Mockngbrd Supersonic January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 (edited) http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...s-khaw-20130107 but this part he abit daft: "Mr Khaw said that he was originally "baffled" that developers were "short-changing" themselves by launching such massive units, as they could have made more money by using the space for two or three normal-sized apartments. After looking into the matter, he realised that developers were using a loophole in the rules to profit from the super-sized units. Currently, they do not have to pay development charges on outdoor roof terraces, as URA wants to encourage developers to build more communal outdoor space for residents to enjoy. " i no look into the matter i already know liao.... Edited January 7, 2013 by Mockngbrd ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acemundo Supercharged January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 haha you use this animated pic again. later forumers accused you make them giddy haha. anyway, kbw seems to like to censure developers over blogs and interviews but stopped short of making changes to rules and legislation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vextan 1st Gear January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 They really come up with new rules to prevent the developers from abusing the loophole. Otherwise more will follow in the foot step. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enye Hypersonic January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 (edited) from KBW, I understand the statement talk is cheap but housing is not Edited January 7, 2013 by Enye Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha78 6th Gear January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 Same reason why a lot of condo units built in the last 10 years came with useless planter boxes, raised bay window ledges, and open balconies. No development charge, included into the unit's size, and multiply by the per square foot rates, viola! Inflated selling price! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyfitms Twincharged January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 Same reason why a lot of condo units built in the last 10 years came with useless planter boxes, raised bay window ledges, and open balconies. No development charge, included into the unit's size, and multiply by the per square foot rates, viola! Inflated selling price! I believe they have to pay DC. But still cheap compared to land price Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustank Hypersonic January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...s-khaw-20130107 but this part he abit daft: "Mr Khaw said that he was originally "baffled" that developers were "short-changing" themselves by launching such massive units, as they could have made more money by using the space for two or three normal-sized apartments. After looking into the matter, he realised that developers were using a loophole in the rules to profit from the super-sized units. Currently, they do not have to pay development charges on outdoor roof terraces, as URA wants to encourage developers to build more communal outdoor space for residents to enjoy. " i no look into the matter i already know liao.... i guess he going to take away the loop hole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenonWhite 1st Gear January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 i guess he going to take away the loop hole before he can take away the loop hole, we already in the sink hole.. :mellow: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman888 Moderator January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 before he can take away the loop hole, we already in the sink hole.. :mellow: only that few carrot head willing to be chopped! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wt_know Supersonic January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 (edited) so the outdoor roof terraces is sold as "empty" space ?... huat ah !!! Edited January 7, 2013 by Wt_know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustank Hypersonic January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 only that few carrot head willing to be chopped! 姜太公钓鱼願者上钩 explaination: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estrangable 5th Gear January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...s-khaw-20130107 but this part he abit daft: "Mr Khaw said that he was originally "baffled" that developers were "short-changing" themselves by launching such massive units, as they could have made more money by using the space for two or three normal-sized apartments. After looking into the matter, he realised that developers were using a loophole in the rules to profit from the super-sized units. Currently, they do not have to pay development charges on outdoor roof terraces, as URA wants to encourage developers to build more communal outdoor space for residents to enjoy. " i no look into the matter i already know liao.... knn....any tom dick harry also know it's a loophole exploited by developers....knn, he still need to look into the matter to know the truth??? That means he has been living in mars for the last 10 years. Over the last 10 plus years, all the developments come with bloody stupid planter, bay windows and super duper large balcony.....you mean MND need to take so long to realise it? Talk is cheap, how about asking developer to retroactively refund all the money earned from these tricks back to the buyers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman888 Moderator January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 i think that few super EC penthouse owners are happy of their purchase, they won't feel disappointed as they made it to the news and moment of fame! Developers' selling off free spaces to make additional profit for themselves is not improper under current URA rules. But as more developers do so, with larger private roof terraces and PES, communal space in the development that benefits all residents will correspondingly shrink. There is a further downstream problem as some buyers may be disappointed later on, when they find out that these outdoor spaces that they have paid for are not allowed to be covered up or enclosed. I have directed URA to review this policy and have it fixed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustank Hypersonic January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 i think that few super EC penthouse owners are happy of their purchase, they won't feel disappointed as they made it to the news and moment of fame! Developers' selling off free spaces to make additional profit for themselves is not improper under current URA rules. But as more developers do so, with larger private roof terraces and PES, communal space in the development that benefits all residents will correspondingly shrink. There is a further downstream problem as some buyers may be disappointed later on, when they find out that these outdoor spaces that they have paid for are not allowed to be covered up or enclosed. I have directed URA to review this policy and have it fixed. http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...s-khaw-20130107 National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said Monday that he has directed the Urban Redevelopment Agency to tighten the rules on the developers of executive condominium projects to prevent them from launching luxury, super-sized units. -- ST PHOTO: JOYCE FANG National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said Monday that he has directed the Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA) to tighten the rules on the developers of executive condominium (EC) projects to prevent them from launching luxury, super-sized units. These million-dollar ECs, like a 4,349 sq ft "presidential suite" at the recent CityLife @ Tampines development that cost over $2 million, have created understandable public indignation, wrote Mr Khaw on his blog. This is because they are "deviations" from the EC scheme's original mission of providing housing for the sandwiched class - those over the income limit for an HDB flat, but who cannot afford private property. Mr Khaw said that he was originally "baffled" that developers were "short-changing" themselves by launching such massive units, as they could have made more money by using the space for two or three normal-sized apartments. After looking into the matter, he realised that developers were using a loophole in the rules to profit from the super-sized units. Currently, they do not have to pay development charges on outdoor roof terraces, as URA wants to encourage developers to build more communal outdoor space for residents to enjoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cars08 1st Gear January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...s-khaw-20130107 but this part he abit daft: "Mr Khaw said that he was originally "baffled" that developers were "short-changing" themselves by launching such massive units, as they could have made more money by using the space for two or three normal-sized apartments. After looking into the matter, he realised that developers were using a loophole in the rules to profit from the super-sized units. Currently, they do not have to pay development charges on outdoor roof terraces, as URA wants to encourage developers to build more communal outdoor space for residents to enjoy. " i no look into the matter i already know liao.... I am baffled by his reply.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph22 Turbocharged January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 knn....any tom dick harry also know it's a loophole exploited by developers....knn, he still need to look into the matter to know the truth??? That means he has been living in mars for the last 10 years. Over the last 10 plus years, all the developments come with bloody stupid planter, bay windows and super duper large balcony.....you mean MND need to take so long to realise it? Talk is cheap, how about asking developer to retroactively refund all the money earned from these tricks back to the buyers? because he is minister.. he should speak base on real evident instead of just shooting off base on impression mah. (not saying all they say is base on concret evident though ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleknown Clutched January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 Does it mean that communal space intended like roof top garden for all residents is now being incorporated into someone's premium EC flat because their father can pay for it???? My goodness. :angry: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleknown Clutched January 7, 2013 Share January 7, 2013 They really come up with new rules to prevent the developers from abusing the loophole. Otherwise more will follow in the foot step. Plug new loop and claw back the space for this one!! Imagine if you just bought the Tampines EC and you already shortchanged a rooftop garden?? Hope the buyers band together. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
How do the developer integrate old building like Jui Res?
How do the developer integrate old building like Jui Res?
Problems with new condo unit
Problems with new condo unit
Two Indian men hoot on MRT
Two Indian men hoot on MRT
Johore Orang Seletar sue Danga Bay Bay developer, others
Johore Orang Seletar sue Danga Bay Bay developer, others
Ah Tiongs hoot in plane!
Ah Tiongs hoot in plane!
Posting Bad Remarks about Filipinos, Tio hoot
Posting Bad Remarks about Filipinos, Tio hoot
Ipad app developer
Ipad app developer
29yr old husband hoot 39yr old wife with knife
29yr old husband hoot 39yr old wife with knife