The buzz around is that after
politicians, builders are the most despised lot. Everyone has a story of
someone who got a raw deal. The keys were handed over three years after the
promised date; buyers had to cough up more midway, thanks to a clause that
initially appeared insignificant; the redeveloped apartment had two-and-a-half
bedrooms instead of three; and a year later, another 10-storied tower sprung up
on the "open space", blocking the view or the sea — for which the
owner, taken in by pictures on glossy brochures, had paid a premium. The list
is endless.
Some angry buyers move to court while
others grudgingly accept what they get. A few years down the line, they stop
cribbing as properties in the neighbourhood change hands for double the price they
had paid. By then, they could be browsing another brochure that has found its
way into the inbox, planning a second home that comes across as the only
sensible, even if a little sticky, investment.
The housing market is about spiraling rates that have priced out most buyers, ambitious developers who are answerable
to no one, emergence of property as an asset class and mortgage installments becoming the dominant outgo in household budgets.
Like politicians, developers require no qualification: anyone with a claim on a slice of land can put out an advertisement to attract buyers. It's a business that employs millions and flourishes without a (proper) watchdog. Thus, any hint of a new law that assures fair deals and exemplary punishments that would be handed out by a new regulator is irresistible.
But it won't be a cakewalk. Advocates
of such legislation should be prepared for the tortuous road towards a
well-regulated and cleaner property market.
First, home prices could go up in the short
and medium term.
Second, corruption may rise as
multiple agencies drag their feet on clearances. Developers may strike
convoluted deals giving buyers the option to purchase later.
Third, disqualifying a shoddy builder
could stall construction in all half-done projects and hurt genuine buyers.
And, lastly, the validity of many regulatory actions could be challenged in
higher courts.
There would be hurdles on the way and
unless there is a quick and effective mechanism to throw out unscrupulous developers
and hand over unfinished projects to others for completion, harsh measures
would backfire on home buyers. This could defeat the purpose behind an
otherwise strong law.
Comments
Post a Comment