Abandoned Projects - Who's Liable?

[joker2107]

All quotes from Safety of Abandoned projects in question
http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2950

"The Cabinet decided recently to set up the committee following numerous complaints by the public on the dangers these buildings posed.... "

"Many of these buildings have rusting tower cranes on the top which are in danger of toppling over.

Besides being an eye-sore, many of these buildings do not have adequate safety measures resulting in falling metal and materials causing injuries to passers-by and damaging vehicles. "

amazes me that the machinery acknowledges public complaints. more amazing is that they are actually HEARD to be acting on the complaints.

my greater concern is with regards ownership of liability for

"Abandoned buildings also pose a health hazard as they become breeding grounds for mosquitoes, besides turning into hideouts and shelters for drug addicts and vagrants. "

land owners and developers are (supposedly) hauled up by local govts if their developments favour the breeding of the aedes mosquito.

but what if they cannot be found and the land is under auction by banks or danaharta has taken over the baby?

don't banks and danaharta also owe the public and the nation a duty of care and an obligation to ensure that they are not party to the propogation of health hazards and unhealthy activities?

i propose that the media, both newsprint and tv, embark on a major campaign to highlight all the properties under the control of banks and danaharta which are sites to keep miles away from.

and they had better take immediate action cos the has been weather fortunately rather wet and the aedes is simply awaiting the rain to abate before venting out with vicious vengence.

remember, it takes umpteen years and tonnes of complaints before the cabinet can acknowledge the presence of a problem. and there after it takes a major project scale effort to make themselves heard to be doing something.

i have written on this topic to a daily tabloid many moons ago. u and i can only guess that it was not published cos they assume danaharta to be too sensitive a name to shame publicly. i can only reply, don't make and ass of u and me.

[Voter]

Who is liable? You will get the same reply from those supposedly responsible that it's NOBODY's fault. When they are defenceless, they will say it's ACT of GOD.

[jeffooi]

THE STAR
Thursday, November 21, 2002

Housebuyers getting short end of the stick
By V.K. CHIN

HOUSING and Local Government Minister [B]Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting has to consider the interest of housebuyers in rejecting calls to extend the completion date of housing projects.

...Therefore late delivery of houses is inevitable and while any extension is good for the quicker recovery of the industry, what about the interest of the housebuyers and who is going to protect them if not the Government?

For starters, the purchasers will have to keep on servicing their loans and such payments will not cease if the developers should get an extension.

At the same time, many of them also have to pay rent while waiting for their new homes to be ready.

This is therefore a very heavy financial commitment for many buyers.

Any delay will mean incurring additional costs unless of course the instalments could also be put on hold.

However, the financial institutions will have something to say about this new development as they are a party to such transactions.

Unless they agree to defer payments the proposal is not going to work.

The bottom line seems to be that the consumers should not be made to suffer or inconvenienced because the developers have an operational problem for whatever reason.

If the developers are going to get a reprieve, it must be a complete package where the consumers’ interest will be taken into account as well as that of the lenders.

FULL STORY:
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story...ieve&sec=focus

[jeffooi]

Related threads in the Web Forum:

Safety of abandoned projects in question

Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act
gazetted 31.1.2002. Implementation?