Single vs multiple ownership: Why it matters for urban renewal
A property expert argues that urban renewal policies must distinguish between single-owner and multiple-owner developments. Treating both categories identically risks prolonged disputes, costly litigation and public distrust, while recognising the difference can help prioritise achievable projects a
The debate over urban renewal has often been propped up by attractive artist impressions of modern highrise developments and promises of better living conditions. Yet, behind every redevelopment proposal lies one critical question that policymakers cannot afford to ignore: Who owns the land? This can be the dividing line between a redevelopment project that proceeds relatively smoothly and one that becomes embroiled in years, if not decades, of negotiations and legal disputes.
Single ownership refers to properties where one entity owns the entire development, such as public housing estates whose land and buildings remain under the ownership of a government agency. In such cases, the ownership-related legal and administrative process is generally more straightforward because there is only one registered owner to deal with. The situation changes dramatically once a development is sold to individual purchasers. A stratified residential development may consist of hundreds or even thousands of parcel owners, each with legal rights and interests in his or her parcel, together with statutory rights associated with the development's common property.
Obtaining agreement from such a diverse group is not simply an administrative exercise — it is a complex process involving multiple property interests, financing arrangements and legal rights. For many owners, the property is not merely an investment but their only home. Some elderly residents have lived there for up to 50 years. Urban renewal therefore affects far more than bricks and mortar; it affects livelihoods, schools, places of worship, businesses and social networks that cannot simply be measured in monetary compensation.
A redevelopment framework designed for a single-owner public housing development cannot automatically be applied in the same way to privately-owned stratified developments. Private strata developments involve numerous individual proprietors whose interests engage the constitutional protection that no person may be deprived of property save in accordance with law, and where property is compulsorily acquired or used, adequate compensation is also required. The practical realities involving legal, financial and social circumstances are fundamentally different.
Rather than treating all ageing developments alike, authorities should categorise redevelopment according to ownership structure. Single-owner developments could form an early phase of urban renewal because they face fewer complications arising from fragmented ownership and may deliver visible improvements more quickly. For privately-owned strata properties, the emphasis should first be on voluntary participation, proper incentives, independent valuation, transparent compensation mechanisms and adequate legal safeguards before any compulsory framework is contemplated.
Before any site is publicly identified for redevelopment, it should be assessed against objective criteria including ownership structure, number of proprietors and parcels, number of chargees, remaining lease tenure, existing density and planning constraints, availability of relocation housing, financial viability, infrastructure capacity, environmental and social impact, and legal impediments. A site may be old, but that does not necessarily mean it is ready for redevelopment.
The article is written by Datuk Chang Kim Loong, honorary secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association (HBA). The views expressed are the writer's and do not necessarily reflect EdgeProp's.
