How HDB flats are priced affordably !
- Thread starter Silence Sky
- Start date
- Status
Other costs must mean salaries for everyone... bet that's 2/3 of the cost.
most of the construction workers r not locals, a large number of them from less developed countries. its e construction co that clinched e deal that benefited most. many such foreign workers earn about $700-$800 a month, excluding lodging & over-time. off day is a bi-monthly thing. if its majority locally staffed e costs will be v different.
No need handouts, just transparency and less smoking
What transparency is lacking? What smoking? Does a private developer tell you what costs they incur when they sell you the apartment?
HDB have stated very clearly that the sale price of the flat will be above the cost of construction. How much more transparent can they be? Why does it matter what the rest of the "costs" are, the point is that the flat has a MARKET VALUE (different from cost), to which the sale price is pegged. That has been stated UP FRONT from the very beginning. In what way has there been smoking or lack of transparency? They have never claimed to be selling to you at cost. (Qoute: Under this approach, HDB determines the market value of the flat, based on its location, finish and other attributes. Then, it sells the flat at a discount to the market value.) Find me an example of a overseas land authority or a local property developer that has been MORE transparent than the HDB?
No need handouts? Some forumers here are asking for HDB to sell the flats at a steeper discount from MARKET RATE than is already the case. If that is not asking for a handout, I don't know what is.
Reflex anti-establishment, is what all this is about.
There's nothing to complain about. Like what I used to say to pple -- if you find the housing expensive, then don't buy it. Can always rent some place. Many folks in other countries do that too. It's not mandatory to own a HDB.
Rental is not cheap also..... 1 room easily $400 - $500... also a lot of restriction depends on the landlord.
so there an issue much larger than wad we're blabbering about? which may be just 1 of e many symtoms?
with various commodities in short supply & increase in price? any1 remember there was a time the construction industry lack sand, den gahmen have to step in to ease shortage? :think:
with various commodities in short supply & increase in price? any1 remember there was a time the construction industry lack sand, den gahmen have to step in to ease shortage? :think:
I managed to find a cartoon I drew in January 2007.
....because it is fairly irrelevant to setting its price.
If you listen, really listen, you will be able to understand.
a. The smoking applies to the question of "subsidy". What it really is. Seems no one in public office likes to be pinned down on what it really is.
b. Transparency is demanded from HDB simply because they are HDB. You can't compare to private developer. HDB is public, developer is private. Since they build flats with public funds, some people feel that they are entitled to more transparency from HDB than from a private developer.
Geddit?
Now, you may consider a "market" subsidy to be a subsidy. I think that's really a joke. Just because HDB chooses to sell it below the resale valuation, they call it a "subsidy".
As Vincent said, back in the old days, the govt really subsidised. They sold flats cheaper than cost so they could get people out of the kampongs.
Now they make profits even after the so-called "market" subsidy. In their defence, they say that if not for the "subsidy" they would make even more profit.
You understand the questions now? You get the source of the unhappiness now?
We're not asking for "handouts", but for HDB to call a spade a spade. And to come clean on how much they really make, since HDB is funded with public money.
a. The smoking applies to the question of "subsidy". What it really is. Seems no one in public office likes to be pinned down on what it really is.
b. Transparency is demanded from HDB simply because they are HDB. You can't compare to private developer. HDB is public, developer is private. Since they build flats with public funds, some people feel that they are entitled to more transparency from HDB than from a private developer.
Geddit?
Now, you may consider a "market" subsidy to be a subsidy. I think that's really a joke. Just because HDB chooses to sell it below the resale valuation, they call it a "subsidy".
As Vincent said, back in the old days, the govt really subsidised. They sold flats cheaper than cost so they could get people out of the kampongs.
Now they make profits even after the so-called "market" subsidy. In their defence, they say that if not for the "subsidy" they would make even more profit.
You understand the questions now? You get the source of the unhappiness now?
We're not asking for "handouts", but for HDB to call a spade a spade. And to come clean on how much they really make, since HDB is funded with public money.
What transparency is lacking? What smoking? Does a private developer tell you what costs they incur when they sell you the apartment?
HDB have stated very clearly that the sale price of the flat will be above the cost of construction. How much more transparent can they be? Why does it matter what the rest of the "costs" are, the point is that the flat has a MARKET VALUE (different from cost), to which the sale price is pegged. That has been stated UP FRONT from the very beginning. In what way has there been smoking or lack of transparency? They have never claimed to be selling to you at cost. (Qoute: Under this approach, HDB determines the market value of the flat, based on its location, finish and other attributes. Then, it sells the flat at a discount to the market value.) Find me an example of a overseas land authority or a local property developer that has been MORE transparent than the HDB?
No need handouts? Some forumers here are asking for HDB to sell the flats at a steeper discount from MARKET RATE than is already the case. If that is not asking for a handout, I don't know what is.
Reflex anti-establishment, is what all this is about.
More like, because
a. it's too embarrassing;
b. I'll lose a lot of votes if it gets out
c. You are not entitled to know how much I really make, despite the fact that I am using public money to build flats
d. I have enough votes in Parliament I don't have to give a damn
e. Why should I tell you?
The solution for HDB is very simple. This is just essentially a marketing or PR problem. I hope they do realise that this is a marketing problem in the first place.
First, stop beating around the bush and state the real cost of building a HDB flat, with the cost breakdown.
Secondly, don't be afraid to tell people the profit margin on each flat. There has to be a profit margin or else who would built the housing? Tell people that, loud and bashfully.
Third, listen to people and answer their damn questions straight. Understand that people can say whatever they want. Whether you want to implement it is another thing altogether. There's nothing the people can do except earn more money.
Fourth, educate the public on the concept of value. Value is the perceived benefit over the sales price. If you cannot change the sales price, improve the perceived benefit. It's basic marketing. It's like Starbucks is not selling coffee and Ikea is not selling furniture. If not, there's no chance in hell people will pay that kind of price and not complain.
First, stop beating around the bush and state the real cost of building a HDB flat, with the cost breakdown.
Secondly, don't be afraid to tell people the profit margin on each flat. There has to be a profit margin or else who would built the housing? Tell people that, loud and bashfully.
Third, listen to people and answer their damn questions straight. Understand that people can say whatever they want. Whether you want to implement it is another thing altogether. There's nothing the people can do except earn more money.
Fourth, educate the public on the concept of value. Value is the perceived benefit over the sales price. If you cannot change the sales price, improve the perceived benefit. It's basic marketing. It's like Starbucks is not selling coffee and Ikea is not selling furniture. If not, there's no chance in hell people will pay that kind of price and not complain.
V
vince123123
Guest
V
vince123123
Guest
V
vince123123
Guest
Kekek, well as they say
"Reflex pro-establishment, is what all this is about."
And just to add on to the part in bold that the resale prices are based on the new prices to begin with, not the other way around like what HDB is trying to have us believe.
"Reflex pro-establishment, is what all this is about."
And just to add on to the part in bold that the resale prices are based on the new prices to begin with, not the other way around like what HDB is trying to have us believe.
short and sweet. that hope our gahmen works... not going to change when they have the 66.6 behind...
n i tell u, if they divulge the cost, it will be like the NKF durian saga where his salary is a peanut per year.
Calling a spade a spade, I think the unhappiness has nothing to do with how much HDB subsidises a flat, but rather how affordable a flat is these days.
For arguments sake, if a flat were to be going for $1000, and HBD were 'making' $500 from it, how much noise would there be? Very little, I suspect.
It is because the HDB is a the largest custodian of the nation's land bank, that I expect them to act responsibly in that custodial duty, not only for the behalf of present HDB dwellers, but ALL Singaporeans, present and future. To what purpose does it serve the public good if the HDB were to completely distort the property market by severely under-pricing the sale price of flats? If the return on the land is not optimised properly (i.e. paid fair value for), then taxpayers like you and me are being cheated. Geddit?
It is exactly because HDB is being funded by public money (btw, most HDB flat dwellers do not pay income tax, or very little), that they have a responsibility to use those funds in a fair and proper manner. I expect it. I expect the HDB not to shortchange the taxpayers and future generations by giving away valuable land at steep discounts just for the sake of appeasing present flat buyers. I don't just expect it, I demand it.
Costs? You tell me, what are the components of that cost that you so wish to see? Is the open market value of the land not also part of that cost? If I built a block of flats in Yishun and built the same block in Orchard Road, what is the 'cost' of that flat? The construction cost? That should roughly be the same, shouldn't it? But would HDB sell both flats at the same price? Of course not! There is a MARKET VALUE to the location of the flat. If HDB were to sell both flats at the same price, would the person buying the Orchard Road flat not be getting a larger subsidy than the one in Yishun? So the 'costs' incorporate the market value of the land/location, which is what HDB has been saying all along. It prices it flats according to market value, a completely transparent statement and without any smoke whatsoever.
Using the example above, don't tell me its a 'fake' subsidy. If someone sold me a private apartment at less than market value, and I turned it around the next day and sold at a 20% profit, it is real money in the pocket. The previous owner has effectively subsidised my 'flat'.
HDB makes a profit? To what end? First off, I have no issue with public bodies generating surpluses. If they were loss-making and eating up public funds, THEN I would be really upset. Next, whatever revenue they generate goes back into that big pot called g-ment reserves. You can argue back and forth what the size of that reserve should be, but that is beyond this discussion.
At the end of the day, there is all this talk about 'transparency', as if the HDB were hiding something. You'd be wondering why our public servants were scratching their heads about what else they really needed to do, since they had already repeatedly stated that the "cost" is the MARKET VALUE. It cost the g-ment (and taxpayers) that amount to build and locate that flat in that place, which had otherwise been sold to a private developer, would have gained the g-ment (and taxpayers) that amount of revenue. It is an opportunity forgone (opportunity cost) when the g-ment (on behalf of citizens and taxpayers) uses a piece of land for public housing and sells it for less than market value, rather than selling it to a private developer.
A) It is a real subsidy
B) As I see it, HDB is about as transparent about this as they can be
C) I agree there is an affordability issue
- Status
Similar threads
