Government agencies should clarify regulations related to suspended buildings and consult businesses on how to continue construction on a case-by-case basis, says Yodyiam Teptaranon, a former president of the Association of Siamese Architects.

He said regulations of different agencies sometimes conflict and impede further construction. In many cases, investors bought a suspended building to continue development but could not obtain approvals from some agencies.

For example, an abandoned building might have had a permit for factory construction but changed city planning or zoning rules for the site meant the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) could not allow new approval.

Mr Yodyiam recommended basing decisions on the city plan if there is a conflict with the Building Control Act.

“There should be a detailed summary of each suspended building remaining in Bangkok. Everyone involved should be asked to clarify their legal concerns so that investors or buyers and end users need not take a risk,” he said at a seminar.

Real estate professionals should educate investors on how to continue, complete and use those buildings.

According to the Real Estate Information Center (REIC), as of January, there were 205 suspended buildings with a total area of 4.96 million square metres, down from 508 buildings with 11 million sq m in 2001. Most were victims of the 1997-98 financial crisis.

Of the 303 suspended buildings where redevelopment occurred, 278 were completed with a total of 5.1 million sq m. Of the completed buildings, 219 were residential, 41 were offices and 10 commercial buildings.

Trairat Jarutat, an architecture lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, said the successful revival of suspended buildings depended on locations that should be close to the central business district or mass transit.

Investors in suspended buildings should also do good marketing, choosing to develop buildings where supply was limited and demand very strong. They should also focus on buildings where at least the steel structures had been completed above ground.

“Projects successfully developed from suspended buildings were mostly developed by developers with similar expertise, or where their usage remained the same,” he said.

However, legal issues and debts incurred by former owners of some abandoned buildings remained a problem.

The REIC survey showed the 205 unfinished buildings comprised 158 residential buildings, 20 offices, 17 commercial buildings, two hospitals, a department store and seven buildings.

It also found 74% of suspended buildings or 152 were located farther than 500 metres from mass-transit stations. There were 24 suspended buildings near BTS stations, followed by others close to the MRT and the proposed Green Line between Mor Chit and Saphan Mai.

REIC director-general Samma Kitsin said many investors acquired suspended buildings and redeveloped them from 2003-06.

“Now that the Interior Ministry announced an amnesty on suspended buildings, the remainder will likely face the same future,” he said.

The ministry last November announced a ministerial regulation providing the amnesty to 178 suspended buildings with expired construction permits granted between Feb 17, 1992 and Aug 7, 2000.

Pinit Lertudomthana, a civil engineer with the BMA’s Building Control Division, suggested investors check construction permits, title deeds and city planning rules for the sites they like.

Veera Visuthiratanakul, a lawyer with the Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning, said if a construction permit was approved, land use was already approved so city planning rules should not affect a building.

SOURCE: Bangkok Post

The two sectors were taken off the list in October as purchase orders started reviving, she said.

“Sales of automobiles picked up early in the fourth quarter and the number of orders for some electronic parts had increased,” said Ms Jamaree.

The property agency Colliers International Thailand reported an increase in inquiries and transactions in the industrial sector in the fourth quarter.

Improved economic indicators, such as rising gross domestic product, increasing order and production rates, and lower unemployment, led many analysts to believe a recovery was under way for the industrial sector, said the firm.

GH Bank has kept nine sectors on its list of high-risk industries, including tourism businesses, export-related firms, traditional retailers and media. Jewellery is the highest-risk sector as it is a luxury product, Ms Jamaree said.

Tourism-related businesses have been struggling since the 2004 tsunami. “It will likely take more than a year for tourism and hotel businesses to recover,” she said.

“Just after the financial crisis took hold [in late 2008], banking and financial sectors were among the riskiest groups, but now the situation has eased.”

GH Bank has been working to help customers whose businesses were hit hard by the global crisis, including extending loan payments, reducing interest rates and offering additional loans.

“We also deal with the human resources departments of companies in Rayong that have seen an impact from the Map Ta Phut dispute. Rescheduling loan payments is the most successful way of helping them,” she said.

Colliers reported the current situation at Map Ta Phut, Thailand’s largest industrial estate, continued to cast a long shadow, especially over foreign investment in the oil and gas sector.

It was only partially resolved when the Supreme Administrative Court in November reduced the number of industrial projects suspended by the Administrative Court in September to 65. and later to 64, from 76.

The other projects remain suspended pending environmental and health impact assessments.

The 76 ventures are worth a combined 400 billion baht. Their delays could cut up to half a percentage point of this year’s economic growth, according to the Bank of Thailand.

SOURCE: Bangkok Post

When I first move into the unit BLK262 Bishan St 22, APT#05-287, I wanted to clean the unit so I decided to take out all the drawers in the kitchen and clean… OMG!! dead cockroaches inside the humidifier, eggs on some of the utensils and more cockroach eggs in the shelves and drawers. The owner didn’t even clean the unit prior to me entering. Landlord said it was clean, just trusted and went, I was so disgusted. I had to take entire day to clean the unit there was cockroach egg laid inside the drawers of the KITCHEN, where we cook. How unsanitary is that. Eggs outside the drawer growing, so if I had not cleaned there would be more. After 8 plus hours cleaning only kitchen and other rooms, my day ended and was about to head to bed. Another shocker, I say 2 cockroaches crawling around the pillow and bed. How can you not check the unit and even under bed before having someone new move in? Is that how Singapore rule is? Just take peoples money and except to live in such condition? I was extremely angry and just so grossed out, until this day I am still uncomfortable living in such unit. But it was too late to turn back, as I have given the deposit and agent fee. More like I was force by the agent to give the fees…

On top of that, it was fully furnished unit, however the furniture was not at the best condition, first door bells was not working, very inconvenient for visitor. Secondly, washer was not working properly, and the list goes on from dishwasher not working.

With all this, I can say is that my experience in Singapore was the worst compare to anything or any place I been. I been around the world due to work, this is the last place I would return to. Even if someone had paid me millions to come I will NOT come back.

I was wrong to trust my landlord, I been cheated. Many things had occurred in my work environment which led me to resign from work. Along with that I had let my landlord know in 1 month advance that I will be leaving Singapore.

I had taken my personal time to post ads to find prospective replacement for the unit. In the mean time, I had little discussion between landlord and myself regarding the 2 month deposit ($4.6K). Deposit will be refunded if there was prospective tenant. The answers were given in vague, one day “yes” and next day no.

I had told my landlord that $4.6K + the reimbursement of agent fee ($1.8K) and full month rent ($2.3K). This was all the saving I had so it would be nice to consider returning the deposit. Apparently, that was totally deceiving intent in my landlord. Because there were 2 families who wanted to rent the unit for more then the desire lease period but my landlord declined them. Why did I take my personal time and energy helping to find replacement when they landlord was not going to return my deposit.
I felt bad for breaking the lease in advance, wanted to diligence and cooperate to find good prospective tenant so that I can return my deposit. I have not missed a day or delayed a day with my rent during my stay here. Though I think the rent was too high, when I spoke with many locals in Singapore.

This was definitely intention of taking advantage of foreigners here. How I knew it was the wrong intention, because on a last day when I had to pay my last month rent, I was working in the office without time to take lunch, but around 2pm, I received a call from landlord wanting to know why I have not paid my rent. It was not even end of the day, and in the contract clearly states I have 7 days from the rent due to pay the rent.

I felt violated and taken advantage of the whole saving I had, when the landlord had no intention of returning any of the money but was looking into pocket more money. The only thing I can come conclude is that when landlord does not want to take on any prospective tenant, so that they can pocket $4.3K and $1.8K agent fee reimbursement. When I leave the country I believe they will bring someone new to rent the unit. Then they have pocketed additional cash for their own good.

I don’t understand why it is difficult for one to open and come to compromise. I thought American’s were cheaters, but I was totally wrong. There are people like this in Singapore, who speak of the goods, yet they do not put into action. I didn’t realize that there were such people around this country. But for the times I have lived in this country, counting my landlord and real estate agent, I have been taken advantage. By cheating the innocent people will not lead that individual to succeed any further in the future.

With this forum, I wish that no anyone (foreigner) to be taken advantage from these 2 people. I don’t recommend doing any business with this people as they only seek for their personal interest and gain.

I am glad I only have few days in this place of hell; I have no doubt about sharing this type of practice in this country with others. The place I lived for the time I was there never felt comfortable, always felt something was crawling around… Again maybe other cockroaches… I will not be recommending Singapore as a place of visit or live. I asked my family and friends to visit me when I was here, but obviously with that money and time we would go to somewhere lot more friendly and honest. I am blown away with lack of support for foreigner in such cases like this. And how people can be so blind sited by such practice that is going on…

SOURCE: propertyzone.sg

Condo Boom will continue

The logical reasons behind the condominium boom in Bangkok ensure that the stellar rise of this segment will continue in the future, but with a marked difference: Buyers are now as keen on areas where mass transit rail lines are headed as as they are on areas which are already part of the grid, said Prateep Tangmatitham, the chairman and founder of Supalai Plc.

Fears of higher oil prices and a desire for the convenience of being close to the rail lines are two obvious reasons for the boom, but others include problems finding reliable household help, and the better security that condominiums provide.

Equally important but not generally noticed is the sharp decrease in the size of households in Bangkok, which further encourages condominium living. Research by Supalai shows that the average number of people per household in the Bangkok metropolis shrank from 3.20 in 1995 to approximately 2.50 in 2008-09.

“Smaller families fit into condominium units, while bigger families need a house, so that’s why there is a strong demand for condominiums,” said Mr Prateep.

He also debunked the generally held view that the take-up rate of condominiums in areas already covered by the BTS and MRT is better than those yet to link up to the grid. Supalai’s research shows that in fact the reverse is true.

The take-up rate of outstanding condominiums in Bangkok costing less than one million baht is 74% in mass transit areas and 76% in non-mass transit areas. In the one to three million baht bracket the rate is 78% in mass transit areas and 79% in non-mass transit areas, and in the more than three million range the respective proportions are 74% and 77%. Overall the difference is 76% for mass transit areas and 77% for non-mass transit areas.

Mr Prateep agreed that the main reason behind this trend is the attractively lower prices in areas yet to be served by rail lines. Buyers are willing to wait a couple of years to link to the mass transit grid, especially as it takes that long for a new condominium to be built.

Clearly Supalai believes in its research because it recently launched two high-rise condominiums, one at the Asok-Ratchada intersection and the other opposite SCB Park in Ratchayothin.

Interestingly, the SET-listed company is also going to build a BoI condominium project either in Soi LaSalle (Sukhumvit 105) or Soi Baring (Sukhumvit Soi 107).

The Board of Investment (BoI) this year improved incentives to developers to build more low-cost housing, and many big players have responded. Mr Prateep explained that the BoI incentives lower the cost by 5%, but the developer also has to price units at a maximum of one million baht. While the profit margin per unit is lower, the volume ensures a healthy return.

He expects other companies to also launch BoI-promoted projects, though they could take longer as developers must obtain environmental impact assessment (EIA) approval and building permits before applying for the incentives.

While they will cost just one million baht, Supalai’s BoI condo units will be a bit larger than the 25 square metres being offered by some companies. “We will be building not less than 30 square metres so that people have space to move around.”

Supalai has projects in the provinces too. It is getting ready to launch a 15-storey condominium in downtown Phuket with a total of 500 units and valued at approximately 900 million baht.

Mr Prateep is targeting both Thai and foreign buyers on the resort island and is optimistic of doing well in the mid-market development priced from 1.2 million to 5 million baht.

Although he is not dabbling in the high end of the Phuket market he does expect this segment to revive in future.

“The high-end buyers will come back when they feel that everything is good for them once again and it’s time to invest.”

However, he said, in his experience condominiums costing from one to five million baht are really hot in the Thai market, while units costing more than that are not selling quite as quickly.

SOURCE: The Nation

While this system has an obvious benefit of giving the taxman the upper hand to fix the level of property tax, despite market movements, it lacks transparency. The law stipulates that the property owner must pay the tax first, regardless of whether the AV was fixed correctly or not. If he disagrees with the assessment, he can object to it, and eventually go to the Valuation Review Board (VRB) for arbitration.

The channel for objection and appeal seems to provide a fair means to examine the assessment by the authorities, but it suffers two deficiencies.

* First, it is time-consuming and an objection can stretch for years and still not be attended to.
* Second, it is costly to start an appeal to the VRB because each case costs $200. So if a building has 100 units for appeal, it will cost $20,000.

As a start, perhaps the authorities can publish on their website the level of assessment of each year’s review so property owners can know how these assessments compare with market rents.

In the long run, the Government should look into taxing property owners for the actual rents they fetch, with a right to review them if they should appear low compared with market rents.

This article was first published in The Straits Times.