HDB flats: Why did supply fail to keep up with population growth?

interesting online comments on the housing situation in Sg.

ST forum-->online story
Jan 26, 2010
HDB flats: Why did supply fail to keep up with population growth?
WITH reference to the Housing and Development Board's (HDB) reply last Thursday ('Income ceiling helps ensure neediest get subsidised flats'), my sense is that the HDB underestimated the social ramifications of the resale policy to permanent residents (PRs), while it failed to maintain the Home Ownership Scheme for the people to balance demand of rapid population growth during the past 20 years. As a result, low- and middle-income households have suffered.
The ceiling of $3,000 and $2,000 for three- and two-room flats did not help as HDB did not build enough units to meet the market, citing low demand. This drastic reduction in the number of flats built is detrimental to the ageing population in the rental and sales market.
The policy to allow 533,000 PRs to buy resale HDB flats works against citizens. It is difficult to comprehend why HDB began to wind down the momentum to build more flats during the 1990s when the population ballooned from 3.047 million to 4.027 million by the end of 2000.
The yearly average peak of 30,900 HDB flats built during the 1980s corresponded with the population growth meeting the Home Ownership Scheme. However, during the 1990s when one more million people were added, HDB began to taper down to 25,700. What puzzles me most is that by 2008, when another 810,000 people were added to the population, HDB built only 8,260 units. Why the paradigm shift?
Take the example of a Queenstown five-room flat at $619,000. Single-income families earning $6,000 with two children cannot afford to pay 50 per cent of their income to buy such a flat. Can the $30,000 subsidy help them? Combined-income families with two children earning $8,000 may falter to commit 38 per cent for such flats. These groups are the 'neediest' for bigger flats, yet the Home Ownership Scheme eludes them.
Paul Chan

more comments...






During the last financial crisis, government exhort people not to be asset rich, cash poor, but their policy did not give people a choice. I believe they were trying to relinguish HDB's role to the private sector, ie, the mass market condos. But during the most recent crisis, instead of releasing more land to build homes, the gahment froze land sales instead, at the same time, the doors were opened wide for any, all and sundry, thus sending prices of all mass market housing to a dizzy height. The ministar for national planning will have a lot to explain in the next GE.
Posted by: Aquarius_MC at Tue Jan 26 11:08:46 SGT 2010

Manipulate demands thru the organs of the press. Make some press-meetings and interviews to create a tsunami conditions- HDB were fooled for twenty-years and revenge time is in.

Thanks to those HDB home speculators who buy and sells and yet got scot-free. HDB isn't going after them but rather aimed at those who needed one. They have to pay the price of abused carried-out but those speculators.

Sincerities of affordable homes comes first. Income level should not be the norms to deviate a possible home owneship. Refrains any bullets for HDB to chew -on!

Posted by: kopioo168 at Tue Jan 26 10:49:46 SGT 2010

in the first place, if we are in negative equity, is because we are paying damn high prices now for HDB flats and the only way to be in positive equity is for the prices to go up up up

Posted by: sunflower68 at Tue Jan 26 10:44:29 SGT 2010
Singapore must focus more on building houses for their own people.
It's basic need.

Instead, they are building IR and casinos for foreigners and tourists first. Homes later.
Posted by: gentleman007 at Tue Jan 26 10:34:29 SGT 2010
I agree with the writer. When no Singaporeans want to buy HDB flats, who will buy if not for PR?

Let us remember that many PRs are married to citizens too. They will also have families and children, who will be citizens in future. It's just jealousy on Singaporeans part to blame PRs for everything, even the increase in price. Don't Singaporeans too get to enjoy making profits?

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_481863.html

more readups from elsewhere. [ triggering your critical thinking...]