Please read the notes and come back to me with any amendments.
Frances
Further to my orange card regarding sale of the DCC unit.
I think we made a rushed, ill-considered decision when we decided the price to sell A2 to the DCC in the first place. I was very uncomfortable with it at the time, but did not red-card it. I think it has since proven to be a poor decision.
I feel the same discomfort now about cancelling the DCC contract and picking a new purchaser. It feels rushed, ill-considered and like a backroom deal where a couple of people in our group choose a purchaser who will benefit from the sale of a unit at a below-market price. It seems clearly wrong to me.
If we're going to cancel the DCC contract I prefer we have a concrete proposal in front of us, and we have a substantive discussion at a main group meeting. I have been asking for this since the issue came up. Instead, it feels like we are acting as if the decision is already made by seeking a valuation and seeking to talk to one particular prospective buyer.
There are two significant reservations I have about the prospect. Firstly, we can't release the DCC from the contract without the approval of Kiwibank, who hold security over the sale and purchase agreement. They would be looking at an increased counterparty risk. So likely we'd have to leave it until settlement day to cancel the DCC sale and sell to the new party. Who is going to arrange this? It will cost us in legal fees. Why would we bother?
Secondly, I prefer we stick with the concept that buyers choose us, and we don't choose buyers (beyond them understanding cohousing.)
If we do decide to choose a buyer ourselves, I would only agree if there was a fair process. If we really wanted to only sell to a family, it would be more honest to market it with that specified (if that doesn't breach discrimination laws) If we don't want to sell to the highest bidder then to ensure fairness we could market it widely, collect bids and then have a vote in the group as we did for the getting along team.
But again why would we bother? We have enough work to do before settlement without putting another hurdle across the finishing line.
The DCC have told us they will be selling A2. This is what we need to say to people at the induction. To say anything different before we've made a decision, and when there have been orange cards raised about the process, would be dishonest.
Thanks, Alex
On 12/11/20 10:31 pm, Frances Ross wrote:
Please read the notes and come back to me with any amendments.
Frances
Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
We weren't there for this discussion but do we actually have more than one candidate on the waiting list for this kind of unit? Regds roz and michael
From: Ucol-shareholders ucol-shareholders-bounces@list.king.net.nz On Behalf Of Alex King via Ucol-shareholders Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2020 2:13 pm To: ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz Subject: Re: [Ucol-shareholders] Meeting Notes
Further to my orange card regarding sale of the DCC unit.
I think we made a rushed, ill-considered decision when we decided the price to sell A2 to the DCC in the first place. I was very uncomfortable with it at the time, but did not red-card it. I think it has since proven to be a poor decision.
I feel the same discomfort now about cancelling the DCC contract and picking a new purchaser. It feels rushed, ill-considered and like a backroom deal where a couple of people in our group choose a purchaser who will benefit from the sale of a unit at a below-market price. It seems clearly wrong to me.
If we're going to cancel the DCC contract I prefer we have a concrete proposal in front of us, and we have a substantive discussion at a main group meeting. I have been asking for this since the issue came up. Instead, it feels like we are acting as if the decision is already made by seeking a valuation and seeking to talk to one particular prospective buyer.
There are two significant reservations I have about the prospect. Firstly, we can't release the DCC from the contract without the approval of Kiwibank, who hold security over the sale and purchase agreement. They would be looking at an increased counterparty risk. So likely we'd have to leave it until settlement day to cancel the DCC sale and sell to the new party. Who is going to arrange this? It will cost us in legal fees. Why would we bother?
Secondly, I prefer we stick with the concept that buyers choose us, and we don't choose buyers (beyond them understanding cohousing.)
If we do decide to choose a buyer ourselves, I would only agree if there was a fair process. If we really wanted to only sell to a family, it would be more honest to market it with that specified (if that doesn't breach discrimination laws) If we don't want to sell to the highest bidder then to ensure fairness we could market it widely, collect bids and then have a vote in the group as we did for the getting along team.
But again why would we bother? We have enough work to do before settlement without putting another hurdle across the finishing line.
The DCC have told us they will be selling A2. This is what we need to say to people at the induction. To say anything different before we've made a decision, and when there have been orange cards raised about the process, would be dishonest.
Thanks, Alex
On 12/11/20 10:31 pm, Frances Ross wrote:
Please read the notes and come back to me with any amendments.
Frances
_______________________________________________ Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz mailto:Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
Yes - three or possibly four people
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 2:17 PM Roz Wilson michael.rosemary@xtra.co.nz wrote:
We weren’t there for this discussion but do we actually have more than one candidate on the waiting list for this kind of unit? Regds roz and michael
*From:* Ucol-shareholders ucol-shareholders-bounces@list.king.net.nz *On Behalf Of *Alex King via Ucol-shareholders *Sent:* Sunday, 15 November 2020 2:13 pm *To:* ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz *Subject:* Re: [Ucol-shareholders] Meeting Notes
Further to my orange card regarding sale of the DCC unit.
I think we made a rushed, ill-considered decision when we decided the price to sell A2 to the DCC in the first place. I was very uncomfortable with it at the time, but did not red-card it. I think it has since proven to be a poor decision.
I feel the same discomfort now about cancelling the DCC contract and picking a new purchaser. It feels rushed, ill-considered and like a backroom deal where a couple of people in our group choose a purchaser who will benefit from the sale of a unit at a below-market price. It seems clearly wrong to me.
If we're going to cancel the DCC contract I prefer we have a concrete proposal in front of us, and we have a substantive discussion at a main group meeting. I have been asking for this since the issue came up. Instead, it feels like we are acting as if the decision is already made by seeking a valuation and seeking to talk to one particular prospective buyer.
There are two significant reservations I have about the prospect. Firstly, we can't release the DCC from the contract without the approval of Kiwibank, who hold security over the sale and purchase agreement. They would be looking at an increased counterparty risk. So likely we'd have to leave it until settlement day to cancel the DCC sale and sell to the new party. Who is going to arrange this? It will cost us in legal fees. Why would we bother?
Secondly, I prefer we stick with the concept that buyers choose us, and we don't choose buyers (beyond them understanding cohousing.)
If we do decide to choose a buyer ourselves, I would only agree if there was a fair process. If we really wanted to only sell to a family, it would be more honest to market it with that specified (if that doesn't breach discrimination laws) If we don't want to sell to the highest bidder then to ensure fairness we could market it widely, collect bids and then have a vote in the group as we did for the getting along team.
But again why would we bother? We have enough work to do before settlement without putting another hurdle across the finishing line.
The DCC have told us they will be selling A2. This is what we need to say to people at the induction. To say anything different before we've made a decision, and when there have been orange cards raised about the process, would be dishonest.
Thanks, Alex
On 12/11/20 10:31 pm, Frances Ross wrote:
Please read the notes and come back to me with any amendments.
Frances
Ucol-shareholders mailing list
Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz
https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
I think Alex' comments warrant further discussion before the induction meeting on Sunday. Gay Buckingham +64 27 4544012
On 15/11/2020, at 2:13 PM, Alex King via Ucol-shareholders ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz wrote:
Further to my orange card regarding sale of the DCC unit.
I think we made a rushed, ill-considered decision when we decided the price to sell A2 to the DCC in the first place. I was very uncomfortable with it at the time, but did not red-card it. I think it has since proven to be a poor decision.
I don’t remember it being particularly ill-considered. I thought there were a couple of drivers: – the first was that we had originally intended to have two units bought by social housing rpoviders but there were no takers except for DCC. (However DCC have since clearly stated they do not regard themselves as providing social housing.) – secondly, at the time we were keen to get all the units signed up in order to get our Kiwibank loan; – there was a possible third consideration – that the DCC purchase encouraged a perception of viability, not some pie-in-the-sky-hippy-dream, to our mortgagors and the public.
I feel the same discomfort now about cancelling the DCC contract and picking a new purchaser. It feels rushed, ill-considered
I agree we shouldn’t rush this. We have time to do this in a way that satisfies us all.
and like a backroom deal
The original question last Thursday was about reinstating one family’s position on the waiting list.
where a couple of people in our group choose a purchaser who will benefit from the sale of a unit at a below-market price. It seems clearly wrong to me.
This seems a bit of a leap to me. ?? Anne instigated the conversation about placement on the waiting list, Frances (quite properly) declared an interest.
Why would we have to on-sale at below market price? why shouldn’t the whole current cohousing group benefit from this on-sale? It might equip the kitchen, get that fence off our back, provide funds for landscaping.
If we're going to cancel the DCC contract I prefer we have a concrete proposal in front of us, and we have a substantive discussion at a main group meeting.
You are right – it should be on the agenda for the next meeting. We need to discuss options and potential outcomes. “You can’t make a desion in a knowledge vacuum”.
I have been asking for this since the issue came up. Instead, it feels like we are acting as if the decision is already made by seeking a valuation
We need to know its value in order to make any decision (yes, a bit chicken and egg).
and seeking to talk to one particular prospective buyer.
I heard a discussion about reinstating the Denley family on the waiting list which segued into discussion a bout the family structures of those currently on the waiting list and then a failed minute to authorise the Directors to talk to the Denleys about the possible purchase of A2 at market value.
There are two significant reservations I have about the prospect. Firstly, we can't release the DCC from the contract without the approval of Kiwibank, who hold security over the sale and purchase agreement. They would be looking at an increased counterparty risk.
You may be right but given the dramtic rise iin house prices, and the amount subsequently invested over and above the roitginal 20% it may not be issue. (Vacuum: knowledge.)
So likely we'd have to leave it until settlement day to cancel the DCC sale and sell to the new party.
An assumption. (Vacuum: knowledge.)
Who is going to arrange this?
I for one would be happy to do any leg work on this.
It will cost us in legal fees.
Probably but if we sell it for more than original asking price they will be covered. (But would tax be an issue?)
Why would we bother?
If we sell at market value we might furnish our kitchen, purchase plants, invest in lfencing, landscaping materials,
Secondly, I prefer we stick with the concept that buyers choose us, and we don't choose buyers (beyond them understanding cohousing.)
Yes it was great, we have a group of brave, highly commited people as our future neighbours
If we do decide to choose a buyer ourselves, I would only agree if there was a fair process. If we really wanted to only sell to a family, it would be more honest to market it with that specified (if that doesn't breach discrimination laws)
And we can do that
If we don't want to sell to the highest bidder then to ensure fairness we could market it widely, collect bids and then have a vote in the group as we did for the getting along team.
the MMP process worked well for that particular decision but why assume it will be necessary for this? It could be first family in, first served. Or it might be all green cards for a blended family from Ancient Athens, homophobic, Trump-loving with and with no known allergies.
But again why would we bother?
Because we’d like more families in the neighbourhood. Because we want to ‘…establish a cohesive community which fosters…diversity'
We have enough work to do before settlement without putting another hurdle across the finishing line.
I don’t know how we will ever demonstrate our appreciation – actually our affection – for the directors and all the pople who have worked so hard and long on this prioject and from which so many will benefit (honestly not trying to paraphrase Churchhill here) How much work would be involved (decision: vacuum) and could it be done by people like me who have contributed less to date?
The DCC have told us they will be selling A2. This is what we need to say to people at the induction. To say anything different before we've made a decision, and when there have been orange cards raised about the process, would be dishonest.
We can say that is the DCC's stated intention. We can also say DCC may end up not selling it, and it may come back to us and if so we will be selling it at market rate. We could also say there is current discusiion about limiting purchasers to families only. All upfront. “Full disclosure."
Thanks,
Alex
I appreciate you raising this Alex and would really like more discussion before Sunday. Gay
On 12/11/20 10:31 pm, Frances Ross wrote:
Please read the notes and come back to me with any amendments.
Frances
Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz mailto:Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
Sorry, I failed to mention I had addressed Alex'points within the body of the email. G
Gay Buckingham +64 27 4544012
On 17/11/2020, at 6:09 PM, Gay Buckingham gaybuckingham@tuatara.net.nz wrote:
I think Alex' comments warrant further discussion before the induction meeting on Sunday. Gay Buckingham +64 27 4544012
On 15/11/2020, at 2:13 PM, Alex King via Ucol-shareholders <ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz mailto:ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz> wrote:
Further to my orange card regarding sale of the DCC unit.
I think we made a rushed, ill-considered decision when we decided the price to sell A2 to the DCC in the first place. I was very uncomfortable with it at the time, but did not red-card it. I think it has since proven to be a poor decision.
I don’t remember it being particularly ill-considered. I thought there were a couple of drivers: – the first was that we had originally intended to have two units bought by social housing rpoviders but there were no takers except for DCC. (However DCC have since clearly stated they do not regard themselves as providing social housing.) – secondly, at the time we were keen to get all the units signed up in order to get our Kiwibank loan; – there was a possible third consideration – that the DCC purchase encouraged a perception of viability, not some pie-in-the-sky-hippy-dream, to our mortgagors and the public.
I feel the same discomfort now about cancelling the DCC contract and picking a new purchaser. It feels rushed, ill-considered
I agree we shouldn’t rush this. We have time to do this in a way that satisfies us all.
and like a backroom deal
The original question last Thursday was about reinstating one family’s position on the waiting list.
where a couple of people in our group choose a purchaser who will benefit from the sale of a unit at a below-market price. It seems clearly wrong to me.
This seems a bit of a leap to me. ?? Anne instigated the conversation about placement on the waiting list, Frances (quite properly) declared an interest.
Why would we have to on-sale at below market price? why shouldn’t the whole current cohousing group benefit from this on-sale? It might equip the kitchen, get that fence off our back, provide funds for landscaping.
If we're going to cancel the DCC contract I prefer we have a concrete proposal in front of us, and we have a substantive discussion at a main group meeting.
You are right – it should be on the agenda for the next meeting. We need to discuss options and potential outcomes. “You can’t make a desion in a knowledge vacuum”.
I have been asking for this since the issue came up. Instead, it feels like we are acting as if the decision is already made by seeking a valuation
We need to know its value in order to make any decision (yes, a bit chicken and egg).
and seeking to talk to one particular prospective buyer.
I heard a discussion about reinstating the Denley family on the waiting list which segued into discussion a bout the family structures of those currently on the waiting list and then a failed minute to authorise the Directors to talk to the Denleys about the possible purchase of A2 at market value.
There are two significant reservations I have about the prospect. Firstly, we can't release the DCC from the contract without the approval of Kiwibank, who hold security over the sale and purchase agreement. They would be looking at an increased counterparty risk.
You may be right but given the dramtic rise iin house prices, and the amount subsequently invested over and above the roitginal 20% it may not be issue. (Vacuum: knowledge.)
So likely we'd have to leave it until settlement day to cancel the DCC sale and sell to the new party.
An assumption. (Vacuum: knowledge.)
Who is going to arrange this?
I for one would be happy to do any leg work on this.
It will cost us in legal fees.
Probably but if we sell it for more than original asking price they will be covered. (But would tax be an issue?)
Why would we bother?
If we sell at market value we might furnish our kitchen, purchase plants, invest in lfencing, landscaping materials,
Secondly, I prefer we stick with the concept that buyers choose us, and we don't choose buyers (beyond them understanding cohousing.)
Yes it was great, we have a group of brave, highly commited people as our future neighbours
If we do decide to choose a buyer ourselves, I would only agree if there was a fair process. If we really wanted to only sell to a family, it would be more honest to market it with that specified (if that doesn't breach discrimination laws)
And we can do that
If we don't want to sell to the highest bidder then to ensure fairness we could market it widely, collect bids and then have a vote in the group as we did for the getting along team.
the MMP process worked well for that particular decision but why assume it will be necessary for this? It could be first family in, first served. Or it might be all green cards for a blended family from Ancient Athens, homophobic, Trump-loving with and with no known allergies.
But again why would we bother?
Because we’d like more families in the neighbourhood. Because we want to ‘…establish a cohesive community which fosters…diversity'
We have enough work to do before settlement without putting another hurdle across the finishing line.
I don’t know how we will ever demonstrate our appreciation – actually our affection – for the directors and all the pople who have worked so hard and long on this prioject and from which so many will benefit (honestly not trying to paraphrase Churchhill here) How much work would be involved (decision: vacuum) and could it be done by people like me who have contributed less to date?
The DCC have told us they will be selling A2. This is what we need to say to people at the induction. To say anything different before we've made a decision, and when there have been orange cards raised about the process, would be dishonest.
We can say that is the DCC's stated intention. We can also say DCC may end up not selling it, and it may come back to us and if so we will be selling it at market rate. We could also say there is current discusiion about limiting purchasers to families only. All upfront. “Full disclosure."
Thanks,
Alex
I appreciate you raising this Alex and would really like more discussion before Sunday. Gay
On 12/11/20 10:31 pm, Frances Ross wrote:
Please read the notes and come back to me with any amendments.
Frances
Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz mailto:Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz mailto:Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders
ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz
-
Alex King -
Anne Thomson -
Frances Ross -
Gay Buckingham -
Roz Wilson