Sunday, January 18, 2009

CROYDON VINEYARD ESTATE HOME-OWNERS

This blog is set up for owners to debate the issue of severe penalties about to be levied on those of us who have not commenced building within 3 years of first transfer.

Ivan van der Merwe has initiated this blog and can be contacted at ivan@matchmakers.za.com
or 021 852 8160.

Background

During 2009 penalty levies will start being applied and this means that about 173 out of the 205 owners, i.e. 84% (it could be somewhat less) will be put under pressure to commence building by a penalty of R1 015,00 per month, i.e. they will be paying R2 030,00 per month. The total penalty will be more than R2 million per annum. This money is not required to run the home owners association as it is fully funded by existing levies.

At the 2008 AGM in December last year, a proposal was accepted that a Special General Meeting be held to decide whether penalty levies should stay as they are or whether another proposal should be accepted. The Trustees then submitted two alternative draft proposals for owners to comment on:

Proposal 1 effectively means that the penalty will remain payable, but owners will only have to pay it 12 months later, i.e. you will get an account for a lump sum of R12 000,00+, in addition to your normal levy. This lump sum will be due immediately at the end of your fourth year, i.e. during 2010 for most of us.

Proposal 2 effectively means that the period to start building will be amended to 4 years, i.e. 2010 for most owners. Penalties will commence from your fourth year, i.e. during 2010 for most of us.

I have written to the manager to propose a third option, i.e. that the period to start building be amended to 5 years, i.e. 2011 for most owners. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, this was the proposal made by me at the AGM after the chairman asked me to make a specific proposal for a special general meeting and, secondly, I explained to the AGM that this recession, at least as far as property economics are concerned, is at least a two-year phenomenon.

I discussed the principle of penalty levies for delayed building with the municipality and I was interested to learn that they do not apply this at all for municipal developments. The municipality’s only interest in our affairs is to have a copy of our amended constitution.

The arguments

At the AGM Members for the penalty waiver made the following points:
  1. One owner said that he purchased for investment purposes and the current economic climate was not foreseen at the time.
  2. He further stated that he feels let down by the developer as he was not aware at the time that an opposition estate would be erected on the adjacent property by the same developer.
  3. The current economic slump was not anticipated and many owners are sitting with a 3-year investment that has not as yet shown any growth.
  4. A penalty levy will scare away possible investors.
  5. Penalty levies would result in more foreclosures.

Members against the penalty waiver were of the following opinions:

1. It would be unfair to the members who have already gone to the expense of building.
2. The plots and houses on the estate will have a higher value if more properties are built.

Additional arguments by Ivan van der Merwe:

  1. We all want our property values to grow, but nobody can fight against the thunder of a severe economic slump. The main economic slump factors first need to change before values will start growing again. The simple act of penalising owners will not do it.
  2. An economic downturn is usually a good thing as it shakes out those who have undertaken unsustainable ventures. But this shake-out should preferably happen in an orderly way, i.e. not through foreclosures which just give the development a bad name. Already we have about 10% of owners who are in arrears with their levies. A doubling in levies could push this to 30% in the current climate. Do we want to bring more hardship to people who already battle the effects of the slowing economy?
  3. The argument that “it would be unfair to the members who have already gone to the expense of building,” seems to assume that these members actually decided to build because they feared the penalty levy. Surely they did not make a R700 000-plus investment purely to avoid paying R1000 per month for a while?
  4. The second pro-penalty argument is “the plots and houses on the estate will have a higher value if more properties are built.” This cannot be accepted at face value. A few more houses in this economic climate is not going to make much difference at all to values. Only the return of strong economic growth and lower interest rates will do that.
  5. The implementation of the penalty will cause an initial slump in Croydon erf prices as cash strapped owners sell to avoid the penalty. This will only serve to delay the upswing in the micro economy of Croydon.
  6. The sudden proliferation of new developments around Croydon has created an oversupply in the area which adds to the difficulty speculative owners has to sell their plots. This mitigates further against the penalty.
  7. If the principle of democratic majority means anything then the penalising of 84% of owners in favour of a small minority would be unfair.
  8. The estate is still regarded as “in the development period”. This tells its own story about how immature the development still is.
  9. There is nothing wrong with being a speculative/investment owner. I estimate that the greater part of the developer’s profit was brought to him by investment buyers.

Other issues

  1. I wonder if the trustees have considered the tax implications? If the association makes a R2m profit how much is SARS going to take? This will be a total loss.
  2. The developer wrote the initial constitution to maintain very tight control over the development, and that is understandable. It is probably time now to get the constitution into a more normal form, i.e. 51% attendance at an AGM is too high. And so is the 75% majority needed to change the constitution. I suggest something like 30% attendance and two-thirds majority respectively.
  3. Having said this, the developer has been magnanimous in agreeing to vote with the majority of owners. He also pays levies on his 14 remaining plots although he does not need to.

11 comments:

  1. A few requests to owners:
    1. Please ensure, as far as you can, that all owners get to see this blog;
    2. Owners who will not be able to attend the Special General Meeting where this issue will be decided should please ensure that they appoint a proxy. Proxy forms should be provided to everybody by the secretary of the Trustees.
    3. I live in Somerset West and I will be prepared to act as proxy for any owner.
    Ivan van der Merwe Tel. 021 852 8160 ivan@matchmakers.za.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Ivan, I totally agree with the arguments you've put forward and will appreciate it if you could act as proxy for me as I live in Pretoria.

    Could you please help to clarify:
    1. Do you know whether proxy forms will still be made available or do I need to request a proxy form from the Secretary of the Trustees

    2. I understood that the "Annexure A" or " Annexure B" forms were only for information and that the final proposal and options to vote for will still be forwarded to the members. Is that correct?

    Marina Pretorius Erf 1359

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Everyone

    Ivan - Thanks for setting this up. I am in full support of your notion and agree with your comments and arguments. I have submitted a proposal that the Penalty Levy be waivered totally. I agree with you that we have put money down in good faith, and have been let down by numerous parties in the re-selling of the properties.

    I have spoken to Corius rearding the proxies. I also requested whether a non-owner can be nominated as a proxy The feedback is that they will send out a notification for the SGM with the necessary proxy form attached, as well as the "procedure" in nominating a proxy.

    Thanks
    Johan (erf 1349)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi,
    thank you for taking the initiative.
    We shouldn't be penalized for circumstances beyond our control, especially the negative impact of the Olive Estate.
    The current levies are already overrecovering the estate expenses.
    In Europe consumer councils are extemely effective; let's stand together and get pro-active instead of sticking our head in the sand using the phrase: but What can I do??

    We now have an opportunity to avoid the unnecessary penelties.
    Please proceed with the necessary.

    Wolfgang(erf 1363)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comment received from Pierre Le Riche by email:

    Hi Ivan

    I read your well written blog and I think that most of the owners have the same issues.

    We are particularly upset about the greedy developers who are marketing plots on the

    Olive Estate at the same prices that we paid for our plots 3 years ago.

    We cannot even sell ours for 60% of the purchase price.

    We are totally in favour of extending the building time limit to 5 years.

    I am also willing to act as proxy for any owner .

    Best regards
    Pierre Le Riche – Owner of Erf 1467

    ReplyDelete
  6. I also agree with the arguments put forward in the above blog. I want to stress that building more houses while there is no market for them will make no difference in this economic climate.

    I also agree that at this point in time you cannot sell the property for the value you bought it at. The fact that Olive Estate is selling at similar or even lower values does not help and I would move to see that Vineyard Estate's penalty clause should only kick in when the Olive Estate's 3 year period expires.

    If however a penalty is levied and there is a huge surplus in funds, I would want to see these funds be used to launch a proper marketing campaign for the estate in order to attract international attention.

    Johann Groenewald (erf1471)
    johann@tracks4africa.co.za

    ReplyDelete
  7. i have requested coruis to send an e mail to all owners with ivans e mail address as everybody are not so adept in registering and corresponding on the blog

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Ivan,

    I do not want to wish anyone ill or cause anyone to suffer in paying additional levies yet we all knew what we agreed to when buying the individul plots.You advance a compelling argument however not all what you say can be taken as fact as your statements in tone suggest.In paricular, I believe that values will rise as more homes are build due to the increased activities, corresponding exposure and the principle of supply and demand.(more build up plots, less unbuild plots on the market.) Also, it is not condusive to tranquil estate living to allow building activities to continue beyond a reasonable period. Not everything is measured in money terms.

    To attribute our woes to the "greed" of developers also are too convenient especially if we want to use our involvement as "speculants" as an excuse to becry our lack of research into what was to happen with the surrounding property. I for one hold the developers in high regard and believe this estate to be of the highest order. Tthey have been transparent all the way and again, we may one day rejoice in the existance of a high quality neighbouring estate instead of a possible alternative.

    Additional levies will increase the current income and may allow Croydon to creatively spend money to the benefit of us all. Simple economics dictate that it will not be a total loss as is expressed in this blog as, even with no additional expenditure, we do not have, thankfully, a 100% tax margin.

    Once we amend the constitution and the voting percentages and so on, we open pandorras box and pave the way for future amendments. I have built on my plot and do not suffer from the syndrome so prevalent today, "to make anyone suffer as I did!". I just believe that a fully built up estate as soon as possible will benefit us all. Can we not stick to our original agreement or at worse let those who have cash flow concerns prevail themselves of the 12 month extension for payment?

    I wish you all well and hope to live amongst you as a neighbour in times to come. Hopefully, we will, contrary to what appears to be the norm in our sometimes troubled country, not be intolerant to views that differ from our own. I submit my 2 cents worth in this spirit.

    Kind regards,
    Michael Kruger.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear fellow home/plot owners,

    Ivan, thank you for starting this blog through which we now have a means of communicating with each other. What a pity the developers never distributed the details of this site prior to the special meeting. In the minutes of this meeting the developer stated that the details of this blog site were distributed to all members prior to the meeting. However,today 5th May, was the first time I received an E-mail from them with the blog's address.
    I wrote to the developers on 13th January requesting them to extend the building period by a further three years.This was obviously ignored together with my argument that the present global financial crisis has brought about such a drastic change in the property market that one may not expect to be able to sell his plot at a reasonable profit.
    I also feel that the developers have failed in their duty to inform me prior to my purchase that they intended to develop a similar project adjacent to the Vineyard Estate. While they still have a significant amount of erven for sale at the Olive Estate one can expect that there is very little chance to resell plots at the Vineyard Estate at a reasonable profit or even at cost.
    Unfortunately I could not attend the special meeting as I was on holiday at the time.
    I am all in favour of calling our own Special General Meeting in the near future with the objective to change the respective building clause in the constitution

    Kind regards
    Charles Slijpen
    Plot 1540

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear fellow home / plot owners,

    I also want to thank Ivan for his initiative in starting this blog and possibly the process to let true democracy take its course.

    You see, I still believe that the majority should rule. Not to say that the minority should always suffer, but it makes no sense that in our modern era of democracy that so many (the plot owners) can be held ransom by so few (the developer). I do recognise the fact that we all bought plots for different reasons. Unfortunately it seems that the majority bought plots to speculate and are now not able to offload those plots in the current market conditions. Surely sanity should prevail- it makes no sense to incur building costs of (say) R1.5 million with an installment of R18,000 per month(that is to say if the bank will lend me the money)and not even know if I will find a tenant to live in the house. Don't people know that house prices are going down while building costs go up!

    As a last thought I just want to comment on the possibility of not succeeding to have the constitution changed and the double levies removed: think on the bright side: in a year from now when we have a general home-owners meeting again we are going to sit with a very healthy bank balance! Nothing stops us from reducing the normal levies to Zero! My understanding is that the penalty levy is twice the normal levy - so as an accountant I can asure you that 2 times Zero is still Zero!

    See you at the meeting.

    Regards

    Johann Pheiffer
    Plot 1537

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Andre Botes (home owner)

    Ref:Your open letter dated 8-6-09

    I am writing to you as an erf owner and use this blog site to reply to your open letter which was distributed by the developer and in which you undemocratically indicated that anybody not favouring your opinion did not need to reply to you. Hence, I reply to your letter via this route.

    In your letter you state:
    To live on the estate is really a privilege and a unique way of life.

    I do believe that is exactly the reason why all of us have invested into this development.I presently live on another wine estate which is now fully developed and the lifestyle is superb.

    You generally express your concern about the negativity that is presently being created around the issue of the double levies and are worried about your investment risk as a home owner, which you say is larger than that of an erf owner.
    You further query why you and other homeowners should have to live on a construction site for another 2-3 years just because of the situation that some investors find themselves in.

    I ask myself are you referring to those erf owners that would like to build but can not sell their present home first ?
    Let's face the facts: We are presently living in a very serious economic crisis and according to experts it will take at least another 2-3 years for the housing/building market to come to life again.

    You feel that the developer deserves credit for his role in the development so far.

    I could not agree with you more. But it is high time that the developer starts taking RESPONSIBILITY for the future of the estate and look after your,mine and other peoples investment. This double levy will not improve the rate of building. If anything, it will slow it down even further. It will put off investors and increase the negativity about our "wonderfull" estate to such an extent that all our investments will really be at a serious risk.

    All the other points that you mentioned in your letter such as "get rid of the developer" will in my opinion completely disappear if the developer on his own initiative immediately extends the building period by a further 3 years without another controversial special general meeting. He can do this by using his majority vote as he has done on his previous development in Hout Bay (Kenrock Estate).

    Regards

    Charles Slijpen
    Erf 1540

    ReplyDelete