Friday, August 11, 2006
[RealEdge] TodayOnline : The true value of a home
 This story was printed from TODAYonline | |
 | |
| The true value of a home Friday August 11, 2006 Yvonne Lim Voices & Commentary editor SHOULD you get to vote on the proposed collective sale of your private estate only if you actually live there? It was a simple proposal published on July 29 but with it, Today reader Lucy Huang ignited two weeks of fierce debate that at times got quite personal, on a topic that was literally close to home for many. On one side of the great en-bloc divide: The stayers, those who had bought into their perfect retirement place, those who grew up developing deep emotional bonds to the neighbourhood, those who believe a home or good location is priceless. Or depending on where you stood they would be the irrational, the selfish, the mulish obstacles to modernisation. On the other side, you have the believers in the logic of profit, who see the advantages of cashing in an ageing apartment for well above the valuation price, who think a home is more than a building. Or, as their detractors would have it, they would be the mercenaries, the crass materialists. In previously unpublished letters, the following readers made known which side they stood on. Interestingly, the group popularly tagged as "minority owners" outnumbered the others. Fifteen-year- Those who cite the higher good of "national development" as a reason for supporting collective sales, she says, aren't being honest. "If they were so concerned with the country's growth, why not forfeit the 70 per cent or more in profit then?" Like several others before her, she argued for the legal consent majority in collective sales to be raised beyond 80 per cent. Bringing up another higher good, June says: "If the law encourages not feeling any attachment to our own homes at all, then how can patriotism be expected?" Reader Laxman raises another question: How far is it justified to override a minority's wishes even in the name of modernisation? Roundly rejecting another reader's suggestion to lower the consent threshold to 60 per cent, Laxman suggests a compromise: Have developers offer the unwilling minority an apartment of similar floor area in the new development, and pay rental compensation until the new units are ready for occupation. KC Heng, on the other hand, makes clear his resentment of the "typical Singaporean' "The law made it easier for the majority who want to sell their properties for a gain, besides releasing valuable land for further development which will certainly lead to progress for land-scarce Singapore So let us try to be more magnanimous, But similar comments from another letter-writer, who suggested that en-bloc naysayers be penalised, provoked strong words from He XiuYun, who says: "In the move to modernise, Singapore has pushed forward without regard for sentimentality. Being modern is not wrong, it is necessary. But it is unacceptable to expect everyone else to move forward at the same pace, and to label those who do not share our march to modernisation as unreasonable, illogical and selfish." Others have suggested that if the estate's condition is the concern though why a 10-year-old building would need a major overhaul puzzles some then perhaps an en-bloc upgrading, not sale, is needed. But let's come back to the factual basis for the debate: The 1999 amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act that set out the current framework for en-bloc sales (90 per cent consent needed for developments below 10 years old, 80 per cent for older ones). As letter-writer Martin Ho reminded us (Aug 8), the reason for the rules was that majority owners in an estate were being held to ransom by sometimes just one reluctant owner demanding extra compensation. If letter-writers' complaints are to be believed, however, the situation is now reversed. That is, "minority owners" find themselves verbally abused, harassed, misled and pressured into compliance with the irony being that many of those voting to sell, are speculators who do not even live in the estate. Phillip J Williams' letter ("The reality behind the en-bloc hoopla", Aug 7) also exposed the machinations of pro-en-bloc owners, investors and estate agencies to wrangle a "yes" vote. Reader Tan Keng Ann writes of a similar experience in his condominium, where he describes the managing agent (MA) and the management council (MC) as taking decisions to go ahead with valuations without consulting with "subsidiary proprietors" at the AGM. "Determined that owners are not misled, I organised a discussion on Aug 5 to explain the full costs of an en-bloc sale I felt they were being prevented from making an informed choice," he writes. "In short, I believe many property owners do not fully understand the implications of an en-bloc sale and could be misguided by their MA and MC." Jill Tan Lay Si, however, notes: "It is comforting to know that the legislation does provide recourse for the objecting owners, through the arbitration of the Strata Title Board. Hopefully, the board will be more sympathetic to the objecting minority and consider all the other factors even when this minority does not suffer any financial losses in the en-bloc sale." For some, the en-bloc controversy boils down to the principle of the thing. Jennifer Ho says it is a "slap" to the vision of home ownership for every citizen. "The irony seems to be, even if you have paid up your mortgage, it can be sold away by those who don't live in the estate!" So perhaps, in the end, it all really does comes back to Lucy Huang's simple proposal give the vote only to resident owners. Anthony Verghese elaborates on the idea by suggesting that the Government consider passing a directive that "only registered owners who have owned and stayed in their homes for more than, say, 10 years are eligible to vote in an en-bloc sale". We'll leave the final word to Angeline-Lennel, "a daughter in a lower-middle class family" living at Farrer Court for more than 20 years, who says: "My heart is in the neighbourhood' | |
| Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved. | |
Real Estate News Provided Freely
You are receiving Individual Emails Change Delivery Settings
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
.
__,_._,___
// posted by Shajahan @ 10:02 AM 