• 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.

EXCLUSIVE: Cronin lifts veil on new draft expropriation law

Solarion

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
17,087
Before you set an aircraft into production you test it. Maybe you should give a large piece of land to the general population and see what happens.

You'll have a micro Africa right there. Everyone(general population) starts on an equal footing each with their own piece of land. In 6 months time the only people that will own property are the gang bosses (government) that terrorized the tenants out of it, and all the people now living there (general population) have to paid exorbitant fees to rent there. All the houses will be forcibly disconnected from the main grid and will all be wired from 1 gang bosses house so you have to pay for your electricity to him or get thrown out/beaten up/murdered.

Public services will be non existent. Sewerage and litter will be everywhere.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
14,700
You say you don't have an ideology, and are even conservative leaning, but you characterize property owners in Sandton as lazy, polluting speculators who are damaging society. Pull the other one, mate.
I said I vote for conservatives, doesn't mean I have an ideology, I have to vote for somebody at some point.

I spoke of one specific owner as an example of what has a cost for society, not of Sandton owners in general. I live in Sandton and have no problem with the vast majority of owners.

It's tiring when people just assume your thinking by putting words in your mouth, really.

Take each of my words for their face value, if I wanted them to mean something else, I would have used another word. Language is accurate. I said "I vote conservative", not "I am conservative" for example.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
14,700
Before you set an aircraft into production you test it. Maybe you should give a large piece of land to the general population and see what happens.

You'll have a micro Africa right there. Everyone(general population) starts on an equal footing each with their own piece of land. In 6 months time the only people that will own property are the gang bosses (government) that terrorized the tenants out of it, and all the people now living there (general population) have to paid exorbitant fees to rent there. All the houses will be forcibly disconnected from the main grid and will all be wired from 1 gang bosses house so you have to pay for your electricity to him or get thrown out/beaten up/murdered.

Public services will be non existent. Sewerage and litter will be everywhere.
How was watching Mad Max again yesterday night?
 

Temujin

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
3,528
I don't understand what you are saying.
Lets go back...
I asked, how is someone owning land harmful to population
You replied, HK is classic example

My responses and point: HK is an example of how gov owning land is harmful to the population(ie, not me, the individual growing grass). People don't own land. Gov owns land. It leases it to developers in bidding wars. Land ownership in HK is harmful to the population due to gov not allowing development on unused land.

Gov hordes land, the less land it makes available, the higher the prices go. The result, cage living. There is plenty of land available for dev, leasing it out will solve all the inhumane living standard there, gov just doesn't release it, cos prices will drop.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
24,874
All in all we have some direction, but it still needs to be drawn into the 'new' expropriation bill. As it is, it are answers to long overdue questions. At least we are moving, not to mention that the government took their time and that they reacted on conditions when they had 'us' in uncertainty. Two months to go which will only set out the procedure.
 

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
8,107
Lets go back...
I asked, how is someone owning land harmful to population
You replied, HK is classic example

My responses and point: HK is an example of how gov owning land is harmful to the population(ie, not me, the individual growing grass). People don't own land. Gov owns land. It leases it to developers in bidding wars. Land ownership in HK is harmful to the population due to gov not allowing development on unused land.

Gov hordes land, the less land it makes available, the higher the prices go. The result, cage living. There is plenty of land available for dev, leasing it out will solve all the inhumane living standard there, gov just doesn't release it, cos prices will drop.
the problem is, the government owns lands in hong kong is NOT harmful to the population.

let me rephrase what I want to say. (pls tell me if I was understanding you wrongly)

I actually was responding to "speculative investment". (speculative purposes)

I was using hong kong as an example to against any "speculative investment".
if the big investment companies / developers brought all the available lands, the prices of lands will be increased more rapidly. the restriction to sell off all available lands to public, the reason is to avoid rapid increase of the land prices. that is exactly the reason why the action of "speculative investment" for empty lands is bad for the public. the government has no power to buy back the lands and watches the lands undeveloped, the government can't do anything when the people need lands. (something similar to the current situation in SA).

edit: as I said before, you can't produce / manufacture "land" in a factory, "resource" (land) is limited.
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
3,528
the problem is, the government owns lands in hong kong is NOT harmful to the population.

let me rephrase what I want to say. (pls tell me if I was understanding you wrongly)

I actually was responding to "speculative investment". (speculative purposes)

I was using hong kong as an example to against any "speculative investment".
if the big investment companies / developers brought all the available lands, the prices of lands will be increased more rapidly. the restriction to sell off all available lands to public, the reason is to avoid rapid increase of the land prices. that is exactly the reason why the action of "speculative investment" for empty lands is bad for the public. the government has no power to buy back the lands and watches the lands undeveloped, the government can't do anything when the people need lands. (something similar to the current situation in SA).

edit: as I said before, you can't produce / manufacture "land" in a factory, "resource" (land) is limited.
Fair enough, we were on different tracks, I was looking at the harmful to peeps

But we'll have to agree to disagree on the 'not harmful'... the place is a hell hole for majority of peeps, cages are smaller than my bathroom, and all thanks to gov holding the land and not making it available for development. I wouldn't wish that on anyone
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
934
I am informed enough to have a pretty good idea corroborated from various sides of what is intended rather. :sneaky:

Why do you think the banks, real estate groups and others are not up in arms? Because they perfectly know that it will affect at minima private parties.
It is perhaps a significant consideration that the political classes generally have at least one property, and therefore have a vested interest in retaining those properties. Yes, there will be ways to get round any adverse affects, but I imagine they would prefer not to take the risk. There is too the point that were the market to become disorderly, property values could suffer.
As against that Pam Golding has said in the last couple of days that the market is firming up again in ZA, but you could not call that a disinterested opinion!
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
934
Before you set an aircraft into production you test it. Maybe you should give a large piece of land to the general population and see what happens.

You'll have a micro Africa right there. Everyone(general population) starts on an equal footing each with their own piece of land. In 6 months time the only people that will own property are the gang bosses (government) that terrorized the tenants out of it, and all the people now living there (general population) have to paid exorbitant fees to rent there. All the houses will be forcibly disconnected from the main grid and will all be wired from 1 gang bosses house so you have to pay for your electricity to him or get thrown out/beaten up/murdered.

Public services will be non existent. Sewerage and litter will be everywhere.
No change then.
 

DreamKing

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
8,107
Fair enough, we were on different tracks, I was looking at the harmful to peeps

But we'll have to agree to disagree on the 'not harmful'... the place is a hell hole for majority of peeps, cages are smaller than my bathroom, and all thanks to gov holding the land and not making it available for development. I wouldn't wish that on anyone
let me explain that.

1) assume the government has 100 pieces of land, each can accommodate 10000 people.
2) each land costs $1m. total amount $100m.
3) the government releases 1 land when the population growth 10000 people. government put the land for auction. the highest bidder takes the land.
4) now the people ask the government to release all the lands to the public to reduce the properties prices, each land sells for $1m each.
5) a very rich person, he uses his method, brought all the lands for $200m. (paid double of the original price)
6) for the first few years, the population growth less than 10000 people, nothing happened, very people happy because they earn double of their money.
7) later, the population growth more than 10000, the people now want the land, they demand the government to give them land, but the government doesn't have any land.
8) properties prices go up, no one can build new houses, because the rich person holds the land.
9) the people have to demolish the existing houses, then they build smaller houses and then subdivide the bigger house to smaller rooms and then build cages to live ......... due to higher prices.
10) the rich person tells the government, if the people want the land, I can sell the lands back to the government, asks for $100 billions in total.

so, who wins? who loses? "speculative investment" is good for the people or bad for the people?

think about that. ;)

PS: no developer will build more houses / units / apartments than the market requires that will pull the properties prices down. :D (supply and demand)
 
Last edited:

Temujin

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
3,528
let me explain that.

1) assume the government has 100 pieces of land, each can accommodate 10000 people.
2) each land costs $1m. total amount $100m.
3) the government releases 1 land when the population growth 10000 people. government put the land for auction. the highest bidder takes the land.
4) now the people ask the government to release all the lands to the public to reduce the properties prices, each land sells for $1m each.
5) a very rich person, he uses his method, brought all the lands for $200m. (paid double of the original price)
6) for the first few years, the population growth less than 10000 people, nothing happened, very people happy because they earn double of their money.
7) later, the population growth more than 10000, the people now want the land, they demand the government to give them land, but the government doesn't have any land.
8) properties prices go up, no one can build new houses, because the rich person holds the land.
9) the people have to demolish the existing houses, then they build smaller houses and then subdivide the bigger house to smaller rooms and then build cages to live ......... due to higher prices.
10) the rich person tells the government, if the people want the land, I can sell the lands back to the government, asks for $100 billions in total.

so, who wins? who loses? "speculative investment" is good for the people or bad for the people?

think about that. ;)

PS: no developer will build more houses / units / apartments than the market requires that will pull the properties prices down. :D (supply and demand)
You're not getting it.

The space my desk takes up that I'm sitting at right now is the space a family of 4 lives in in HK
Too many people, not enough housing, there is no room or housing available, and whats there is too farking expensive. So, an apartment built for 1 is divided and 10 now live in it. They need to develop the land to accomodate the people. The developers want it, the people NEED it, gov wont give it to em. The reason, there is little to no tax in hk. Gov makes money by leasing land. By holding land and not making it available for dev, the little that is available is more valuable than the buildings weight in gold, in turn, leasing price skyrockets

This is how people live in hk, who wins you ask? the gov won, the people lost, its farking terrible for the people. There is NOTHING GOOD ABOUT IT
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...g-kong-coffin-cubicles-cage-homes-in-pictures


As said, will have to agree to disagree, I will never agree with you that HK is all rainbows and sunshine and some sort of shining example we should all be looking to to emulate. It is 'harmful' to its population

Edit: And your whole post is pointless, you're talking about people getting land, buying land, rich buying it all, selling back to gov etc. As said multiple times now. HK leases land. Thats it. There is no private ownership. Its all gov owned. And thats the problem. They hold it. They don't lease enough out. They hold it back to increase the prices of the leasing bids. They need to make more available for development. EG. if they have 10000 acres availble to lease, they only lease out 100 acres to keep prices of bidding high. Instead of saying, we have 10 10 acre pieces of land for auction, they need to say we have 1000 10 acre pieces of land for auction. But they won't, cos the fighting for the 10 plots gets higher prices than no fighting for 1000 plots. I'm just repeating myself here, multiple posts of the same thing. If you don't understand it yet, nothing else I say will clear it up for you. Its a shocking failure of a system and prime example of what a gov that owns all the land is capable of doing by not caring for its people.
 
Last edited:

Kelerei

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
920
Exactly, a good example is New Zealand who, last I heard passed a law to prevent foreigners buying houses, I believe they can still purchase land and build on it though.
Just to clarify this one: under the new law, one requires a Resident Visa and to have spent at least 183 days in New Zealand before buying a house. Excluded from this are "large developments" and apartment blocks when bought off the plans (which a large proportion of foreign buyers looking for a good real estate investment do). In terms of those looking to buy a property in the name of a company/trust/etc, the entity is deemed to be "foreign" (and subject to the above restriction) if it has 25% or greater overseas ownership.

For people looking to move here, once they obtain a Resident Visa and spend at least 183 days in New Zealand following the grant of their Resident Visa, they are free to buy all the property that they wish. In reality, it doesn't really impact immigrants with the intention of making a permanent move here: most people have to get jobs here in order to secure residency and most people don't buy houses in the first 12-18 months after they arrive anyway: they prefer to rent, settle in, find their feet and make sure that they're comfortable both in an employment and emotional sense before approaching the banks to buy property.

Those looking to invest in property with no interest in living in the country will simply have to invest in an apartment.

I realise that the reporting on this was very Trump-like: mainstream media sensationalized this as New Zealand "banning foreign home buyers", when in actual fact, this is a non-issue for people interested in moving here to live. Actually, it's hard to see why apartments were excluded from the new restrictions (presumably the political pressure lay elsewhere) -- perhaps it was simply a perception that "rich" foreigners prefer to buy free standing houses rather than apartments.

In my opinion, herein lies the key difference that makes comparing the situation here with the proposed situation back in South Africa like comparing apples and oranges. Over here, if you're a citizen or have a Resident Visa and meet the minimum stay requirement, you can buy whatever you like and do whatever you like with it, whereas the proposed South African legislation appears to restrict everyone irrespective of citizenship or residence status.
 
Top