QUOTE(rumahmurah @ Mar 1 2015, 01:04 PM)
Defects and poor workmanship may make the completed property not liveable. The property is just short of being abandoned. It's safer to go with the BTS model which involves a more straight forward transaction - less hassle and a guaranteed completed house to one's liking and satisfaction. The BTS model in a way can honour the rights and interests of the buyer and most of all it does not involve taxpayers' money. Just my 2 sen.
About 1/2 of the owners in my building cannot live in our properties months after VP. Thanks to Symphony Life and their poor workmanship and faulty access cards. Even now, problems and leaks still haunt us. BTS is an ideal way for people to inspect the properties and amenities before handing out their cash to developers.
Read the papers yet? The big boss in the government is very against the idea of BTS, they say, Build then Sell will increase property price and make houses not "affordable" and for that, even a child can tell it is BS.
If the developers lack the finances to build, do some other businesses. Its better than allowing them to take money from the public and delivering something different or less, or in some cases, run away with the money. Developers like Symphony Life is the perfect reason why we need the BTS system.
They have price limits for sugar, flour and other things, they can certainly set limits for building materials and control developers' pricing to keep things affordable, but no, they choose to take care of the wallets of the developers and couldn't give 2 shits about rights and interests of the buyers, and they certainly care even less about taxpayers' money.
The policy makers and developers share the same beds, and wallets, that's for sure.