SERS is to be supposed to be mutually beneficial.
Owners of old flats get new ones and the old flats demolished, redeveloped with higher plot ratios that can be sold at higher prices giving gains.
It is not supposed to be a win-lose situation.
Sometimes the HDB fail to suss out the needs of the residents like in AMK. The old flats selected are near MRT and many of the residents elderly.
If SERS us a mutually beneficial scheme then why is it compulsory? Residents should have a say and be allowed to vote. Don't tell me the govt again thinks it knows what is good for Singaporeans and Singaporeans themselves don't know?
The 2nd part of the issue is the HDB is able to redevelop the area early with an increased plot ratio like in en bloc sales. In en bloc sales such economic benefits are returned to residents who have to endure the inconvenience and shift out of a place they have come to love.
In the case of SERS why is there no such return of benefits to the residents?
Double standard?
This time the dafts are not stupid anymore.
(04-07-2022, 04:37 AM)sgbuffett Wrote: [ -> ]SERS is to be supposed to be mutually beneficial.
Owners of old flats get new ones and the old flats semolised, redeveloped with higher plot ratios that can be sold at higher prices giving gains.
It is not supposed to be a win-lose situation.
Sometimes the HDB fail to suss out the needs of the residents like in AMK. The old flats selected are near MRT and many of the residents elderly.
If SERS us a mutually beneficial scheme then why is it compulsory? Residents should have a say and be allowed to vote. Don't tell me the govt again thinks it knows what is good for Singaporeans and Singaporeans themselves don't know?
The 2nd part of the issue is the HDB is able to redevelop the area early with an increased plot ratio like in en bloc sales. In en bloc sales such economic benefits are returned to residents who have to endure the inconvenience and shift out of a place they have come to love.
In the case of SERS why is there no such return of benefits to the residents?
No, in a nutshell it is actually different. Enbloc in private estates is for the developers to maximize the plot ratio and reap huge gains going forward. So they share a bit of their profits beforehand with the sellers of the estate by buying them out.
Chenghu SERS is more like the compulsory Land Acquisition Act. They can kapu your land and pay you a pittance. Tiagong in the past they only pay a pittance to the pig farmers and made many enemies and lost many votes. They are wiser now and pay so called “market rates” for the land.
Nevertheless, it is unpopular like this amk saga where some perceive it is to their “loss” even though it is for the so called national good.
(04-07-2022, 08:16 AM)FartSunKing Wrote: [ -> ]There is a way to improve the Ang Mo Kio SERS to satisfy those with entitlement mentality
Without the need to offer cheaper new flats with shorter 50 years lease to whiners
HDB should remove the 5 years MOP for SERS flat
So that the whiners can sell away their new SERS flat with a fresh 99 years lease in the open resale market before they move out from their old flat
The profits from the sale of the new SERS flat will far exceed the shortfall from selling their old flat to HDB and getting a new one of equivalent size
With the windfall from selling their new SERS flat, whiners can buy any resale flat of their choice and still have profits to satisfy their GREED
Get it?
You heard this BRILLIANT solution here in sgtalk.net first, thanks to PSLE genius 5354
I think you are mistaken.
You say everyone can benefit financially...if the do this this and that.
Problem is when flats reach this age many of the elderly are jn their 80s. They view these "financial benefits" differently and most don't want to go through the hassle.
This is like Mandarin Garden En Bloc each unit stand to gain 500K to 1M but the old folks always vote NO and en bloc cannot proceed.
If something can hold people back 500k and 1M ....it is not hard to fathom what is going on in AMK.
There will be anger.
(04-07-2022, 07:11 AM)p1acebo Wrote: [ -> ]No, in a nutshell it is actually different. Enbloc in private estates is for the developers to maximize the plot ratio and reap huge gains going forward. So they share a bit of their profits beforehand with the sellers of the estate by buying them out.
Chenghu SERS is more like the compulsory Land Acquisition Act. They can kapu your land and pay you a pittance. Tiagong in the past they only pay a pittance to the pig farmers and made many enemies and lost many votes. They are wiser now and pay so called “market rates” for the land.
Nevertheless, it is unpopular like this amk saga where some perceive it is to their “loss” even though it is for the so called national good.
Land Acquisition act is applicable to all land be it private or hdb.
It is not right to use in this manner to for HDB residents.
HDB belong to State. U dont own the HDB la...govt should force takeover.
Sinkapore is a FAKE Democratic country
PAP can say 70% votes to win
still leaving the 30% at their mercy
Since HDB belongs to the govt, it should allow no cash top up for the elderlies who wish to continue until into coffin. Upon death of both parties, hand back to HDB. Create a special category to take care of our ah kongs ah mas who always feel 'kampongnish' stay in countryside until conk out.
(04-07-2022, 04:37 AM)sgbuffett Wrote: [ -> ]SERS is to be supposed to be mutually beneficial.
Owners of old flats get new ones and the old flats demolished, redeveloped with higher plot ratios that can be sold at higher prices giving gains.
It is not supposed to be a win-lose situation.
Sometimes the HDB fail to suss out the needs of the residents like in AMK. The old flats selected are near MRT and many of the residents elderly.
If SERS us a mutually beneficial scheme then why is it compulsory? Residents should have a say and be allowed to vote. Don't tell me the govt again thinks it knows what is good for Singaporeans and Singaporeans themselves don't know?
The 2nd part of the issue is the HDB is able to redevelop the area early with an increased plot ratio like in en bloc sales. In en bloc sales such economic benefits are returned to residents who have to endure the inconvenience and shift out of a place they have come to love.
In the case of SERS why is there no such return of benefits to the residents?
Forced to go type if 1 to 1 flat without top up,residents sure very happy to move to new flat of 99 years lease as in the past although space of flat kew Chui
Ballot to enblock 🤙is fair.
If not a vote, then at least a consultation to gauge the residents' response before deciding to SERS. Nowadays, sinkies don't just fold over like in the past.
Besides, why does govt need that particular piece of land in amk so badly but not willing to pay a higher compensation?
If SERS is cancell.
Even More residents will be unhappy. Angry
Becareful of what you wishes for.
People will complain their hdb no value, return back to govt once reach 99..
Even in enbloc cases, private developers cannot please everyone..
Some will be very angry, sad.
Not happy. No use keeps kbkb hoping Hdb will relent to provide more. Not happy, can sell in the resales market . Get the money & buy others. Enbloc news in fact has already raised its resales value.
think getting affected to vote on sers is good ideas. but then how to say which blocks form a community to vote?
Use bulldozer flatten it la....😅
Any difference?
Wolfs are in disguise.
Why want to disturb and disrupt resident's life?
All only live once on this earth.
(04-07-2022, 08:41 AM)sgbuffett Wrote: [ -> ]I think you are mistaken.
You say everyone can benefit financially...if the do this this and that.
Problem is when flats reach this age many of the elderly are jn their 80s. They view these "financial benefits" differently and most don't want to go through the hassle.
This is like Mandarin Garden En Bloc each unit stand to gain 500K to 1M but the old folks always vote NO and en bloc cannot proceed.
If something can hold people back 500k and 1M ....it is not hard to fathom what is going on in AMK.
There will be anger.
i suppose the minister has not thought of that not every thing is money