Like Tree22Likes

Jordan blaze 30k fine

Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cramped island
    Posts
    5,712

    Honestly these buildings have to be torn down and redevelop. But the hong kong grounds are too sympathetic to the poor owners that are asking for three times the worth of their current unit.. so it will not happen.

    The right thing to do would be to takeover the building at market valuation and redevelop the entire block...

    newhkpr likes this.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,861
    Quote Originally Posted by JAherbert:
    Looking at the historical record its pretty obvious fines don't work, there is no/little deterrent, Michael Tien said the same recently, but LEGCO's solution = increase fines for FSD violations.
    Do LegCo have any thoughts on how Laws should be improved? How many has it pushed back to the executive branch as not good enough?

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,861
    Quote Originally Posted by freeier:
    Honestly these buildings have to be torn down and redevelop. But the hong kong grounds are too sympathetic to the poor owners that are asking for three times the worth of their current unit.. so it will not happen.

    The right thing to do would be to takeover the building at market valuation and redevelop the entire block...
    The only ways for a building to be replaced

    - URA - the current owner gets a smaller flat somewhere else
    - Property develop buys 80% of the units - the current owner gets less than market rate as the buildings in this mode tend not to be well maintained.

    The answer should be to allow the current owners to form a business to vote on and manage the redevelopment (of theirs and adjoining sites that choose to join). This would possible add 100,000's of units to the market quite quickly...

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    The answer should be to allow the current owners to form a business to vote on and manage the redevelopment (of theirs and adjoining sites that choose to join). This would possible add 100,000's of units to the market quite quickly...
    would be a good idea, although I have some doubts that a random bunch of owners could agree on such matters, someone still has to pay upfront, for demolition, construction costs, professional's, with a return perhaps 4-5 years in future, but one tiny error could delay it for years.

    The URA new strategy, stealing plot ratio from sitting out areas, parks, and other nearby buildings with spare plot ratio is interesting, that will allow them to build more on the old plot area, and bring more profit for URA!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,861
    Quote Originally Posted by JAherbert:
    The URA new strategy, stealing plot ratio from sitting out areas, parks, and other nearby buildings with spare plot ratio is interesting, that will allow them to build more on the old plot area, and bring more profit for URA!
    Interesting is about as strong as you can go these days.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAherbert:
    would be a good idea, although I have some doubts that a random bunch of owners could agree on such matters, someone still has to pay upfront, for demolition, construction costs, professional's, with a return perhaps 4-5 years in future, but one tiny error could delay it for years.
    That would be somewhat daft. The owners would surely sell development rights to a developer on their terms rather than being chipped off one by one for a total lower cost for the developer.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    That would be somewhat daft. The owners would surely sell development rights to a developer on their terms rather than being chipped off one by one for a total lower cost for the developer.
    they could. but developers are already targeting interesting buildings, they quietly purchase lots of units using different, bland shell companies names (not the developers name) through different agencies, to prevent alerting everyone. Soon enough the developer has plenty of units and can pick off individuals, until they reach or nearly reach the forced sale threshold.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,861
    Quote Originally Posted by JAherbert:
    they could. but developers are already targeting interesting buildings, they quietly purchase lots of units using different, bland shell companies names (not the developers name) through different agencies, to prevent alerting everyone. Soon enough the developer has plenty of units and can pick off individuals, until they reach or nearly reach the forced sale threshold.
    Exactly. The owners should be empowered to get the best possible deal not picked off one by one while the building falls into disrepair and perhaps people working from a one bed apartment move in.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    位置位置位置
    Posts
    48,787

    Next to impossible for owners to collectively agree on anything. Have stopped going to our building meetings because it is usually a bunch of old people yelling at each other for entertainment.

    East_coast likes this.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cramped island
    Posts
    5,712

    if one has infinite capital, then everything is easily managed and can be done.
    if a building cannot even find enough quorum to do fire hazard prevention, i really don't know how you can talk about redevelopment with owners committee.. etc.etc.. practical reality and ideal cases are very far apart.. Eastcoast love to ask these questions and bring about idealogy, but i am fairly sure she has never been in a situation trying to convince some stubborn hk residents to do something the government wants them to do...


  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cramped island
    Posts
    5,712

    Anyway i don't see why the 80% auction threshold is unfair to anyone.. and what is wrong on large landlords coming in stealth to buy up to 80% of the building..

    Property developer purchase the apartment unit at market price. willing buyer, willing seller.
    On what basis should the developer let anyone know they intend to buy over the whole building ? So that remaining owner can ask for a higher off-market price ?

    Based on my understanding, the 80% auction precisely makes things fair. When force auction is triggered, if the price offered by the developer is too low, someone else with the financial means can come in with just a slightly higher bid and buy over whatever the developer has been painstakingly acquiring.. so if I am the developer i will probably pay say 10-20% above the market rate for that remaining 20% unit if my intention is to redevelop the building.

    If nobody comes in to bid for the block, then too bad, the market does not warrant the pricing and the building would have decay further anyway..


Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2