[sgbuffett]

Sers is indeed a lottery, as described by the many. Let me reiterate that being selected for Sers in the bygone days was like striking a lottery that was guaranteed to bring lots of rehousing benefits to the lucky home owners, something the generaity of HDB dwellers had wished for.
 
Sers today is still a lottery - for better or for worse. It now comes with a caveat: that there’s no guarantee of the lavishly generous benefits that past Sers owners had enjoyed. In the worst-case scenario, an owner is required to cough up a whopping $160,000 for a replacement flat of similar type, but even then, it’s situated on a site much further away from an MRT station than his current unit undergoing Sers. That’s what an unhappy AMK resident had experienced. And he isn’t the only one dissatisfied with the rehousing options offered by the Housing Board.
 
Getting a raw deal in future Sers schemes may become a common occurrence as an inflationary spiral of price increases - ranging from wage, building supplies, costlier land - and diminishing lease hit home owners. It’s not realistic to expect win-win deals perpetually, and especially in times like this. In life good things don’t last forever, and vice versa.
 
My pal had reasonable expectations of clinching a reasonably good ‘deal’ when he went to the HDB Hub the other day for his scheduled Collector Inquiry. The site of the replacement apartment buildings for affected Marsiling residents is just a couple of minutes’ walk to the Marsiling MRT station, and fronts Marsiling Park. The flats are slated to be built by 2027.
 
He intends to ‘downgrade’ from his current high-floor 5-rm unit to a brand-new mid-floor 5-rm apartment, and was told by an officer attending to him that he will receive $20K over and above other monetary benefits amounting to some $27K. It’s a done deal as far as he’s concerned, and he has up to April next year to ink the deal. He left the Hub a happy man, and appreciated the reasonableness of the HDB’s offering.

If it is a lottery and people can lose.
Scheme should be scrapped.

These are homes and lives of people not some city planners Lego blocks to move around.

Like I said it is morally wrong not to allow people to vote and have a choice whether to go ahead.

[pinkpanther]

How about those who bought the flat on resale recently and now told to move? Sway!

[Lukongsimi]

If your flat is eyed for enblock u won't get to vote as its a good convenient place for building new BTO flats for new buyers
You will be given a choice of new relocated 50 or 99 lease new flat which is smaller no dustbin inside flat
Door face door
Some just take it since new flat 
some hate it as its not near mrt

[S I M T A N]

If it is a lottery and people can lose.
Scheme should be scrapped.

These are homes and lives of people not some city planners Lego blocks to move around.

Like I said it is morally wrong not to allow people to vote and have a choice whether to go ahead.

The city planners do not carry out infrastructural developments on a whim and inconveniencing residents in the process. The do a lot of research and careful planning before performing compulsory land acquisition for public development and for the beautification of the city.

A case in point is the upcoming expansion of the Woodlands Checkpoint - which has affected a part of the Marsiling area - to meet a projected rapid growth in vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the coming decades.
 
Ysh02 commented in this thread that in LKY’s time, “kampong law” was used to acquire lands for infrastructure developments. It was non-negotiable and no talks would be entertained. The decision to call in the bulldozers was, to all intents and purposes, the seizure of everyday folks’ lands.
 
Today, the authorities have had some success in democratizing land acquisition, having been responsive to the concerns of affected owners. The Act mandates that compensation offered to the affected families is appropriately assessed, fair and equal to the market value of their property.
 
Many affected AMK residents did not think the compensations offered to them were fair. Well, it’s just too bad they’re victims of changing circumstances, and undergoing Sers at a disadvantageous time. The factors contributing to their plights have already been pointed out - no need to repeat. It’s good that the housing top brass have come up with the idea of a shorter 50-year lease to those unable to afford to top up dough for similar-sized replacement units. The new options will be advantageous to them.

[A2Z]

How does HDB arrived at 50 years? Why not 60years or any other numbers. show all the 'amortisation/depreciation' table.

[p1acebo]

If it is a lottery and people can lose.
Scheme should be scrapped.

These are homes and lives of people not some city planners Lego blocks to move around.

Like I said it is morally wrong not to allow people to vote and have a choice whether to go ahead.

You totally have no say, let alone vote during the early days when the Land Acquisition Act was high and mighty.

[p1acebo]

Good thing the rest of Singapore outnumber the voting pig farmers then.  No brainer where the latter disgruntled group’s votes went to during GE.

[sgbuffett]

You totally have no say, let alone vote during the early days when the Land Acquisition Act was high and mighty.

True....with SERS Singaporeans have no say...they can just force 

This type of forcing is not allowed elsewhere.

My suggestion is to change this to allow residents to vote.

I think it would be fairer.

The govt now is not like 50yrs ago. 
It has the resources to offer a fair deal.

Also, since it can usually make much more by redeveloping the place with a higher plot ratio, they will gain.

[talky]

What you say is wrong.

Lawrence Wong already explained only a small minority of flat will get SERS majority will be left standing until lease ends.

SERS is not meant to solve problem of decaying flats as 95% will not undergo SERS.

Flats have to be properly maintained so they look okay and last to the end.

every 5 yrs hdb or tc will repaint the  exterior of the whole flat

[mikotan]

SERS bad for old folks who prefer to stay put during their last few years. The 5,6 years wait then some would have passed away.

[Huliwang]

Noticed many young couples used to go around looking for old flats to buy hoping the govt SERS the block so that they can get a brand new flat by adding a bit more money. May be for old people they dun like the inconvenience of house moving and adding money at that old age.....

[Sticw]

If I may speak freely, sers or any form of govt forced eviction in the name of redevelopment should be more lucrative to existing owners than en bloc in private development.

First, private development is done via owner voting and majority wants out. The rest of it is done by valuers and often tender with reserve price. HDB flat owners were not given the choice but forced upon. The price is also determined by HDB and there's no negotiation of a win win situation. Secondly, the replacement offer by the govt for the HDB flats is not up to the existing owners. Of course the owners can sell the current flat so someone else gets the sers replacement flat. However, the valuation of current and replacement flat works out not in favour to the existing owners. If you own a private property and the sale price is going to be lower than your expected replacement price, would you go ahead and sell (tender award below reserve price)?

But this is Singapore so they will tell you to do national service. But when they profit from the redevelopment, they will not share anything with you. Other than saying more people on the gst take. But who landed you on the social handouts? Lol

[S I M T A N]

True....with SERS Singaporeans have no say...they can just force 

This type of forcing is not allowed elsewhere.

My suggestion is to change this to allow residents to vote.

I think it would be fairer.

The govt now is not like 50yrs ago. 
It has the resources to offer a fair deal.

Also, since it can usually make much more by redeveloping the place with a higher plot ratio, they will gain.

You’re right in saying the present govt has enormous financial firepower to ensure compensation offered to the affected families is fair, in accordance with legal requirements. In the years after independence, however, we were extremely poor. Under the stewardship of LKY, there was a pressing need for lands to carry out lots of developmental projects in resettlement and the nascent industries.
 
The Land Acquisition Act was enacted in ‘67 to give the democratic nascent govt the power of compulsory land acquisition for public development. But the compensations disbursed to land owners and pig farmers were thought to be barely adequate, leading some to brand the compensatory payments as deriving from “kampung law.” As the country grew more affluent, the act was amended in ‘73. The revised act justly fixed the compensation amount for acquired land at the market rate.
 
Holding a “microcosmic referendum” to decide a Sers issue -- which is basically about whether a parcel of land on which a few blocks of flats sit should give way for a planned project on that parcel -- is a bad idea, impractical and may lead to chaos.
 
Imagine asking the Marsiling residents to vote for or against the planned Woodlands Checkpoint expansion being built on the site of their abodes. At a time of increasingly unattractive rehousing benefits, an awful lot of residents may vote against the proposal, citing reasons like “compensation nowhere near enough,” “emotional attachment to their homes” and the “inconvenience of moving house.”
 
More votes of “nay” than “aye” would mean the painstakingly-researched master plan for the expansion of the world’s busiest border crossing will go down the drain and prolong the frustrations of hundreds of thousands of jam-stuck daily commuters crossing the causeway to no end.
 
When the urban planners put forward a blueprint for a site to be acquired for a redevelopment project, it is for the betterment of the people. The planners work hand in glove with housing analysts and infrastructure engineers to carve out a piece of meticulously careful research after looking at the practicalities; there’s no sentimentality or whatever involved. Just think why the Sers issues never came to vote.