By P. Gunasegaram
Opposition to the Urban Renewal Act bill took on a new dimension as two major factions within the Madani coalition appeared on opposite ends of the spectrum, with DAP championing the new proposed act and Umno opposed to it in its current form.
In the latest statement from Umno, special task force chief for improvements to the bill, Johari Abdul Ghani, said it should be referred to a special parliamentary committee before it is tabled for a reading.
He added that various findings have been gathered and this will be discussed with Umno president and deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to review how public views can be incorporated.
“As (government bloc) MPs, we cannot be fighting among ourselves, and I myself am a minister. Therefore, we will bring this bill and discuss it with Zahid. He will then inform the prime minister,” he said.
Two contentious issues
Public opposition to the proposed URA centres around two things – lowering the threshold for approvals from owners and the excessive powers that will be given to the authorities in deciding which projects will be approved.
The government has too much power under the act. If the bill is passed as is, a new property czar will be born – Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming who will head a powerful council overseeing, approving and selecting developers for all urban renewal projects, I said previously.
Amazingly, the bill discriminates against the owners if they come up with their plans for renewal. Reports say Clause 19(1)(a) provides that if proprietors voluntarily apply to the Federal or State Executive Committee to initiate an urban renewal project, unanimous consent will be required.
But for projects initiated by the Federal or State Executive Committees, that is for approved developers, the consent thresholds are much lower:
- 80% for buildings 30 years old or less
- 75% for buildings over 30 years old
- 51% for abandoned or unsafe buildings
This rule is blatantly unfair to the owners, making it nearly impossible for them to go ahead with any scheme no matter the age or whether it is abandoned.
An unfair clause sneaked in
Why one rule for owners and another for developers, developers preapproved by the state or federal executive committees? How could such a clearly discriminatory clause be sneaked into the bill?
Current rules under Section 57(1) of the Strata Titles Act require unanimous consent from all parcel owners for the termination of a strata scheme, which is a prerequisite for demolition or redevelopment. Even one dissenting owner can block the process.
This provision has long been criticised for hindering redevelopment, especially in aging or unsafe buildings. Most commentators don’t oppose lowering the threshold but want it to be higher, starting with 95% for those properties 30 years of age or less.
The other thing that has transpired is that the proposed act is not restricted only to properties under the Strata Titles Act.
It applies to urban properties, including landed residential homes, shoplots, commercial buildings, public housing, and abandoned or unsafe structures, as long as they fall within designated urban renewal zones.
That means almost nothing is safe from redevelopment in major urban areas.
Nothing is sacrosanct
It’s a carte blanche for property developers, nothing is sacrosanct as long as the necessary thresholds are reached. No one’s property anywhere in designated zones is safe from the clawing hands of developers.
A high rise building can be approved overnight where once stood a row of terrace houses, or a group of bungalows, or terrace houses or semi-detached houses or any combination of those, so long as there is 80% approval.
In my earlier comment I had focused on other aspects over and above the threshold limits which are also very important. Vesting power effectively in the hands of the minister of local government and housing gives much room for patronage and corruption.
A much better thing to do is to form an Urban Redevelopment Commission to handle this professionally and with set guidelines and an act of Parliament to govern it.
I said: “Instead the power for deciding redevelopment comes out of the double-barrelled single gun – the two barrels being the Federal Executive Committee and the smaller State Executive Committee. The SEC must consult the big brother FEC, always.”
The killer is Section 5 (2) of the proposed URA, the FEC will have as chairman the minister. That at this point would be Nga, the rising voice of the DAP and a strong advocate of the URA, which property developers love. He would steer the FEC.
That is likely to put Umno, the unlikely opponent of the URA along with much of the opposition and many within PKR, in loggerheads with DAP which has become over the last few years a strong advocate of developers at the expense of the small man.
Ironically it puts Umno in a better light than the DAP in this fight. How things have changed!
P Gunasegaram says moral compasses change directions when people forget their roots.
You must be logged in to post a comment.