Indonesian parliament approves privatising of three major state firms

">
Indonesian parliament approves privatising of three major state firms

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The parliament of Indonesia has approved government plans to make an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of shares in three major state-owned firms, privatising them. They are steelmaker Krakatau Steel, Bank Tabungan Negara (BTN) and national flag carrier Garuda Indonesia.

The parliament has left the process fully in the hands of the government, and has set the maximum stake to be sold at 30% for BTN and Krakatau, and 40% for Garuda. Although Indonesia has been known to fund budget deficits with privatisation, the intention is for the funds from this scheme to go to the businesses themselves to allow expansion.

Krakatau expects 3.2 trillion Rupiah (IDR) from the sale, while the estimated price for their stock is between IDR3 and IDR4 trillion (321 – 428 million USD). Both ArcelorMittal SA, the biggest steelmaker in the world, and BlueScope Steel Ltd, the largest in Australia, have expressed an interest in the IPO. Krakatau will use the funds to help finance an expansion scheme which aims to have production doubled to five million tonnes in 2011.

BTN, which focuses on home owner loans, has set itself a target income of IDR36.12 trillion (3.86 billion USD) in 2010 compared to a projected IDR22.9 trillion ( 2.45 billion USD) this year. Net profit for this year is projected at IDR472 billion (50.5 million USD)and is hoped to rise to IDR1.39 trillion (148.7 million USD) in 2010. The bank’s loan to deposit ratio is predicted to rise from 105.05% this year to 144.93% in 2012. BTN hopes to conduct its IPO before the end of 2008.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Is the Indonesian government right to keep majority holdings?
Add or view comments

Garuda is not quite 100% state-owned to start with, unlike the other two, but is very close with 95.44% of the company belonging to the government. Like all of Indonesia’s 51 airlines, Garuda is on the list of air carriers banned in the EU due to safety concerns raised after a string of air accidents in the nation. Garuda expects to raise IDR4.2 trillion (449.4 million USD) in funds from the IPO, and will use IDR2.5 trillion (267.5 million USD) to pay off its debts and invest IDR1.7 trillion (181.9 million USD) in new aircraft.

The government is still working to get a deal to make IPOs for architectural firm Yodya Karya and three plantation firms called Perkebunan Nusantara III, IV and VII.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Indonesian_parliament_approves_privatising_of_three_major_state_firms&oldid=1100303”

Elmwood Village Hotel proposal in Buffalo, N.Y. withdrawn

">
Elmwood Village Hotel proposal in Buffalo, N.Y. withdrawn
Buffalo, N.Y. Hotel Proposal Controversy
Recent Developments
  • “Old deeds threaten Buffalo, NY hotel development” — Wikinews, November 21, 2006
  • “Proposal for Buffalo, N.Y. hotel reportedly dead: parcels for sale “by owner”” — Wikinews, November 16, 2006
  • “Contract to buy properties on site of Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal extended” — Wikinews, October 2, 2006
  • “Court date “as needed” for lawsuit against Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal” — Wikinews, August 14, 2006
  • “Preliminary hearing for lawsuit against Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal rescheduled” — Wikinews, July 26, 2006
  • “Elmwood Village Hotel proposal in Buffalo, N.Y. withdrawn” — Wikinews, July 13, 2006
  • “Preliminary hearing against Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal delayed” — Wikinews, June 2, 2006
Original Story
  • “Hotel development proposal could displace Buffalo, NY business owners” — Wikinews, February 17, 2006

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Buffalo, New York —According to the developer Savarino Construction Services Corporation, the proposed Elmwood Village Hotel which would be placed on the corner of Elmwood and Forest Avenues in Buffalo, New York has been withdrawn from the city’s Planning Board and Common Council and will undergo a “do over”; however, Eva Hassett, Vice President of Savarino says that the proposal will be resubmitted, from scratch by the end of next week.

The hotel would require the demolition of at least five properties, 1109-1121 Elmwood and would cause the closure of several businesses. Already, two businesses, Skunk Tail Glass and Six Nations Native American Gift Shop have relocated, outside the Elmwood Strip. Don apparel, H.O.D. Tattoo and Mondo Video still remain on Elmwood; however, Mondo Video is planning on moving to a new location. The hotel will be 72 rooms and will cost at least 7 million dollars to build.

“We’re lovers, not fighters. Our energies should be spent on developing a really wonderful project, not wasted in court. We’ll start over with a clean slate and take as much time as necessary to hear people out and end up with a very positive project for the neighborhood,” said President of Savarino Construction, Sam Savarino.

The hotel will not undergo any major changes in its design says Savarino. “We would anticipate little if any physical change to the plans.” He also alleges that the issues with the hotel were not with the design or the proposal and also says that the hotel is still right for the intersection.

“The perceived problem was with the process, not the proposal itself. We believe this is the right thing to do on that corner,” added Savarino.

According to the Buffalo News, the projects resubmission is aimed to “shed the lawsuits” against the proposal. The Buffalo News also claims that the Common Council members are all still “in favor of the project.” The proposal was unanimously passed by the council on March 21, 2006.

Attorney Arthur J. Giacalone who represents the plaintiffs, Nancy Pollina and Patricia Morris, who operate Don Apparel (a vintage clothing and collectibles shop at 1119 Elmwood Avenue), Angeline Genovese and Evelyn Bencinich, owners of residences on Granger Place which abut the rear of the proposed site, Nina Freudenheim, a resident of nearby Penhurst Park, and Sandra Girage, the owner of a two-family residence on Forest Avenue less than a hundred feet from the proposed hotel’s sole entrance and exit driveway, says that the hotel proposal was “inappropriately rushed,” but some council members disagree. Defendants in the lawsuit against the hotel are, Buffalo’s Common Council and Planning Board, Mayor of Buffalo, Byron W. Brown, Savarino Construction Services Corporation, Hans J. Mobius and his son Hans S. Mobius owners of the properties at stake, Pano Georgiadis, owner of Pano’s Restaurant on Elmwood, and Cendant Corporation, the parent company of Wyndham Hotels, which will be, according to Savarino, the hotel operator. Attorney David State is representing the city, Planning Board, Mayor Byron Brown and the Common Council.

“I don’t think it was a rush job,” said Dominic J. Bonifacio Jr., the council’s Majority Leader.He also alleges that the only way to make “it [the hotel] a better project and ease the concerns of some neighbors would be to find a way to provide more parking.”

In an exclusive phone interview with Wikinews, Giacalone states that the lawsuit against the hotel and the city “will not be moved [withdrawn] unless the Common Council resins their [prior] decisions in passing the proposal.” Giacalone also says that Savarino has yet to submit any new plans for the proposal to the city. He also says that he “still plans to represent all plaintiffs” if they wish to continue with the suit and the use of his services.

Giacalone rescheduled the preliminary hearing which is “still in place” for July 27, 2006. When asked if the properties are still owned by Mobius, Giacalone replied “yes” and that according to attorney Bob Knoer, the Lawyer representing Hans Mobius, the owner of the properties that could be demolished, there is “no contract between Savarino” and that Mobius “plans to put the properties back on the market.” Mobius has not returned phone calls or e-mails and has not yet commented on the situation or the proposal itself. The city denies these claims.

In an exclusive phone interview by Wikinews, area councilman Joseph Golombek states that the reason for the resubmission of the proposal was due to “a mistake in the Planning process” and that none of the council members have “indicated that they have changed their opinions on the hotel” and still remain in favor of the project.

“I still think the Hotel is a good idea for that part of Elmwood. For Elmwood to stay strong and vibrant it must continue to grow and adapt to change. It is a different community than it was twenty years ago and will be different in another twenty years. The opponents of the Hotel have the opportunity to challenge it and are doing that. Even though I disagree with them I am glad there is a safety mechanism for people who disagree with government. We need to keep moving forward,” added Golombek.

Supporters of the hotel proposal are planning on holding a rally to support the new development. WNYmedia.net claims that the first rally will be held to support the hotel proposal on July 17, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. on Elmwood and Forest, on the site of the proposed location. According to WNYmedia.net they “are tired of the anti development crowd in Western New York.” They also blast opponents of the hotel proposal calling them “bananas” and “nimbys.” People opposed to the hotel proposal are planning on “counter attacking” with their own protest on the same day and time.

==Sources==

This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.
This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.
  • Sharon Linstedt. “Elmwood hotel proposal to start over” — Buffalo News, July 12, 2006
  • BuffaloWatchdog. “The Great BANANA Blackout Rally Monday on Elmwood and Forest” — WNY Media Network, July 12, 2006
Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Elmwood_Village_Hotel_proposal_in_Buffalo,_N.Y._withdrawn&oldid=1981790”

Bad Credit Second Mortgage Loans Vs. Home Refinancing 5 Fa Qs

By Marie-Claire Smith

Do you need cash in order to pay down some outstanding bills or to pay for an unexpected expense, such as a trip or a medical emergency?

If you are a homeowner, you may be in luck. For homeowners, there are two ways you can leverage the equity you have in your home in order to get the cash you need. The first way is to take out a second mortgage loan. The second way is to refinance your home.

What if you have a bad credit score? No worries: since you will be using the equity in your home as a form of loan collateral, you can still qualify for reasonable second mortgage loan interest rates – even with a low credit score.

If you are trying to decide between bad credit second mortgage loans and home refinancing, here are 5 FAQs that can help:

1. What is the difference between second mortgage loans and home refinancing?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbRRgFOZOrk[/youtube]

A: A second mortgage loan – also known as a home equity loan – involves leaving your existing first mortgage alone. Instead, you are just taking out an additional mortgage, usually at a higher interest rate than you have with your first mortgage.

On the other hand, with a home refinancing loan, you are paying off any existing first and/or second mortgages with a new mortgage loan. And if you need extra cash in the process, you just take out a larger loan than what you currently owe on your home now. You end up with a larger loan principal and possibly slightly higher monthly payments, but you will have the cash you need.

2. Which type of loan is easier to qualify for if I have a bad credit score?

A: Both types of loans are easy to qualify for if you have a bad credit score. In both cases, the lender will look at several factors, including your credit score, the total amount of your outstanding (first and/or second) mortgage principal, and the current market value of your home.

3. Which option will allow me to get more cash in hand?

A: Both loans turn out about the same in this regard. Whether looking for a second mortgage or a home refinance, keep in mind that each lender will offer a certain loan-to-value (LTV) type loan. For example, an 80% LTV loan means that you will be able to borrow up to 80% of the total equity in your home. The higher the LTV, the more you can borrow.

4. Which option is lower cost to me in the long run?

A: Refinancing your existing home loan may be less costly, since it gives you the opportunity to possibly qualify for a lower interest rate than you have on your existing first mortgage. The result could be an overall lower cost of loan, which would save you more money in the long run.

5. Which option is faster?

A: Taking out a second mortgage (a home equity loan) is probably the fastest route for you to take because doing so does not involve your having to shop for a completely new first mortgage. In most cases, qualifying for a second mortgage loan takes less than an afternoon.

Bonus tip: if you have a bad credit score, be sure to shop for “bad credit second mortgage lenders” or “bad credit home equity loan lenders.” These are the ones that are most likely to approve your loan, despite your low credit score.

About the Author: Find more tips on how to qualify for a bad credit second mortgage loan at:

Bad Credit Second Mortgage Approval

.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=743082&ca=Finances

Crossrail set to only compensate £50 for land rights, London, UK

">
Crossrail set to only compensate £50 for land rights, London, UK

Friday, July 22, 2005

The British Parliament approved the first stage of the new Crossrail underground railroad through London as a £15 billion construction project earlier this month. Crossrail is the first major new train line to be built in London in decades.

The rail line being implemented as a hybrid bill in Parliament. After a second reading in Parliament, it was voted upon and decided that the government will commit to the project so that the line will be built.

The next issue before Parliament of to ensure that the implementation of the bill so it is consistent with private interests of neighborhoods to be affected by Crossrail. This is when residents can petition Parliament to change the way the line is constructed.

As a result of construction of the Crossrail line, hundreds of homes will have new tunnels excavated beneath them.

On contacting Crossrail, they have indicated approximately £50 will be offered to each landowner to buy all the land rights-of-way to build the train tunnel more than 9 meters below the residential buildings. The average value for properties in the affected areas is £350,000.

Under UK compulsory purchase laws to be used in this bill, the residents are entitled to the difference in the value of the whole property with and without a tunnel under it. If the offer given by Crossrail is not accepted by any of the residents, the residents can take the case to the Land Tribunal, where the fair value will be established.

This however, could be cost prohibitive. Crossrail does not indicate that it will attempt to assign a fair value in the original offer and instead is only going to offer around £50 per property in the hope that not many people take the matter to the Land Tribunal.

Retrieved from “https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Crossrail_set_to_only_compensate_£50_for_land_rights,_London,_UK&oldid=627317”