Hi Rainer and all,
It seems that there are two things that are being confused here: principles and process.
1. Principle: 5% CG. Our agreements to include the 5% CG in our documents, on the advice of Earthsong and after robust discussions and reflections by the group, we included the principle in the Covenant and BC rules. We all signed those agreements.
2. Process: The vehicle for enacting the principle. This is what we are discussing at this point in the project. If we need to change the vehicle, in order to satisfy the banks to get everyone needing a mortgage across the line, then how do we enact the principle? We should not at this point be re-litigating the principle.
I am not sure why you are so angry Rainer, nor do I understand how you think for a moment that I am not acting in best faith for the project in my capacity as director and as cohousing member. I find your inference extremely hurtful and unwarranted.
I concur that what makes cohousing is the people as you will remember from my speech at the sod turning, and importantly how we treat and interact with people. However agreements, like the High St Cohousing Agreement, are written to be clear about our principles for the times when things go sour. That is why the above agreement makes for depressing reading, as it has to try and cover every imaginable thing that could go wrong.
I understand you are trying to find another vehicle for the 5%CG in the table your produced, but I still don’t understand your table as a reflection of the reality for enacting the 5%CG at resale of a unit as an annual levy. I understand the maths but not how it relates to the real world of real estate, as I think the continued 10% annual increase premise is not likely in the Dunedin market. The 5% CG on the house I have just sold after 31 years is approximately $750-$800 per annum, so the suggestion that my unit would require more than $3,000 a year to service that 5%CG ad infinitum makes no sense to me. I think you are saying the same thing.
I think we should find another vehicle for the 5%CG, if we need to. However I am not convinced we are at the stage yet - I know there are others who disagree. The journey of cohousing has always been difficult in terms of interactions with the legal, financial and territorial authorities and I think that we do a disservice to ourselves and those who come later, if we do not stand on our principles in order to get change in the systems that make that journey so difficult, rather than change to fit the system as you suggest. Stephen’s possible solution gives us some more time for such change to happen. That is what he wants to see, as he understands there are a number of new cohousing projects throughout the country in the pipeline.
There are times, when we will need to bend in order to get there, this might be one of them, but we do need not to be afraid to challenge them. We have succeeded in getting the first banking agreement on paper ever, where the liabilities for each of us are for the value of the our individual units and not the entire project. And there are many more instances of such changes throughout the project. Let us celebrate these victories and find ways to work together to get us all into the units as fast as possible and remain with our vision. I think we are on the same page, Rainer, so let’s not lose sight of that.
Warm Greetings to all,
Catherine
Hi Catherine and all
My understanding from the meeting was that Susan suggested to re-order the content of the BC rules and take out the 5% CG.
It is very kind of Stephen Edge to try and find a way so we can settle our construction loan. It would also look bad on his portfolio, if we can’t settle.
If we simplify our BC rules, have no covenant nor a CG clause and still have difficulties with getting mortgages, we can still fall back on Stephen Edges offer. But we have to make it as simple as possible to get mortgages for future buyers as well to attract young families now (A2 and C2 are for sale already).
I like to remind you of Donald’s comment at the meeting, that we are not only building a new cohousing neighbourhood, but that we are also a construction company that has to find a way to finish this project. You might not be able to really hear the concerns of the group.
I hope you can step back from your personal view on the 5%CG clause and focus on your position as a director of the construction company.
My belief is, that covenants and tight rules do Not secure the future of cohousing, it is people who do!
regards Rainer
Please call me if you need an urgent reply.Rainer Beneke
+64 21 144 7700
Hi all,
I received a request for information from Stephen Edge yesterday, and it included the following:
The 5% capital gain contribution is just one piece of the jigsaw. At present because cohousing is different to the norm the bank (and seemingly all the banks) is just saying a blanket no. I haven’t researched the Earthsong loans yet but I suspect each one may have a different story attached.
What we may need is a simplification of the documents that preserves the cohousing ethos (and the 5% capital gain contribution) but is acceptable to the bank(s).
Cheers, Stephen
We may eventually need to remove the 5% CG in order to get enough banks on board to get everyone across the line, but according to our central banker we are not at that point yet.
Can we allow Stephen time to find a solution before we irrevocably change the documents? The process of drafting any possible changes can be worked in parallel, so we are ready, should that be the course of action we need to take, but let us firstly let Stephen’s process run.
Thanks,
Catherine.
_______________________________________________
Ucol-shareholders mailing list
Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nzhttps://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders