Note: The content for this essay did not purely originate from me, but arose from discussions with various people including friends, family and colleagues. I have merely attempted to express these ideas in a coherent and altogether more understandable manner, and the credit for the intellectual content should be shared with all who have collaborated in ways both formal and informal.
In a nutshell, the thesis of this prose is to argue that if you were to buy a private apartment in Singapore, and if you do not own a private vehicle (i.e. a car), you are inevitably being penalized, and are subsidizing other car-owning property owners from your own pocket. In the majority of situations, at least.
The Code of Practice for Vehicle Parking Provisions in Developments, issued by the Land Transport Authority and a version of which can be found here (which I believe, as of the time of writing, is the currently applicable document governing parking provisions, and of which I feel the "Forward to Users" on page 3 was actually meant to be a Foreword, but I may be mistaken), outlines parking provision requirements for developments in Singapore.
To spare most of my readers from having to navigate through a fairly technical document, I shall attempt to summarize the key and relevant points regarding parking provisions as it is outlined in the CoP. Rather unfortunately, the LTA document lacks pagination, but you should be able to work around this deficiency with little issue using whatever PDF reader software installed in your computer. With regards to deficiency in terms of parking spaces, however, the LTA comes down rather hard on the developer, requiring a deficiency charge (read: fine) of $32k per space within the Central Area and $16k per space outside (page 12).
Appendix A (pages 64 to 74) details the minimum parking spaces to be provided for various types of development. For Residential purposes, the minimum requirement is 1 parking space per 1 residential unit. This is the general rule of thumb for the entire island, although there is a Range-based Car Parking Standard (RCPS) that allows for up to 20% less than the minimum standard (leading to a rather confusing situation whereby the minimum is no longer, technically, the minimum. Calling it the "stipulated standard" would have been much clearer) in city areas and around subway stations (page 4). But the idea is clear--the developer should provide the minimum (whatever the minimum actually is) number of parking spaces, or pay a penalty.
Anyone who has a basic grasp of market fundamentals will be able to understand that any financial penalty incurred by the developer is ultimately borne by the eventual home buyer in the guise of higher costs. But this is not the main topic at hand. Presently, the majority of residential developments do not de-link the purchase of parking spaces from the purchase of the property, and herein lies the problem. When parking spaces are not de-linked from the residential property, non-car owners are unfairly penalized, because they are indirectly paying for this parking space allocation but they do not make use of it.
The car owners unfairly gain because the non-car owners are subsidizing the construction and operating costs of the parking space on their behalf. Some suggestions I have heard include allowing non-car owning property owners to "resell" their parking spaces, effectively monetizing the bundled asset of the parking space that came along with their purchased property. I feel that property ownership changes might render this system fairly difficult to implement, since a non-car owning resident might sell the property to a car-owning resident, who would then presumably want to make use of the rightful parking space. A better solution might be to completely de-link the parking space and the residential properties, and then conducting either an auction (highest bidder wins) or ballot for parking spaces. Yet this situation would probably lead to many disgruntled homeowners, unable to secure a parking spot in their own property.
What should be the new strategy to manage parking going forward? Importantly, I question if the LTA's current stipulated standard goes in the face of the drive to increase public transport ridership and reduce dependence on private vehicles, because it poses a strong disincentive to be a non-car owning resident of a private property, and because it effectively forces developers to provide a minimum number of parking spaces in their developments.
Think about it--if I propose developing a residential property targeted at young singles and couples, and the property will be close enough to public transit that I can drastically reduce the on-site parking spaces (even to zero), will the LTA's guidelines support my proposal? I do not think so, and I think the CoP not only continues to pervade the idea that car ownership is a necessary ambition for Singapore residents, but also financially penalizes those who either are forward-looking enough (understanding the car population is growing unsustainably in this country) to transcend the need (want?) to own a car, or are presently unable to to afford a car (lacking the financial means, as outlined in the preceding blog post) in the first place.
What do you think?
EDIT: on 23 June 2013, The Sunday Times ran an article by Lim Yan Liang about this issue. The article (full text available to subscribers only) can be found here.
In a nutshell, the thesis of this prose is to argue that if you were to buy a private apartment in Singapore, and if you do not own a private vehicle (i.e. a car), you are inevitably being penalized, and are subsidizing other car-owning property owners from your own pocket. In the majority of situations, at least.
The Code of Practice for Vehicle Parking Provisions in Developments, issued by the Land Transport Authority and a version of which can be found here (which I believe, as of the time of writing, is the currently applicable document governing parking provisions, and of which I feel the "Forward to Users" on page 3 was actually meant to be a Foreword, but I may be mistaken), outlines parking provision requirements for developments in Singapore.
To spare most of my readers from having to navigate through a fairly technical document, I shall attempt to summarize the key and relevant points regarding parking provisions as it is outlined in the CoP. Rather unfortunately, the LTA document lacks pagination, but you should be able to work around this deficiency with little issue using whatever PDF reader software installed in your computer. With regards to deficiency in terms of parking spaces, however, the LTA comes down rather hard on the developer, requiring a deficiency charge (read: fine) of $32k per space within the Central Area and $16k per space outside (page 12).
Appendix A (pages 64 to 74) details the minimum parking spaces to be provided for various types of development. For Residential purposes, the minimum requirement is 1 parking space per 1 residential unit. This is the general rule of thumb for the entire island, although there is a Range-based Car Parking Standard (RCPS) that allows for up to 20% less than the minimum standard (leading to a rather confusing situation whereby the minimum is no longer, technically, the minimum. Calling it the "stipulated standard" would have been much clearer) in city areas and around subway stations (page 4). But the idea is clear--the developer should provide the minimum (whatever the minimum actually is) number of parking spaces, or pay a penalty.
Anyone who has a basic grasp of market fundamentals will be able to understand that any financial penalty incurred by the developer is ultimately borne by the eventual home buyer in the guise of higher costs. But this is not the main topic at hand. Presently, the majority of residential developments do not de-link the purchase of parking spaces from the purchase of the property, and herein lies the problem. When parking spaces are not de-linked from the residential property, non-car owners are unfairly penalized, because they are indirectly paying for this parking space allocation but they do not make use of it.
The car owners unfairly gain because the non-car owners are subsidizing the construction and operating costs of the parking space on their behalf. Some suggestions I have heard include allowing non-car owning property owners to "resell" their parking spaces, effectively monetizing the bundled asset of the parking space that came along with their purchased property. I feel that property ownership changes might render this system fairly difficult to implement, since a non-car owning resident might sell the property to a car-owning resident, who would then presumably want to make use of the rightful parking space. A better solution might be to completely de-link the parking space and the residential properties, and then conducting either an auction (highest bidder wins) or ballot for parking spaces. Yet this situation would probably lead to many disgruntled homeowners, unable to secure a parking spot in their own property.
What should be the new strategy to manage parking going forward? Importantly, I question if the LTA's current stipulated standard goes in the face of the drive to increase public transport ridership and reduce dependence on private vehicles, because it poses a strong disincentive to be a non-car owning resident of a private property, and because it effectively forces developers to provide a minimum number of parking spaces in their developments.
Think about it--if I propose developing a residential property targeted at young singles and couples, and the property will be close enough to public transit that I can drastically reduce the on-site parking spaces (even to zero), will the LTA's guidelines support my proposal? I do not think so, and I think the CoP not only continues to pervade the idea that car ownership is a necessary ambition for Singapore residents, but also financially penalizes those who either are forward-looking enough (understanding the car population is growing unsustainably in this country) to transcend the need (want?) to own a car, or are presently unable to to afford a car (lacking the financial means, as outlined in the preceding blog post) in the first place.
What do you think?
EDIT: on 23 June 2013, The Sunday Times ran an article by Lim Yan Liang about this issue. The article (full text available to subscribers only) can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment