New property cooling measures announced

The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) requires the Group to
apply for lifting of the building restriction in the title in
order to proceed with the development of the land Lot
12949A Mk 18.

Lot 12949A Mk 18 at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5/CTE
 For permission to be granted to lift the building
restriction, SLA requires the Group to surrender the
existing 999-year lease for re-issuance of a fresh 99-year
lease without building restriction.
 The Group has maintained that the building restriction
does not apply. This issue remains unresolved.

Did you guys see this? Its clear who make the most from all kinds
of games, our gov play on ppl lives.

Will this apply had it being Capital Land? Or if say Land belong to
Catholic Church, will they have the courage to take it back?

Also to note, this week Edge Hampton court crosses S$2526per sq ft (land price, not
really enbloc per sqft) bought by Swire group.

Here is the real take, The Edge is perhaps on purpose saying - hey, you know
what, Swire sold their HK high end luxury, designer unit, just 2 units to buy the
entire Hampton court. The hk units were sold at S$13,700per sqft. Yes, now isn't
Spore high end cheap, when:-

1) DTZ, CBR all said high end has opportunity to rise
2) SC took his Co. private

I think Gov, is just playing around with all these measures. They will do all kinds of
underhand tactics to extract value from your hard earn money. The more you complain,
the higher the retributory action! Highway jam right, MRT has many problem right -
COE = car price alone. small car 92k COE.. haahhhaa.

By the way, in HK the stamp duty is 15% (if property was held less than 6months).
So dont complain, if you cut lost, still cheaper than HK.

http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/taxes/doc...28E%29.pdf

(13-01-2013, 10:50 AM)Stocker Wrote: Why they need to come up with 7 CMs ? Because they were all half hearted , half baked. Delay tactic and tries to stretch the wayang as long as possible, long stories but no substance.
This latest wayang can stretch another one or 2 years , but many are still hopeful.

The measures are GOOD.

1. My view is that it should have been implemented 2 years earlier.

2. The real demand will cool off if they engineer an interest rate rise and a weaker SGD.

The approach of tagging to US interest rates is a policy / approach that should be relooked.

But then they also want to milk the developers for cost of land.
If the buyers dont buy, the price will drop... it's funny people chase and follow sentiment.

I believe if interest rates rise , SG will strengthen more instead of weakening as more funds will flock over here. Land is inventory of property developers , they have limited choices but bid higher land price. Higher cost will simply pass over to consumers .

[/quote]

The measures are GOOD.

1. My view is that it should have been implemented 2 years earlier.

2. The real demand will cool off if they engineer an interest rate rise and a weaker SGD.

The approach of tagging to US interest rates is a policy / approach that should be relooked.

But then they also want to milk the developers for cost of land.
If the buyers dont buy, the price will drop... it's funny people chase and follow sentiment.
[/quote]

(13-01-2013, 03:09 PM)ValueBeliever Wrote: The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) requires the Group to
apply for lifting of the building restriction in the title in
order to proceed with the development of the land Lot
12949A Mk 18.

Lot 12949A Mk 18 at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5/CTE
 For permission to be granted to lift the building
restriction, SLA requires the Group to surrender the
existing 999-year lease for re-issuance of a fresh 99-year
lease without building restriction.
 The Group has maintained that the building restriction
does not apply. This issue remains unresolved.
.
.

this "dispute" been around for over 10 years at least.

below my understanding:
Lot 12949A MK 18 is make up of two halfs - one half already obtained WP for 167-units of 999yr LH landed housing,
the other half is still zoned as "agricultural lands".

I understand that "precedent been set" in a similar "dispute" involving "Hong Realty" in Eastern part of Spore.
so chances are BukitSem will not try to fight this issue any more...

My guess is that BukitSem will (eventually) re-apply to get the building restriction lifted, and surrender the 999LH title for a 99LH one,
the rationale: Bukit will get to utilise the whole plot of land to build some 420+ units of 99-LH housing units,
instead of ONLY the current "167-units (999-LH)" on just one-half of the lands (coz the other half only permitted for agriculture !!... now rented out to "grow palm trees" !! )

There is so much skeptism in this thread that I feel that the physical pte property (not property stock) will finally go down 10% this year

With the 7th round of Chilled water cooling measure, some of the investment fund will flow to Malaysia especially to Iskandar Johore.

Johore authority is also looking ways to refrain rising property price in JB. I think it will make it harder to SG investors to own JB property.

Johor to restrict foreign property buyers

By Farah Wahida: In an effort to tackle rising housing costs in Johor, the state government will soon review the conditions and procedures for foreigners to own properties within the state, particularly in Iskandar Malaysia.

The State Economic Planning Unit (UPEN) is looking for ways to tighten rules on foreign ownership, said Housing, Arts, Culture & Heritage Committee Chairman Datuk Ahmad Zahri Jamil in a Bernama report.

He noted that housing prices in the state are rising beyond the means of local residents.

"The price of property is determined by the market force. However, the prices also reflect on demand and supply or just because of extreme speculation. So, we have to conduct a detailed study." Farah Wahida Editor of PropertyGuru, wrote this story

(13-01-2013, 07:46 PM)specuvestor Wrote: There is so much skeptism in this thread that I feel that the physical pte property (not property stock) will finally go down 10% this year

Another way to look at it - it could also mean that the property bull STILL has much to do, to convert these sceptics. Sadly, such sceptics pride themselves on been prudent during the party, but eventually they get converted (at the height of bullishness) and are left holding the baby, when the party REALLY ends.

(13-01-2013, 04:38 PM)Vseeker Wrote:

(13-01-2013, 03:09 PM)ValueBeliever Wrote: The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) requires the Group to
apply for lifting of the building restriction in the title
.

this "dispute" been around for over 10 years at least.

Don't play play.
This is serious stuff.
You know who are you up against.
Count yourselves lucky if the title remains status quo.

(14-01-2013, 02:40 AM)weijian Wrote:

(13-01-2013, 07:46 PM)specuvestor Wrote: There is so much skeptism in this thread that I feel that the physical pte property (not property stock) will finally go down 10% this year

Another way to look at it - it could also mean that the property bull STILL has much to do, to convert these sceptics. Sadly, such sceptics pride themselves on been prudent during the party, but eventually they get converted (at the height of bullishness) and are left holding the baby, when the party REALLY ends.

I think you misunderstood me I'm saying that many are skeptical that the policies can engineer a property declne. IMHO when a govt is persistent and determined, it can be done. Question is how much is the "cost" attached. No property owners will be happy and that is >90% of population and whether they are self enlightened enough to see the bigger and longer picture.

(13-01-2013, 04:11 PM)Contrarian Wrote: The approach of tagging to US interest rates is a policy / approach that should be relooked.

Tagging to US interest rate is an by-outcome.

Singapore chooses to control its own exchange rate. In doing so, it has to give up control over its interest rate. As US is still the undisputed world currency of choice, Singapore's interest rate will definitely be influenced by US interest rate.

It remains a question whether we are tagging to US interest rate or a basket of world currencies. If the later, given the low interest rate in euro and yen too, Singapore cannot be helped but to have low interest rate.