Saturday, April 17, 2010

Template For Western Party Invitation

not buying a call Cooperative

or how can one sell something one does not hear that manages only

On the difference between advertising, consultancy, and reality on more than ten years, I will not lose many words that I had at that time have been thoroughly informed. One of deceit, it was at least. Today, I consider it a fraud. There was no offer on the street, not a surprise home visit. It was in the offices of Heimbau. After ten years you get the chance to buy the house before buying, do they in any case. When asked which of the 10 years Rent (more precisely, annuities) will be counted, I heard that the arbitration board decides more tenant-friendly, so about 70%. First there was no request necessary: on a book written offer was a refund of the speech, as part of the rent. Would not have been thinking along. Of the two purchase options then today nothing remains. Once with, once without rental right.
During the procedure, the original sound of the man even at the oral hearing, the cooperative: "Whether renting or buying cooperative, there is no difference. Whether used as a decision of the arbitration or as today in the market, also no difference. The purchase offer do they have to, but there will be no further offer, they do not sell. "A right of preemption that is, one does not accept the offer that is only on paper.
That one to come at all to enjoy a purchase option in the first five (or three years until recently) to pay off most of the basic costs must, as no harmful effects on the rent, no answer, no explanation . A not so surprising phone call the evening before a local meeting so that it above all others at no dispute between me and the property management is what was already impossible that he could not know because I was not at the level of health.
What has kept the cooperative of the promised purchase offer, it has, among other things expressed that the two of them to come to the hearing, not even with a power of attorney had. Of the hearing itself is not much to say, as the Magister Magister, which had to be emphasized because of the conference leaders, the once suppressed, has repeatedly above all, a word often - that has to do with the matter - or he stiffened to think beyond what the law allowed him, all wiped away. It was very cumbersome and slow, as I had at that time already lost the desire for a reply letter a week earlier by the politics of this country. As for the accompanying person had for tasks that I do not know whether only surface or watchdogs, no idea.
Therefore, despite offering a retirement omission of an abort procedure.

Summary Remarks:
If you do not buy the apartment, one has at the end of the loan paid for the apartment for about three quarter itself, and thereafter may, or should it, or do it, pay more rent. regulated at the moment though, is a bit cheaper, but one wonders, why? After full repayment of the debt may not exceed the rent 70% of the Burgenland benchmark, which would be at least about three-quarters of the rent today. You buy an apartment so the cooperative, the € zero equity in the home connected, and is composed of a uncertainty, because who knows if the cooperative wants to sell the house once and you then can not afford them (pay for everything once again what you have already paid for?), which benefits then the right of preemption. Or if the cooperative sells the settlement as a whole. A look beyond the boundaries showed what is possible. The housing subsidy should be paid after twenty years of the cooperative, which is well regulated, because at that time a tenant can do more to apply for a purchase. If you buy, you pay back only 90% of production, but sales in this remaining 10% must be paid until at that magical border, twenty years after construction starts.
The arbitration board totally ignored the zero equity € version, does not mention one of the sales proceeds. The commentary to the procedural guide was all well spoken and clearly enough, but without consequences.
What surprised me was the ignorance with respect to my comments. My calculation examples, no matter, not even a calculation error (a number not taken very well) have noticed did not matter if it is at once someone has taken a closer look? As if there only to and is pushed in, who sent now slightly modified standard texts. Explanations to the citizens, so are the laws, take this back and ask no questions, statements, it will not happen.
course, one could say they do not make the laws, they just check whether it is legal. No one was unfriendly to the contrary. But why
retroactively. Why not now and everything before or after the date of the contract signed laws.
a more than questionable opinions of the MA 69, made randomly for an apartment renovation by us and completely indifferent to all accounts, not a closer look in this direction, what would a few weeks later, was already different. So perhaps a little appreciation even paid (parquet floor instead of unhealthy dust eaters and Illness) because it is a little higher than the offer of Heimbau. No interest in mold problem, which now have the Heimbau against his better as I learn from the repairs, at the end of this process has been recognized as a construction challenge and accepts all previously deported on the tenant. That is, to put it more clearly, since the problems occurred in many homes, not only in this village: the Heimbau lives in complete indifference to the tenants in terms of human health.
imagine after this hearing the offer, the affected area in the apartment. Very professionally, after years of problem!

quote from the Government, Office Business Group, Housing and Urban Renewal:
"The city of Vienna has been going into effect of the Viennese Housing Promotion and Housing Rehabilitation Act in 1989, assuming that the later property acquired tenant is not primarily because of tax cost benefits can be made cheaper than the affected property would be as been owned apartment after the date of promotion assurance provisions promoted and purchased.
For these reasons, was also repeatedly pointed out that the law you quoted from the early 90's, namely that the rental payments may be credited in part to the purchase price of social Marksmanship mangle.
Since the non-profit building associations (cooperatives), the interest benefit from the sale of residential units achieved revenue back into the social housing must be made available, one can not expect that co-winners of the current legal regulations are, but the apartment-seeking people of Vienna .
I urge you to understand the current approach, as would otherwise occur during subsequent acquisition of property a preference that is not seen to explain distribution of social and political. "
are the words from the town of Vienna. Each man gets a wake of laughter if he has to read such words. Examples of what is possible when you have the necessary relationships, this is no place here. And not the issue. From
cost recovery basis to the state today, fixed price offer, is a long way. Should
in this settlement in which I do not live at least one of the co € equity put or do I naively something wrong?
has seen that person at all, provided that I have questioned the sale proceeds? The housing assistance pay back, so I was living, and interest I have really paid enough and should I do if I jump up already on this track, the potential savings in interest rates now have to pay the Heimbau? That since the developers do not cry privately financed apartments, is surprising. Sun einzustreifen profits without risk, here is a good lobby needed.
What is a Cooperative?
Why there are cooperatives?
Is it logical and fair to evaluate the financial contribution?
access would be if the financial contribution is enhanced when purchased by the same percentage as the value of housing in these years has increased.
not only meet, but logical and right, everything else is stupid and wrong and would be punished in the school with a non-Fair.
Who was so crazy here want to make comparisons between privately financed apartments and cooperatives.
Again, if you will today lay the full price, then you pay in each case more than a free-funded apartment.
In a privately financed housing but once you learn what is required, and the quality of housing is likely to be something better.
The tax office would also look different, after all, we must settle the monthly payments from the tax.
This has nothing to do with unions.
But again, what that says what the Government is coming? So that there is no advantage of the sale proceeds is necessary (so the reality of this non-profit cooperative, because of that profit tax advantages), which the buyer of this apartment the co-pays so that they can re-invest in housing subsidized create, must, must make profits but here it! Tax benefits are to be prevented, serve the social accuracy must take a look at the public housing would be sufficient and socially target the city of Vienna awarded her apartment. As if not paying any wage-related housing support posts, and not a little, and then comes as a city administration and prevent that once in a life like this is something really well. What speaks against it. Or get home builder does not provide any funding they once really mature? Or further: what happens if the tenant of the apartment is not nearly own the buyer is? The cooperative lane, a promotion and work with it and it should not be a competitive advantage that will be better if a large Ges.mbH get paid to promote? Very social. Again, what a director has said this out loud: "We do not sell." In order to earn good.

illogical and wrong:
"Until now at the nonprofit housing cost recovery basis. But now, the cooperatives must collect as much as someone who built privately financed apartments and pays out of pocket. Nevertheless, there is also the co-housing subsidies. "(From consumers)
In my case, zero equity of € cooperative.
How can you compare this to privately financed apartments. Or provide the purchaser of such a grant and a construction cost in the direction of almost a third in value of the home, not knowing how the story ends?
"is just in another place that you can make objections to the fixed price only on grounds of manifest inadequacy. But what is "manifestly unreasonable"? This is only the case when the fixed price exceeds the price of privately financed similar objects. "(From consumers)
If one learns only after ten years the price, how can you compare this market-financed housing in general. That's nonsense. It is with great words, but in the Contract has been locked.
"With a stroke of the pen, the legislature has made these old contracts destroyed, so no trace of legal certainty." (From consumers)
Nevertheless, the legislature has at a stroke for no idea how many people made a plan broken.

How many thousands of euros have been spent unnecessarily so, I can now say no, since some is still to come.
The quality of the house talking loudly? The house rules are
not. Other tenants are already sitting at the executive committee, to comment only, which does not care which one is only important that one pays a monthly basis. Unnecessarily increased operating costs, clearing out at the expense all, vandalism, a coming and going, additional expenses to the detriment of all, we believe in a feed phase of a new house to live, Sunday closing a foreign word, loud, very loud, at any time day or night.
The house next door has half the fees of the parking garage. What must be funny to see because it's the same garage. This house here, not even half used. But the cooperative do not care to pay, before all. I'll be watching, just that gentleman said in that one house meeting (only this time they were seen, as no one else comes despite invitation) - but does he not in his office, he has something to say?

A few fragments, which can be left alone is the one gets no satisfactory answer, it is so, and point

The credit terms, then I would have bought it, there would have been the next three years, a fixed rate, at least 5.8%, which seems very high. With immediate payment of the loan balance would have been a penalty due, the amount of the prime rate at that time, four percent. The bank deserves to be mentioned: First Bank. paid
That one in the first ten years has almost entirely interest, must not mention extra man. The penalty that would have meant that there would have been in the past ten years almost no repayment.
wanted to buy one of the tenants have been told they must the credit for five years run! What is that to the cooperative, which has it?
also interesting and worth mentioning in case of purchase of payment that is four times greater reserves of continued normal tenant. Explanation? Not applicable.
also somewhat higher administrative costs. Again, no explanation. And why?


which is not in evidence:
. "Staying at home is finally
Housing is a basic need of people living
to stay, feeling good, it is our strength to attend to
these human-related tasks.."
Quote Heimbau

0 comments:

Post a Comment