On top of that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, more statistics are needed and more questions need to be asked. With the law’s unyielding purposiveness and the two rounds of market frenzies in 1999 (39 sites of $2.5bn en bloc value) and 2006-07 (188 sites of $21.5bn en bloc value), have we achieved our national agenda of HIGHER LAND-USE INTENSITY now that the STATISTICS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT WE HAVE INDEED WILLY-NILLY LEFT OUR OWN PEOPLE BEHIND??? Example: Based on the 2006-07 en bloc frenzy with lag effects of completion into 2009, from 1 Jan 2006 up to a cut-off date (say, 1 Jul 2009):
(a) What is the number of estates that were (i) issued with Strata Titles Boards’ collective sale orders and/or (ii) registered with Singapore Land Authority for collective sale?
(b) Based on (a), what are the estate numbers by en bloc age-bands after taking away the youngest 10% and the oldest 10% of such estates?
(c) What is the aggregate number of units that (i) have been or (ii) will be demolished after sale?
(d) What is the aggregate strata title area that (i) have been or (ii) will be demolished after sale?
(e) Out of (c)(i) - Regardless of application/construction/completion stage, what is the aggregate number of units that (i) have been or (ii) will likely be made available upon redevelopment? [Also, what are the aggregate number of sites and aggregate number of old units where demolition has been completed but there are no plans to redevelop (ie, vacant land will be held in developer-buyer’s land bank)?]
(f) Out of (d)(i) - Regardless of application/construction/completion stage, what is the aggregate strata title area that (i) have been or (ii) will likely be made available upon redevelopment?
(g) Out of (d)(i) - Regardless of application/construction/completion stage, what is the aggregate net saleable area that (i) have been or (ii) will likely be made available upon redevelopment?
(h) Could land-use intensity be even higher and at the same time improving spatial, light and ventilation factors if more thought and calibration went into “managing” this once-in-a-long-while Singapore Make-over opportunity? How? Perhaps, by incentivising plot amalgamations and thus avoid an explosion of cheek-by-jowl redevelopments with wastage of peripheral set-back boundaries?
(i) Could asset bubbles in property market be minimized if more imagination and creativity were injected into “managing” the triple-whammy impact of en blocs (viz, sudden contraction of housing supply with immediately matching spike in housing demand, exacerbated by keener competition for construction resources with consequent price spiral on all fronts)? How? Maybe, by taking a leaf from “management of road usage through COE (Certificate of Entitlement) quotas and bids” and introducing equivalent en bloc quota/bidding by geographic region and housing type? Minimizing asset bubbles would entail some back-tracking from pro-cyclical government policies to date in the push towards a World Class Global City!
Sorry if I'm giving some government agency a Bad Hair Day!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment