Recently, after many complaints (including one letter of mine published
in the ST forum) about unfairness in acquiring lands for public use or
freezing of development potential of conservation projects at
ridiculous prices like $1.00 the government finally relented and
announced in March 07 that henceforth it will pay FULL MARKET PRICE
compensation for lands acquired for public use.
Does anyone know what the government means by market value compensation
? Is it based on willing buyer and willing seller basis as stated in
URA tender?
In recent land acquisition for public use it would seem that the
collector would simply use his own concealed table of some kind of
values not disclosed and say at the inquiry to the people affected by
acquisition : "give us your claim" without revealing market values or
being bothered to prove their tables contain market values and give
people about 3 weeks to accept such values and after this if there is
no answer the collector will simply consider his offer of compensation
usually about 10-15% of latest transacted land prices as full market
value.
Such collector's offer would be far below the land values computed in
their own development charge revision table published in URA website
after the minister's announcement in order to collect higher
enhancement for any change of use.
Just imagine when charging the people for Development Charge the
collector knows what is market value but in paying compensation for
acquisition of people's land the collector does not know what is market
value.
Even though the minister has already announced market value as basis of
compensation of lands kept sometimes for more than 20 years without
being put to public use under section (8) of LAA, the collector is
still using his old table of concealed values for compensation
inconveniencing people in having to appeal and test out his
compensation in court.
In other words either the minister is lying or the collector does not
know what is market value when paying for acquisition but when it comes
to collecting change-of-use enhancement of values he simply is too good
in coming up with the latest transacted land prices to charge at the
full market values.
Which basis is correct - the development charge table to collect more
monies from citizens for change of use or collector's own concealed
copy of "market values".
I like how people like you seem to think money comes from nowhere and goes into an abyss when the government is involved.
Originally posted by deathbait:I like how people like you seem to think money comes from nowhere and goes into an abyss when the government is involved.
Casting aspersions again?
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Casting aspersions again?
nay. That was a passing comment. I leave the casting of aspersions to you. You do so seem to enjoy doing it after all.
Deathbait,
I am pointing out a malpractice for your own good. If minister announced change in compensation to full market value, then the civil servants should stop all the past practices of using their own values which are unsubstantiated by latest land transactions to force people affected to accept below-market compensation by power.
If we want a clean and corruption-free government we the people must be the party to stop any such malpractices.
In the meantime it would put the minister to shame for telling lies about giving market-value compensation.