Housing Developers Cry Foul. Balls Shrink.
Developers have not reacted too well to the fact that they might be jailed if their projects damage the environment or trigger landslides or other disasters. They are also none too happy with the proposal to require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report regardless of the size of the development.
Calling it an "overreaction", Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association (Rehda) president Datuk Jeffrey Ng said the blanket requirement for an EIA would add bureaucratic processes, increase costs and defeat the Government’s efforts to improve its public delivery system.
"Rehda maintains that only large developments of 50ha or more, and all environmentally-sensitive areas irrespective of size, should be subject to EIA requirements," he said.
"Putting the blame solely on developers for all environmental disasters is grossly unfair and unreasonable."
****Environmental groups on the other hand threw their full support behind the proposed amendments to the Act. They said among other things that:
1) Areas designated as Environmental Sensitive Areas under the National Physical Plan should require a mandatory detailed EIA.
2) Rising land prices and motivation for profit often drive developers to go for high-density development on small plots."
REHDA President Jeffrey Ng would love to maintain the present 50ha or more criteria for compulsory EIAs. Of course he would. If you don't give them that loophole how else can the developer make money with that infernal EIA hanging around their collective greedy necks? At present if there is a huge tract of land then the government, local authorities and the developer 'jointly decide' how to break it up into parcels less than 50ha, eg. 49.9ha and everyone is very happy. Let there be no doubt that the 50ha limit and the EIA are the common enemies of both the developer and his comrade in arms, the authorities. Both would be in seventh heaven if these 'irritants' were totally got rid off today; it's a strong impediment to making money you see.
The main idea in proposing these new measures including the jail term is to serve as a reminder to developers that no more nonsense will be tolerated and that environmental abuse and hillslope tragedies will not recur.
Don't listen to people like Jeffrey Ng who ostensibly worry how this excellent proposal will 'defeat' the Government’s efforts to improve its public delivery system. That's all poppycock. Money my dear friend is the motivation; and a real fear of spending some time in the cooler is the reason for this crying foul.
My earlier related post: Crooked Developers And Consultants Beware - Prison Beckons.
Calling it an "overreaction", Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association (Rehda) president Datuk Jeffrey Ng said the blanket requirement for an EIA would add bureaucratic processes, increase costs and defeat the Government’s efforts to improve its public delivery system.
"Rehda maintains that only large developments of 50ha or more, and all environmentally-sensitive areas irrespective of size, should be subject to EIA requirements," he said.
"Putting the blame solely on developers for all environmental disasters is grossly unfair and unreasonable."
****Environmental groups on the other hand threw their full support behind the proposed amendments to the Act. They said among other things that:
1) Areas designated as Environmental Sensitive Areas under the National Physical Plan should require a mandatory detailed EIA.
2) Rising land prices and motivation for profit often drive developers to go for high-density development on small plots."
REHDA President Jeffrey Ng would love to maintain the present 50ha or more criteria for compulsory EIAs. Of course he would. If you don't give them that loophole how else can the developer make money with that infernal EIA hanging around their collective greedy necks? At present if there is a huge tract of land then the government, local authorities and the developer 'jointly decide' how to break it up into parcels less than 50ha, eg. 49.9ha and everyone is very happy. Let there be no doubt that the 50ha limit and the EIA are the common enemies of both the developer and his comrade in arms, the authorities. Both would be in seventh heaven if these 'irritants' were totally got rid off today; it's a strong impediment to making money you see.
The main idea in proposing these new measures including the jail term is to serve as a reminder to developers that no more nonsense will be tolerated and that environmental abuse and hillslope tragedies will not recur.
Don't listen to people like Jeffrey Ng who ostensibly worry how this excellent proposal will 'defeat' the Government’s efforts to improve its public delivery system. That's all poppycock. Money my dear friend is the motivation; and a real fear of spending some time in the cooler is the reason for this crying foul.
My earlier related post: Crooked Developers And Consultants Beware - Prison Beckons.
posted by The Malaysian. at 6/08/2006 01:58:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home