Imagine property “agents” knocking on your door. They tell you that your old flats are to be knocked down and rebuilt as fancy new condominiums. And you should agree to it - or else…
Or else what? Well, the government may acquire your building. Then you will get less compensation than what the developer is offering you now.
These are the scare tactics being used by some smooth talkers to pressure homeowners into agreeing to urban renewal, as Han Jun Siew, from Kuala Lumpur Residents Action (KLRA), told BFM.
After homeowners’ “kiasu” and “kiasi” (scared to lose, scared to die) instincts have been aroused, they are split into those for and against.
“We’ve seen banners from either side insult the other,” said KLRA chairperson Tan Booi Charn.
Even worse, Han revealed that photos of dissenters are put up on red posters and they are named and shamed as “troublemakers”.
Flawed process
This social ferment is happening in some flats after 139 land parcels were named for potential redevelopment in February 2025 under the KL Structure Plan 2040 (KLSP2040).
The justification for urban renewal is that rundown old flats need to be knocked down and rebuilt. In principle, it sounds good - until you drill down into the details.
Take the Cantik Apartments in Cheras, KL. One resident told The Star that the walk-up flats were still occupied by owners mainly and in good condition even after 40 years.
Yet, these flats were listed as one of the 139 redevelopment sites under KLSP2040. This led agents to knock on their doors.
The process will accelerate once the proposed Urban Renewal Act (URA) is passed as consent to demolish and rebuild will be lowered from 100 to 80 percent of owners.
Section 14 (2) of the draft URA provides for an “urban renewal mediation committee” to be set up so that an “amicable agreement” can be reached.
However, that doesn't stop developers’ agents from prowling old flats, to cajole or frighten people into that “amicable agreement”.
“From our experience thus far, there's no structure, no public consultation (town hall meeting). Instead, agents are harassing residents and communities are split,” explained Han.
“Urban renewal is being outsourced to developers by local councils. The process lacks guidelines.”
This is not limited to the 139 sites in KL. Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming said that 534 areas in Peninsula Malaysia have been identified for urban renewal with an estimated gross development value (GDV) of RM355 billion. That's a juicy deal for developers.
Yet, I wrote in my second article on URA, it is homeowners, not developers, who should lead urban renewal – if they want it.
After all, the land belongs to owners who should share the profits of redevelopment.
Affordability is key
With stagnant salaries and rising costs of living, many people are struggling.
The majority of house prices in all states (excluding Malacca) were rated as “unaffordable”, based on annual household income.
Our root problem is not a lack of housing per se but that they are too expensive for many.
After all, 90,586 residences (both completed or being built) remained unsold in 2024 according to Napic (National Property Information Centre)
Another problem is unsuitable locations. Surprisingly, Emir Research revealed that 30 percent of unsold residential properties are below the official “affordable” price of RM300,000.
This is because they are built on cheap land far away from city areas where jobs are and lack public transport.
Yet demolishing old city flats under URA to build flashy new condos will only force the urban poor to those faraway suburbs.
Ironically, when the 139 land parcels were first announced in February, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) Dr Zaliha Mustafa said it was meant to provide affordable housing in KL.
How did that original intention change into one to build swanky condos worth billions in delicious gross development value?
Titiwangsa MP Johari Abdul Ghani admitted the URA is needed to fix the problem of old, rundown flats in KL.
“But it must not favour high-end projects that leave only a fraction of units for public housing,” he told The Star in March.
Johari emphasised that these areas should be reserved for the urban poor who need homes near their workplaces.
Social impacts
Will the new high-density “urban renewal” condos built via the URA overload existing public facilities?
Section 4 (1) (e) of the URA states the government shall prepare a “social environment studies” (SES) report.
According to Free Malaysia Today on June 14, Seputeh MP Teresa Kok proposed that the URA should have social impact assessments (SIA).
“In places like Sri Petaling (KL) schools are already full,” she noted. “Developers of high-density renewal projects should be asked to contribute funds to build schools, too.”
Uprooting residents for commercial objectives ignores the “S” part of ESG (environment, social and governance), said Saleha Yusoff, an executive director at Nawawi Tie Leung Property Consultants.
“Some residents might be at their retirement age, so finding new houses will be challenging as they will not qualify for housing loans. They might not have the money to top up for the bigger units,” she told The Edge.
Whether it's called SES or SIA, let me add that it should also survey the impact on existing social bonds, and the desire of people (especially the elderly) to remain with old neighbours and familiar surroundings, even if they are not classy.
A humble flat is still a home filled with memories, not just an asset.
Redevelop golf courses?
Taking away existing homes for the URA’s “redevelopment” (demolish and rebuild) should be a last resort.
Why not first consider the law's “regeneration” (refurbishment) option, as done in Singapore's public flats?
However, the URA is very useful in redeveloping abandoned projects or buildings declared unsafe. Only 51 percent consent is needed in those cases.
The URA can also be applied to hopelessly run-down flats that are too difficult to repair but probably not places like Cantik Apartments which are not posh but still in good shape.
My suggestion is that the government should first acquire ailing and struggling private golf courses to build more affordable homes in our cities!
Or how about turning part of the government’s own Civil Service Golf Club (KGPA) in KL into affordable flats? Do our dear civil servants need all 27 holes of this sprawling course? Won't nine or 18 holes be enough for them?
KGPA is so huge that it straddles two MRT stations – Taman Tun Dr Ismail and Phileo Damansara – perfect for residents’ commuting, not for golfers carrying heavy clubs.
So much land can be freed up from an elite hobby and repurposed for people's needs.
Why is it always the poor that have to make way for redevelopment? Don't we already have too many golf courses anyway?
So, what is the conclusion of my three articles? Yes, the URA may have good intentions to revitalise our cities but it needs some changes to better protect homeowners.
Urban renewal should focus less on developers’ profits and more on community wellbeing. - FMT
ANDREW SIA is a veteran journalist who likes teh tarik khau kurang manis. You are welcome to give him ideas to brew at tehtarik@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.