26-04-2011, 07:04 AM
(26-04-2011, 06:13 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: Mr Dhanabalan explained then why pricing by land cost was absurd: If a flat was built on former government land, the flat buyer would pay virtually zero land cost. If it was on land acquired from private owners or on reclaimed land, the buyer would pay much more. Prices of new HDB flats would fluctuate widely and from area to area and from year to year.
i have not heard of public housing that is not built on government land. nor have i heard of government acquiring private land to develop public housing. neither do i think this will happen in the foreseeable future. the current SERS programme replaces old flats with higher density ones, allowing public housing to be redeveloped within the confines of government land. even in the rare and unlikely ocassion that it does acquire a private land, is it too much for the reserves to be drawn down to foot the bill? i don't understand why the state is so unwilling to spend. what are the reserves for, if not for the eventual benefit of citizens? or is it for select individuals to pursue power and vainity?
this argument is too filmsy and appears to be aimed at complicating and therefore, sidestepping the issue.