc myself , the greed & loathing it generates is something to behold.
Agree on new buyers.... but I am talking about owners in general. There are 1st owners too that may want sell after staying 20-30 yrs.
Greed happens everywhere. In this case, the anti-guys are just capitalising on this to win the argument.
If other 1st owners want to enbloc to get more money to take care of family. Are they greedy? I think not.
In short, I think majority vote is still fairest of all. If want a place to live forever, get freehold landed lah.
Agree on new buyers.... but I am talking about owners in general. There are 1st owners too that may want sell after staying 20-30 yrs.
Greed happens everywhere. In this case, the anti-guys are just capitalising on this to win the argument.
If other 1st owners want to enbloc to get more money to take care of family. Are they greedy? I think not.
In short, I think majority vote is still fairest of all. If want a place to live forever, get freehold landed lah.
A lot of assumptions here.
1) We don't know if the anti-guys motives are just not as he said. Maybe they don't need the money. There are plenty of rich people who rather stay put. No one can really read minds.
2) I don't buy into the sympathy story peddled by "take care of the family". It's probably trying to make greed look filial and deflect criticism of their own actions. We are all human - it's nice to look good.
Agree that majority rule should be preserved & now the only thing with any hope of promise for peace of mind is freehold landed property - but there's just not enough to go around.
Even there I can tell you horror stories of harassment a family friend faced who refused to sell after all there neighbours sold individually to a developer.
I doubt many involved realise that by the time the sale goes through, rising markets tend to negate any real gains they get as surrounding property prices increase due to supply and demand imbalance.
You normally end up no better off than if you sold by yourself. In my old neighbourhood I doubt those who sold Futura freehold @ 1000psf/ppr are feeling so smart now. All replacement units are going to be 2000+psf. What did they win?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.