• You are losing out on amazing benefits because you are not a member. Join for free. Register now.
  • Big Two-Day Giveaway - Win an Amazon Kindle, a Mystery Gadget and Branded Gear. Enter Here.
  • Test your broadband speed and win prizes worth R5,000. Enter here.

Did Cape Town lose millions on Foreshore land sale?

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
8,113
#22
Ever heard of reserve prices in auctions? This is the sensible and reasonable thing to do when disposing of a limited asset such as land.
I am in your ignore list, pls don't reply my post anymore.

thank you for your co-operation. :)
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
6,117
#23
So the million dollar question is why did the city auction it at 17500m2 permissible space even though the zoning had been increased in 1996.

If multiple bidders openly bid on this on the basis that the permissible space was 17500m2, I don't see how this is the winning bidders problem. The city, however, screwed this up - what remains to be seen is if it was just an oversight (which is feasible considering the re-zoning was so old) or if there was something nefarious.
 

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
8,113
#25
DA fanboy not answering the hard questions it seems.
if you want me to respond, first you must apologize to me publicly, you said you put me in your ignore list but in fact that is not.
otherwise, I have no interest to answer any of your question. :)
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,860
#26
This is but a taste of what will happen with EWC, the tards who support it don't seem to realise that it will be abused like this.
Government expropriates land from people, doesn't have to pay compensation as property ownership is a western imperialistic concept. Government then sells the land to cronies in the property industry for some delicious kickbacks.

This type of thing is a problem in the US which has far stronger protections for property rights for South Africa. I am simply going to laugh when the poor ANC voters get evicted from their shacks and a nice new Gupta mall is put in its place.
 

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
8,113
#27
So the million dollar question is why did the city auction it at 17500m2 permissible space even though the zoning had been increased in 1996.

If multiple bidders openly bid on this on the basis that the permissible space was 17500m2, I don't see how this is the winning bidders problem. The city, however, screwed this up - what remains to be seen is if it was just an oversight (which is feasible considering the re-zoning was so old) or if there was something nefarious.
but you have to consider if the "real" market value is R5000/m2, why the highest bidder only paid for R1880/m2?

the purpose of "auction" is to find out what is the "real" market value, I don't trust, "you said" "I said", this type of journalism, I called it "yellow journalism" in general.
 

rietrot

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
9,284
#28
but you have to consider if the "real" market value is R5000/m2, why the highest bidder only paid for R1880/m2?

the purpose of "auction" is to find out what is the "real" market value, I don't trust, "you said" "I said", this type of journalism, I called it "yellow journalism" in general.
Stuff sell for less then the max market value at auctions all the time. Is this the only issue? Was it an open and fair auction where other people could also bid on the property? Then I don't see a problem.
 
Last edited:

Sl8er

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
6,706
#29
I'll phrase it in a way that normally would quickly jolt you into action, suppose the headline read
Would you see the problem?
Off-topic:

What if we put it this way:

A known convicted career thief sells something for cheap-cheap, what are you more likely to believe:
A. It was stolen or;
B. It was legally obtained for a bargain and being sold at a lower price

A non-criminal sells something for cheap-cheap, what are you more likely to believe:
A. It was stolen or;
B. It was legally obtained for a bargain and being sold at a lower price


( Note: I'm not commenting on the actual matter at hand, just on the anc vs DA comparison. )
 
Last edited:

rietrot

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
9,284
#30
The City auctioned off Site B in the Foreshore during a “fierce” bidding contest in September 2016. The buyer was Growthpoint, one of the biggest property developers in the country, which submitted a successful bid of R86.5 million.
People having a problem with this don't understand how the world works. There is nothing wrong with offering to pay the most money in a fierce bidding contest at a auction.
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
13,366
#31
Off-topic:

What if we put it this way:

A known convicted career thief sells something for cheap-cheap, what are you more likely to believe:
A. It was stolen or;
B. It was legally obtained for a bargain and being sold at a lower price

A non-criminal sells something for cheap-cheap, what are you more likely to believe:
A. It was stolen or;
B. It was legally obtained for a bargain and being sold at a lower price


( Note: I'm not commenting on the actual matter at hand, just on the anc vs DA comparison. )
I would not even listen to a convicted criminal.

I would listen to the so called non criminal since it is a courteous thing to do, I would not believe him though.
 

Sl8er

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
6,706
#32
I would not even listen to a convicted criminal.

I would listen to the so called non criminal since it is a courteous thing to do, I would not believe him though.
Agreed.
( But I'm pretty sure you'd be more likely to believe one over the other, if those were your choices ;) )
Anyway, enough of me (possibly) derailing this thread.
 

furpile

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
2,524
#33
so they got 17500 squares at r5000 per. then applied to develop on an additional 28500 that wasnt part of the auction. which equates to r1880 per square of 46000 total.

so buy a property then submit plans that includes the neighbours property? doesnt seem right.

has the application been approved? if so who approved it?
That is regarding max floor space, not actual land area. So if they could have built a 5 storey building they now want to build a 15 storey building as an example.

Bottom line is they can make more money off the property than was thought at the time of the auction, so should they have paid more? Maybe somebody else would have been willing to pay more if they knew they could build a bigger building.
 

rietrot

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
9,284
#34
That is regarding max floor space, not actual land area. So if they could have built a 5 storey building they now want to build a 15 storey building as an example.

Bottom line is they can make more money off the property than was thought at the time of the auction, so should they have paid more? Maybe somebody else would have been willing to pay more if they knew they could build a bigger building.
No they shouldn't have paid more it was an public auction. It is a concern if they had inside information that others didn't. Otherwise there's nothing wrong.
 

access

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
7,008
#36
That is regarding max floor space, not actual land area. So if they could have built a 5 storey building they now want to build a 15 storey building as an example.

Bottom line is they can make more money off the property than was thought at the time of the auction, so should they have paid more? Maybe somebody else would have been willing to pay more if they knew they could build a bigger building.
ah so the application is for constructing vertically? i thought its for the adjacent piece of land they mentioned.
 

Gordon_R

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
3,917
#37
The story was published a week ago on 14 Sep (I actually remember reading it at the time).

Any reason why it is "news" today, other than political point scoring?
 
Top