http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_631898.html

an enbloc sale almost always leaves some owners unhappy; some simply preferred to stay where they were, even though they might financially lose out, though this is usually a very small minority; others bought their properties at the previous peak of the market, and their enbloc profit is not large enough to make the deal worth their trouble, though this is usually also a small minority; the two more significant groups are (a) those who wanted to hold out for a higher reserved price (b) those who fear (and usually find) that, while they get a good price for their properties, replacement properties have also risen; either factor, and more likely both together, make them feel they are not getting a good deal.

in the Gillman enbloc deal, the portion of unhappy owners was specially large. The collective sale contract was drawn up and received the required percentage approval in the medium phase of the property boom, just before price levels shot up to incredible heights - after Capitaland won the Gillman bid at the then impressive price of $529M, or $360/sqft of built up area, the Farrer Court deal came onto the market, which also went to Capitaland but at $1.3B or $850/sqft of build up area; even though Farrer Court is better located, the difference was hard to swallow, especially as the second deal gave a concrete illustration cnocerning the replacement property level.

In most enbloc sale deals, before the collective contract is approved by the requisite majority, a significant minority wanting a higher price would have already existed and exercised an inlluence on another group who are inclined towards approval though somewhat hesitant to commit; the committee and property agent drawing up the contract, in order to get them to come on board, would try to shift the reserve price upward, often more than once, till it is high enough to overcome the wavering, though hopefully still bearable to the market; this built in mechanism goes some way towards keeping up with the rising market; with Gillman this did not quite happen because NUS (my ex employer) owned a large number of units in the condo for use as staff quarters. In keeping with its non-profit organization characters, NUS did not push for a higher price, probably because it did not wish to be an obstable against the desires of the individual owners that want to sell out. Once NUS came on board, it became relatively easy to obtain the additional signatures to make the deal legally binding. In hind sight, I am sure many of the co-signing owners who were initially grateful for NUS's cooperativeness later wished it has not been so easy going. The minority dissenters, however, then made things worse by trying to legally challenge the sale, unsuccessfully as it turned out; so by the time the deal finally went though and the owners got paid, the replacement property values had rise even more.

Looking back, it is very hard to say what the owners could have done to make things better. they were caught in the "wrong place" as well as "wrong time, and there seemed to have been no real solution to the predictment.