Mar 3, 2010
EN BLOC SALES
Allowing one owner to stop majority untenable
MR TAN Keng Ann ('Review law on en bloc sales'; last Saturday) says he cannot treasure his home because the power to sell his home is vested in 80 per cent of his neighbours. He asks for the collective property sale laws to be changed.
Home owners of strata developments own the right to their individual units, and they share ownership of the common areas and facilities with other owners. While individual owners can decide whether and when to sell their units, they will have to go with the wishes of the vast majority of owners for a collective sale.
Shared ownership of common property means the rights of the individual owner have to be balanced against those of the vast majority of owners. The legislation, which sets a high majority consent level of 80 per cent for developments at least 10 years old and 90 per cent for developments less than 10 years old, seeks to strike such a balance.
Mr Tan's point is that any one owner should be able to stop the majority owners' decisions (even if it is 80 to 90 per cent majority). That is not a tenable proposition.
Chong Wan Yieng (Ms)
Head, Corporate Communications
Ministry of Law
[If you read the OP below, one of the point was that en bloc camp had failed, but there's nothing to stop them from trying again soon. Should there be rules as to how often en bloc motions be made? Should there be a "immunity period" of say 2 years after a failed en bloc attempt unless 90% or 80% (whichever is the applicable threshold majority of the residents agree to try again?]
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
EN BLOC SALES
Allowing one owner to stop majority untenable
MR TAN Keng Ann ('Review law on en bloc sales'; last Saturday) says he cannot treasure his home because the power to sell his home is vested in 80 per cent of his neighbours. He asks for the collective property sale laws to be changed.
Home owners of strata developments own the right to their individual units, and they share ownership of the common areas and facilities with other owners. While individual owners can decide whether and when to sell their units, they will have to go with the wishes of the vast majority of owners for a collective sale.
Shared ownership of common property means the rights of the individual owner have to be balanced against those of the vast majority of owners. The legislation, which sets a high majority consent level of 80 per cent for developments at least 10 years old and 90 per cent for developments less than 10 years old, seeks to strike such a balance.
Mr Tan's point is that any one owner should be able to stop the majority owners' decisions (even if it is 80 to 90 per cent majority). That is not a tenable proposition.
Chong Wan Yieng (Ms)
Head, Corporate Communications
Ministry of Law
[If you read the OP below, one of the point was that en bloc camp had failed, but there's nothing to stop them from trying again soon. Should there be rules as to how often en bloc motions be made? Should there be a "immunity period" of say 2 years after a failed en bloc attempt unless 90% or 80% (whichever is the applicable threshold majority of the residents agree to try again?]
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
No comments:
Post a Comment