Thanks for your comments on this meeting which 120 SPs attended. But to maintain harmony & goodwill amongst neighbours, we will publish only constructive comments/suggestions which can contribute towards the positive working of the next step - EOGM. Please share your views on improving the "process", and not against "people".
This topic is now CLOSED. Thank you for your feedback & comments.
Latest update
• Teresa Ville Protem Sales Committee (TVPSC) met on August 25, 2007.
• In responses to invitations to 5 Property Agents and 5 Legal Consultants, there was positive response only from following property Agents
o Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL)
o Huttons
• None of the invited Law firms accepted their invitation.
• In last week of August 2007, a number of amendments in the Law governing process of Collective Sales were proposed. These proposed changes also include process of selection of Property Agents and Law firms.
• On recommendation from one of the subsidiary proprietors, an invitation was sent to a Law firm named De’souza Tay & Goh, who agreed to meet.
• On September 1, 2007, all 3 above mentioned firms met TVPSC members.
o De’souza Tay & Goh law firm presented their credentials and briefly explained salient points of proposed changes in Law. As per their view, Teresa Ville Protem sales committee shall be deemed as lawful, as it was formed in a duly convened EOGM.
(This is one of the requirements in proposed changes in Law. )
o JLL had a discussion with TVPSC members, who suggested that they should wait till new Law comes in force, before proceeding further.
o Huttons, gave a formal presentation on their experience and proposal to act as the Marketing Agent..
• Following TVPCS members submitted their resignation as committee members, due to work commitments –
1) William Phua (August 20)
2) Jacqueline Boudeville (August 24)
3) Philip Ang (September 9)
4) Kum Kong Chan (September 13)
In meeting of August 25, members unanimously agreed that since there were sufficient number of committee members, instead of looking for replacement, committee would continue to function with remaining members.
• Despite proactive efforts to invite more Property and Legal firms, there was not much success in getting positive response. It is a general presumption that most of Property Agents and LawFirms are waiting for the new Law to come in force (expected in October 2007). They might like to study impact of new law on scope of their role, responsibilities and costs before giving a serious proposal.
It is therefore decided that instead of evaluating only limited number of candidates and proceeding further, they should wait till the new Law is in place.
TVPSC shall now meet, only after the New Law is in force and shall proceed as per the provisions of new law.
Thank You..
Update...
A quick update
EOGM was convened on 28 July Saturday at 3:00 pm at Function Room 2&3 in TeresaVille, & following :
(1) 59% quorum was achieved
(2) 76% of the quorum voted "FOR" collective sales.
(3) A Reserve price of 850+ million for the entire estate was fixed by majority vote. (proposed 800+, 850+, 900+)
(4) A sales Committe of 15 members was selected & endorsed.
Any comments/views, please share in the post below. Cheers !
EOGM was convened on 28 July Saturday at 3:00 pm at Function Room 2&3 in TeresaVille, & following :
(1) 59% quorum was achieved
(2) 76% of the quorum voted "FOR" collective sales.
(3) A Reserve price of 850+ million for the entire estate was fixed by majority vote. (proposed 800+, 850+, 900+)
(4) A sales Committe of 15 members was selected & endorsed.
Any comments/views, please share in the post below. Cheers !
4 comments:
The views and articles expressed here are in many ways taken out of context to masquerade the agendas of folks who are against the en-bloc sale of TV.
delay the process? - market forces are a strong determinant on property prices. Would property prices still soar this high in 2-3 yrs? (as with the current economic situation) It's wishful thinking! Why kid yourself and attempt to dupe other residents into believing that the market moves ONLY upward?
against the process? - instead of quoting all the pitfalls (transparency issues etc) of the current en-bloc process, why don't we channel our energy to ensure that transparency is sought throughout the process of favourably seeing TV thru the en-bloc sale.
Dear anonymous,
Now that we are going to have an EOGM & listen to views of all SPs, yes, "lets channel our energy to ensure that transparency is sought throughout the process" - of whatever the majority decides - (a)whether to go for en bloc now (b)whether to wait c)whether not to sell. We assure you that we have no intention to "masquerade any agenda" or to "dupe" our fellow neighbours. We want all SPs to be consulted in an EOGM, something which was not being done earlier.
cheers
STV group
Dear Anonymous,
"..of whatever the majority decides.." does not really hold true here as 'we' only need 20.01% of votes (and/or abstentions) to derail the enbloc process. I am not against the enbloc process per se, only the timing of it, as I believe there is immense potential for further price run-up. You must realise that the question now, as far as location, location, location is concerned, is no longer "How far from Orchard Road", but rather "How far from the IR's?" The public euphoria with feel-good factors like 2008's F1 and 2009's Marina Bay opening is, in my opinion, certain to contibute to the property pice buoyancy. Of course there are lots of potential negatives as well (SARS, terrorist attacks), but I for one am willing to take that risk and ride this 'Mother-of-all-property-price-waves' like The Big Kahuna!
Dear anonymous,
I prefer you to state your name, especially when it's already requested.
Regarding your comment on "The views and articles expressed here are in many ways taken out of context to masquerade the agendas of folks who are against the en-bloc sale of TV."
I'm here to sell. I'm pro en-bloc. I'm willing to be in the SC. I've approached other agents and lawyers, who are willing to give us better offer. And we do have a better offer than JLL. So I hope that assures you that we are not pro-enbloc.
The blog is to give the 20% who have not been given a proper chance to speak up. Remember, the first meeting and the first letter, bulldozed its way. Residents were shocked. What proof do I have to back up my statement? The almost 25% who dare signed for EOGM.
Regarding your statement of "why don't we channel our energy to ensure that transparency is sought throughout the process of favourably seeing TV thru the en-bloc sale.".
I've approached the current PTSC a few times, JLL a few times, asking questions so we get transparency. Result? All are simply just ignored.
Did I want to call for EOGM? No.
I had no choice. Because my request for an owners meeting, without outsider which have business interest, was turned down.
My suggestion to you is to stop criticising. No one knows the future, so please don't state "wishful thinking".
If you want to discuss privately, just email me at e1_ang@yahoo.com.sg. More than happy to bridge the major miscommunication that is the result of current PTSC approach.
Iwan Ang
Blk 1005, #22-03
Post a Comment