Re: How the Left fluffed the forced sales laws

@Whale said:
I can’t conceive of any situation where Aunty Mabel could be forced out of her Unit if she genuinely objects. I must say though, that in addition to the unit entitlement “bias” that is incorporated, I think that one favouring votes by Resident Owners over Absentee/Investor Owners would have been worthwhile.

Sadly, I can see that scenario, especially in a building where there is a very high percentage of investors who all stand to make a lot of dough.

But fundamentally, Whale is right.  There is no simple path to renewal (as I also explained HERE, if you feel you need a second opinion) and there is the final say at the Land & Environment Court.

However, call me cynical but if every other owner wants to sell and Auntie Mabel is the one hold-out, the LEC, which in the past has had a tendency to be pro-developer, is only going to shove a few extra bucks in her apron pocket, not cancel the whole sale.

I would say the schemes most at risk are those

• with higher than average ownership by investors (60% or more)
• on prime real estate with views and/or close to beaches or city centres
• with serious maintenance problems
• in an area that allows a much bigger envelope and build height
• with no sense of community (to fight the intruder)

If your block ticks three or more of the above boxes, you could be in a developer’s sights already. 

It may surprise some people but I am in favour of the concept of urban renewal but for me there are three elements missing.

1. No “community benefit” test to make sure you aren’t getting fewer but more expensive apartment on the same plot.

2. No sliding scale that allows a lower threshhold of approval (to a 75% minimum) for older buildings, and a higher required vote for newer ones.

3. No weighting of votes for owner-occupiers over investors.  The latter are, by definition, in it for the money.  Why would investors care if Auntie Mabel’ family home gets between them and a bucket of money?