• Creator
    Topic
  • #10204

    We own and run our business out of one of 80 small factory units in an industrial complex.

    Developers have approached all owners to purchase the entire complex. They plan to rezone and redevelop the site into residential units. They have offered a purchase price per strata unit entitlement. Their offer is approximately 35% more than current market value.

    We are reluctant to sell, even at a 35% markup, because it would cause a great deal of interruption to our business and it would be difficult to locate an equally suitable property.

    In a meeting yesterday, the developers said that it is likely, under the proposed new strata laws, that once 75% of owners agree to sell, the remaining 25% of owners will be forced to also sell.

    Further, they said that only the first 75% of owners to accept their offer will receive the premium price. Any owners who resist the sale and fall into the remaining 25% would then only receive current market price, which would be determined by a valuer.

    We would be keen to vote against the sale. But we may need to accept their offer if resisting means we are ultimately forced out regardless and then forced to accept a sale price of only market value.

    If we do resist but eventually are forced to sell under the new laws, shouldn’t we be entitled to the same sale price per unit entitlement as all others in the complex?

    Thank you!

Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #24109
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    @obmik said:

    [The developers] said that only the first 75% of owners to accept their offer will receive the premium price. Any owners who resist the sale and fall into the remaining 25% would then only receive current market price, which would be determined by a valuer.

    The developers are either misinformed or they are lying and are clearly trying to bully you (and feel free to tell them I said that).

    If the law goes through it its current form, you will not only be able to go and find competing offers but, if it is a “knock down and build” option, every owner will be entitled to their share of the overall sales price divided according to unit entitlements, regardless of whether they accepted the offer.

    So ask the developers why they aren’t telling the truth and ask them what else they are being dishonest about.  Then tell them you might consider an offer that has a premium to compensate for relocation expenses.

    If the law does come into force next July, as planned, there is a three-month (minimum) process at the end of which it all has to be approved by the Land and Environment Court.  The LEC will also be empowered to consider cases where dissenting owners can be compensated above and beyond the basic payment, presumably, for instance, for emotional reasons or for exceptional costs of relocation.

    The “market value” option only happens when the existing building is renewed and possibly extended and some owners may want to move back in.

    Have a look at THIS ARTICLE that I wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald which spells out the whole process. And tell these shonks to take a hike and come back when they’ve got their facts straight.

Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.