Disclaimer






"I am a BLOGGER NOT an expert. This is a BLOG not a 'go-to' website for official information. I represent no one's view save my own. I have neither legal nor financial training, nor do I have anything to do with the real estate industry. My understanding of the Collective Sale Process is from a layman's position only. My calculations, computations and tables are homespun and may contain errors. Please note that nothing in this blog constitutes any legal or financial advice to anyone reading it. You should refer to your lawyer, CSC or financial adviser for expert advice before making any decision. This disclaimer is applicable to every post and comment on the blog. Read at your own risk."
Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
There is one thing worse than an Enbloc ----- and that is an Enbloc done badly. Since the majority have the necessary mandate to sell, then they owe it to all SPs to make a success of it. Minority SPs can only watch and wait, if they sell then lets pray it's at a price we can move on with, if they don't sell, then we are happy to stay for a few more years.

Size DOES matter

Condos hit a sweet spot even without a tennis court
Business Times - 6 Feb 2010

New homes going for as much as $2,600 per square foot can offer designer furnishings and place you in a coveted district, but they may no longer come with large common spaces or even tennis courts traditionally associated with a private address.

Nowadays, ‘you don’t really get developments with sprawling grounds, where there’s openness’, observes DTZ executive director Ong Choon Fah. ‘Those are actually more difficult to come by.’

As it becomes harder to find prime projects offering large ground spaces and complete facilities, existing developments with these features are likely to stand out. ‘One of the reasons why Ardmore Park is so popular is because it has a beautiful landscaped garden, and the grounds are sprawling. You don’t get many of these, these days,’ says DTZ’s Mrs Ong
.
So luxury homes now have next-to-no facilities... and probably a clear view of their neighbour's bedroom, too. I have seen windows mere spitting distance apart. No privacy, no wind, no light. Some luxury condominiums in the city don't even have a parking space for each unit.
.

Tampines Court may not have the facilities - but that does not mean it can't aspire to have them. We have plenty of space - enough for a swimming pool and 3 tennis courts, we even have a section labelled 'wilderness' by the MC where there's nothing but trees. But I don't think a swimming pool is possible with the make up of our residents. They have rejected it twice before at AGMs so it is probably a non-starter. Nevermind, Tampines Courters should understand they have the luxury of space - and learn to appreciate it. In fact, not having a swimming pool keeps our costs down and the monthly maintenance fee very reasonable - on par with HDB actually. We can carve a niche out for ourselves in simpler ways - landscaping and a gym perhaps. Very soon, when all the big estates have gone the way of the dodo - Tampines Court will come into it's own. Families with children, maids and mother-in-laws in tow can't squeeze into these modern glass shoe boxes and anyone who visits our sleepy estate will think they've hit the jackpot. Permanent Residents, soon to be partially-locked out of the HDB resale market if you believe the newspaper reports, will have no choice but to turn to estates such as ours - lower-end private estates in convenient locations. Even without facilities, we can command ever increasingly higher prices - and don't believe the nay-sayers when they say our value will drop.

Hopefully, after the repainting, retiling and new letterboxes etc, owners will want to plonk down another $100k on landscaping to make TC the Ardmore Park of the east! I am going to push for this at the next AGM. Plants, we want lots of beautiful tropical plants, please!

But remember; developers, flippers, desperado's and the government are all out to rob you of your paid-up 'luxury' estate..... (in case you have forgotten:- we are only 560 units in a site area of 702,162 sqft). I don't know when they will come round again, but they will.
.
I said something along the same lines in a post 2 yrs ago here .
.
Sunday Times - 7 Feb 2010

An industry observer pointed out that most developers are running out of land for mass market projects, so they are very keen to buy.

Now that resale prices are moving up, more people are worried that they cannot get a similar replacement property, explained a consultant who declined to be named.

Still, the problem is the gap between buyers and sellers’ expectations.
So, owners now understand it is about replacement and not mythical money in the bank (or all locked up in CPF). Nothing less than 1-for 1 exchange should be demanded.

4 comments:

  1. Instead of landscaping i think it should put for better use upgarding of lift for walkup apt(apt-owner to chip in) and high rise block. Look at those tree planted at the carpark they don't have good shade instead it give car owner headache with those tiny leaves falling all over the vehicles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It of course can be proposed but the cost is quite prohibitive. Low rise lifts would not add value to the estate overall, but would indeed add value to the low rise units.

    Upgrading of the high lifts will have to be done eventually and as this a an existing common property all owners would have to chip in their share regardless of usage (BMSM rules).

    Building entirely new lifts for the low rise is adding on a new facility and would require 80% approval at an AGM. Without the 80% HDB subsidy given to HDB owners - building 16 lifts for the use of 96 owners only (as opposed to the present 12 lifts serving 432 owners) is going to be a hard sell. You are talking about $2 million or about $3/4k unit. As I say, it can be proposed - but don't hold your breath for an approval.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you talking about 3/4k i think most of the walkup apt would be willing to chip in,they would be happy living in tampines court.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am sure they would! And I wish more than anything that they get their lifts! But they cannot afford to do this on their own. And getting the high rise owners to fork out that amount of money might be impossible for a variety of reasons.

    Foreseeing this problem a few months ago, and hoping to make things more palatable for all owners, I went about trying getting approval for owners to use their CPF (as in HDB upgrading programme) but got a frosty reply both from our MP and the CPF Board.

    My blog is getting so long - I forget where I put things! The following is from an earlier post, ranting as usual against the CPF board...
    .
    .

    MY PET PEEVE AT THE MOMENT - CPF AND THEIR AMAZING DOUBLESPEAK
    .
    From the CPF website:-
    .
    "The cost of the lift upgrading works will be co-shared among the Government, Town Councils and the flat owners. To ensure that the flat owners’ share of the lift upgrading cost is affordable, the Government will subsidise 75% to 90% of the cost of the lift upgrading works. The actual proportion will depend on the flat type and block configuration. Town Councils will also be allowed to use their sinking funds to co-pay the remaining cost with the flat owners. For lift upgrading for a typical 4-room flat in a standard block, the Government will pay about $10,000, while Town Councils and the owner will each pay about $900. Flat owners in segmented blocks will have to pay a higher amount because lift upgrading for these blocks will cost considerably more. This is because new lifts and lift shafts have to be added, and the lifts will serve a smaller number of flats. However, the Government will cap the maximum amount that each household has to pay at $3,000. HDB flat owners need only pay for the lift upgrading cost after the works are completed. On average, this will be about 2 years from the date of announcement. Flat owners can pay for their share of the lift upgrading costs either in one lump sum or by monthly installments over a 5 or 10-year period, using their CPF savings or cash."
    .
    A recent letter to the CPF (through our MP) by yours truly about allowing private estate owners to use their CPF to pay for lift upgrading came back with a curt answer of NO with a nonsensical reason. I hadn't even asked that privatised estates be afforded the same subsidy as HDBs - just use of their CPF for payment up to the maximum cap allowable under HDBs!
    .
    In their reply they stated that the basic objective of CPF was to assist members to save for their old age needs and as such the savings could not be used for consumptive usage; such as lift upgrading works.
    .
    Their argument that it is consumptive in nature and therefore not allowable is obviously not true since HDB owners, who make up 80% of the housing market, are allowed to use their savings for this express purpose.
    .
    A lift in a private estate is no more ‘consumptive’ than a lift in an HDB estate. The CPF Board is therefore being unfair; everyone is allowed use their CPF for education needs, housing needs, medical needs - but only HDB residents for lift upgrading. So I reject their reason for disallowing private owners the same rights as their HDB neighbours for the simple reason that it is illogical and hypocritical.
    .
    They do not for one moment actually believe their own mission statement. If the basic objective of the CPF Board is to safeguard savings - then why do they object to an owner using a mere $3000 on lift upgrading - yet turn a blind eye to him losing hundreds of thousands from his CPF account through a bad en bloc sale?!!
    .
    Can I use $3k from my CPF savings for lift upgrading in my private estate?
    CPF response:- No - must take care of your nest egg for old age.
    .
    Will the CPF protect me from losing $260,000 from my CPF savings through en bloc?
    CPF response:- No, we will 'waive' it goodbye.

    Nest egg? What nest egg?

    ReplyDelete