Latest Cooling Measure is now out:
https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/buy-prope...sidential.aspx
Discuss...
Printable View
Latest Cooling Measure is now out:
https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/buy-prope...sidential.aspx
Discuss...
"The only exception in which the occupancy cap does not apply is when a private residential property is entirely occupied by the same family unit."
Many landed house will be impacted, also private apartment specialised for foreign workers like in geylang, st michael and macpherson area.
But that would further lower the vacancy rates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomutomi
It may be good, depending on how one look at it.
If you spend a million dollar and your neighbor rent their unit to FW would you want to spend the million dollars?
But that would further lower the vacancy rates?
I don't think URA is going after vacancy rates, they get too many complaints on FW in Condo.
It is cheaper to house FW in Condo than the dormitory.
there are still 2 more years to go if u sign/renew the tenancy with more than 6 foreign workers by this sunday.
The record is "50" in two 2BR units:Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcachon
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...wo-condo-units
For me, it's good. I never rent to more than two or three persons and prefer them to be related.
But those buy to rent landed will kenna big.
The policy is biased against those with huge units.
No wonder landed price last quarter suddenly dropped by about 2%...
hmm...about 2.5 months from passing law to URA issue guideline.
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics...-under-new-law
it was mentioned that article
"The new law will also limit the number of unrelated tenants in private apartments to six, down from the currently allowed eight. "
will it have any impact ?
no aware of any news of actions taken against AirBnb and those hosts despite new law being passed in 2017-02-26.
those who stayed within the old guideline (8) will continue to stay in the new guideline (6).
those who stay on the gray area will continue to stay in the gray area.
does the above guideline forbid hot bunking? it maybe interpreted that only 6 occupants INSIDE the unit at the same time. with hotbunking, a total of 18 occupants, 6 at each 8hour time slots.
With official clarity and stance, agents cannot claim ignorance and there will be clear penalties. I think this will drastically reduce vacancies by the end of the year.
what were unclear previously? what were unclear about max 8 occupants and min of 6 months? and penalties of fines of up to $200k and jail up to 1 year were also not clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelonguni
it is the enforcement part that is lacking.
The penalties are heavier now. Recently revised.Quote:
Originally Posted by hopeful
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics...-under-new-law
The clarity also encourages more active whistleblowing.
Do what you want, but don't ever get caught.
so were previous penalties unclear or not heavy enough ?
how were the officials not clear nor stanceful previously ?
or penalties not heavy enough = law not clear enough ?
Just think Uber / Grab and Private Hire cars, and you will see how this works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopeful
Airbnb are still advertising daily rentals for private properties, and they didn't bother to enforce? Otherwise why nobody get caught yet?
They can set all kind of laws they want, but if they don't enforce, it is just that - "a piece of paper"! People then think that they can just ignore the "law" because they are just for "show", wayang...............
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopeful
Likely to be based on neighborhood report. More tenants more noise and neighbor not happy, knowing the rule they will happily report to mgmt or police (?).
先礼后兵。
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddybear
In this case, the authorities seem to emphasise more on the number rather than the duration.
You can sense the stance from the articles.
Numbers and address wise, my tenants tell me the authorities check it through their employers and are quite serious about it.
thank you for mentioning uber/grab.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelonguni
but instead of sidetracking, let's get back to the statement
"With official clarity and stance, agents cannot claim ignorance and there will be clear penalties. I think this will drastically reduce vacancies by the end of the year."
we are only at the 1st part "With official clarity and stance, agents cannot claim ignorance and there will be clear penalties."
have not even begin to discuss the 2nd part "I think this will drastically reduce vacancies by the end of the year."
so let's begin again:
how were the previous rules/guidelines not clear?
is this why you say the rules are unclear?
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/real...g-of-contracts
i know you make no money by telling me or anybody else here, i can only depends on your charity to enlighten me (& the rest of us.)
companies who own landed can continue to house their workers there since they are not "rented"?
the way i see it, the introduction of the new rules/guidelines is a matter of saving face for the authorities.
if authorities start enforcing the previous rules in 2017, questions would arise why they did not strictly enforce the rules in 2016,2015 for example. it would be uncomfortable.
by tweaking the old rule slightly and introducing it as new, if and when they enforce the new rule in 2017, they can justify it by saying it is the new law. old rule, old fines would kind be "forgotten" as if they didnt exist.
as kelonguni mention, 先礼后兵. who would be the "lucky one". after that life goes on.
by the way, nowadays does taxi driver still ask rear passengers to put on seatbelt?
interesting question, would it come under the home office scheme?Quote:
Originally Posted by bargain hunter
In essence, growth of technology meant lots of new disruptive technologies emerged.
Govt will let free market run a while, continue to collect feedback, then study in details during review.
It's the same with HDB and private ownership and where to stay, Uber and Grab, piracy issues, short term stay, milk powder marketing costs.
Once details are finalised and impacts are studied carefully, the finalised stands are made clear to all. Uber and Grab and private hire cars was passed, short term stays are stopped, after careful review.
Need more evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopeful
thanks kelonguni. please bear with me, i am what you may called dense. (the unkind word is stupid).
from the post above, do you mean to say the previous rules were clear (max 8 occupants, min 6 months) but for some reason or another, the rules were not strictly enforced? perhaps the reasons for not strictly enforcing were what you posted above.
Rules could never be fully enforced as long as there are humans. Drugs are illegal, unregistered vice is illegal, but they still persist. The authorities must choose their fights - which are the worst problems to tackle?
There may be some law conditions that need to be modified before the authorities can pick up the fight.
For example, I remember recently they modified the authorities of the police to conduct search without warrant or something. May be related to the ultimate enforcement of tenancy rules. At present, it is more for entertainment nightspots flouting rules, but it can be further extended.
This is more serious nowadays due to the threat of terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopeful
First need to read this https://www.99.co/blog/singapore/pre...tting-a-guide/Quote:
Originally Posted by anythingwhatever
While there are a number of strict guidelines set in place by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), these rules are largely concerned with restrictions on structural layouts, minimum length of stay, tenancy agreements and overcrowding. As such, private homeowners themselves have to ensure that tenants do not engage in illegal subletting of the premises.
before trying to understand https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/buy-prope...sidential.aspx
The Singapore Parliament passed a new law which makes short term rental illegal in Singapore. The amended Planning Act makes it illegal for property owners to rent out rent out entire apartments and rooms on a short-term basis unless they have permission from the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to do so.
http://app.mnd.gov.sg/Newsroom/News-...ntary%20Speech
In fact, the cap of 6 persons was the original cap that used to be in place before. This cap was raised to 8 in 2008 to ease a crunch in the housing supply for workers. Since then, we have built up a good supply of alternative accommodation catering to groups other than families, such as hostels for students and dormitories for company employees and workers. So we believe it is timely to revert to the cap of 6, which was what it used to be before 2008. As for reviewing the HDB limits, I think that is a separate matter which is not within the remits of the Planning Act, because the HDB controls are regulated separately. We would be happy to do the review of the occupancy cap for HDB flats on a separate basis.
Interesting... Will HDB be the next target? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcachon
We just need to examine the vacancy rates for next quarter to ascertain.
From the news reports, it appears that many private homeowners have been renting out spare bedrooms. Or renting out individual rooms to separate groups.
It will be interesting to see how low the vacancy will trend to with this. Because some can rush to renew, I think it will only fall to 7.5%.
Every rule, guideline, Act (law) are all calibrated to ensure the property market function at it best.Quote:
Originally Posted by anythingwhatever
2007 before I went oversea, HDB are only allowed to rent out the whole unit after fully paid or 10 years MOP. But because of the large intake of FW, HDB reduce it to 5 years MOP and HDB need not be fully paid when buying Private.
To understand Singapore property market, one need to read the economic, MOM, trade data, MOE, etc. all are interlink and will affect the decide outcome from Ah Kong.
The day where 535,000 become 1,550,000 in 4 years are over whether it will happen again only TIME can tell.
The Money printing is only getting to be worst and everyone knows it, only those who know, refuse to know and don't want to know.
If one can buy and think can wait, rule, guideline, Act (law) will change then today can buy tomorrow cannot.
Buy where you can hold not where you can meet the minimum and you should be safe.