Opheffing oog vir vervoer prefab beton balke blaaie, walls, and pipes. - China Opheffing oog vir vervoer prefab beton balke blaaie, walMurenden pypeerskaffer,Fabriek – Yiyun rigging
vorige : Opheffing oogstelsel vir prefab konkrete elemente
volgende : prefab beton Opheffing sleutel oë Agri SA Media Release/Agri SA Media Verklaring See below for English .. Agri SA - Mediaverklaring - “Gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” nie die rede vir hoë grondpryse 24 Mei 2012 “Die “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” -bedeling word dikwels misverstaan en verkeerdelik geteiken as rede vir die buitensporige pryse wat die regering soms vir grond betaal,” sê Johannes Möller, president van Agri SA. Hy het gereageer op onlangse debatvoering in die Parlement en bewerings deur politieke ampsdraers dat die regering buitensporige pryse vir grond betaal omdat grondeienaars daarop aandring. Agri SA stem saam dat die stelsel/proses waarvolgens grond verkry word bevraagteken moet word wanneer markverwante pryse oorskry word, maar verwelkom die siening wat Minister Nkwinti in die Parlement geopper het, naamlik dat rolspelers tussen boere en die staat vir dié hoë pryse geblameer moet word eerder as boere. Volgens Möller is “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” ‘n bekende konsep wat gebruik word vir belasting- en rekeningkundige doeleindes om transaksies wat op ‘n armlengte grondslag tussen onverwante partye geskied, te beskryf. Dié konsep vind wye toepassing as basis vir transaksies in ‘n mark-verwante ekonomie. “Buitensporige pryse wat vir grond betaal word kan dus nie as ‘n swakheid van hierdie konsep beskou word nie maar moet eerder toegeskryf word aan faktore soos bedrog, uitermatige invloed wat sekere partye in die mark kan uitoefen, ‘n ondeursigtige grondmark, waardasies wat nie behoorlik uitgevoer word nie of ‘n kunsmatige vraag wat geskep word deur, byvoorbeeld, regeringsbetrokkenheid. Die feit dat Minister Nkwinti hiermee saamstem gee ons die vertroue dat oplossings vir die ware probleme gevind en geïmplementeer sal word,” aldus Möller. Na Agri SA se mening moet daar nie van individuele boere verwag word om opofferings vir openbare doeleindes te maak sonder billike vergoeding nie. “Ingevolge die Grondwet sal dit neerkom op ontneming of selfs onteiening en behoort dit onderhewig te wees aan billike en regverdige vergoeding wat tans slegs aan markwaardes gemeet kan word ten spyte van ander faktore wat veronderstel is om in ag geneem te word ingevolge artikel 25 van die Grondwet - waaraan geen inhoud tot dusver gegee kon word nie”, sê Möller. Agri SA erken dat regeringsbetrokkenheid in grondhervorming en spesifiek grondrestitusie inderdaad die staat as ‘n nuwe speler tot die mark gevoeg het en dat dit heel waarskynlik ‘n “kunsmatige” vraag geskep het. Aangesien die regering ‘n “verpligte” eerder as ‘n “vrywillige” grondkoper is, kan dit wel aanleiding gee tot bevraagtekening van die “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” bedeling. “Agri SA glo dat dit nie so hoef te wees nie aangesien die grondmark dinamies genoeg is om te verseker dat waardeerders ‘n objektiewe en markverwante bron van inligting het waarop hulle waardasies kan baseer, dit wil sê. egte markwaardes wat vergelykbare verkoopsyfers verskaf waarop waardasies gebaseer kan word. Agri SA is ook van mening dat kwessies soos bedrog, swak waardasies en ‘n gebrek aan markdeursigtigheid tot die mate waar dit sistemies geword het aangespreek kan word deur ‘n omvattende hersiening van die stelsel. Ons glo dat dit presies is wat die Groenskrif op Grondhervorming wil bereik”, sê Möller. “Belanghebbendes wat betrokke is by die evaluering van die Groenskrif moet ‘n redelike geleentheid gebied word om ook die sogenaamde probleme met die “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” -bedeling aan te spreek. Instellings soos voorsien in die Groenskrif, naamlik die Grondbestuurskommissie en die Waardeerder-Generaal, kan na ons mening grootliks daartoe bydra om die kritiek teen hierdie bedeling aan te spreek deur billike en regverdige pryse te verseker, dit wil sê markpryse wat deur onbelemmerde markkragte bepaal is. ‘n Waardeerder-Generaal wat veronderstel is om ‘n oorsigrol te speel ten opsigte van waardasies asook met die ouditering en kontrolering daarvan behoort ‘n geleentheid gegun te word om die prysbepalingsmeganisme op ‘n gesonder voet te bring en om die bogenoemde probleemareas aan te spreek. Ons glo dat hierdie benadering aanvaar moet word en dat daar nie van die “gewillige koper, gewillige verkoper” —bedeling in sy korrekte vorm afgesien moet word nie”, aldus Möller. Uitgereik deur Agri SA , Direktoraat: Korporatiewe Skakeling “Willing buyer, willing seller” not the reason for high land prices 24 May 2012 “The “willing buyer, willing seller” dispensation is often misunderstood and wrongly targeted as the reason for excessive prices in some instances being paid for land by government”, says Johannes Möller, president of Agri SA. He responded to recent debates in Parliament and accusations by political office bearers that government is paying excessive prices for land due to owners of land demanding prices of this magnitude. Agri SA agrees that the system/process of acquiring land should be questioned if higher than market related prices are/were paid but welcomed Minister Nkwinti’s view expressed in Parliament that role-players between farmers and the state should be blamed for excessive prices, rather than farmers. Möller said that the “willing buyer, willing seller” is a well known concept used for taxation and accounting purposes depicting transactions taking place on an arm-length basis between unrelated parties. “Willing buyer, willing seller” is thus a notional concept of how transactions in a market related economy should take place. “Any deviation from this can, therefore, not be regarded as an integral characteristic of the concept but should be attributed to factors like fraud, excessive market power by certain parties, the market for land not being transparent, valuations not properly done or an artificial demand having been created by e.g. government involvement. The fact that the Minister Nkwinti concurs with this conclusion gives us confidence that remedies for the real problems will be sought and implemented”, said Möller. It is Agri SA’s view that it should not be expected from individual farmers to make sacrifices to serve a public purpose or public interest without receiving fair compensation. “This as per the Constitution would boil down to deprivation or even expropriation and should be subjected to fair and equitable compensation which currently can only be equated to market values despite other factors supposedly to be taken into consideration in terms of section 25 of the Constitution to which no content as yet could be added”, Möller said. Agri SA’s acknowledges that governments’ involvement in land reform and specifically land restitution has indeed brought about the state as a new player in the market and most likely also created an “artificial” demand. As government is not a voluntary (willing) but a mandatory (compelled) buyer of land it may lead to the “willing buyer, willing seller” dispensation being questioned. “Agri SA maintains that this need not to be the case as the land market is dynamic enough to ensure that valuers have an objective and market related source of information on which to base valuations i.e. true market values to provide comparable sales on which to base valuations. Agri SA also maintains that matters such as fraud, poor valuations and a lack of market transparency to the extent that it had become systemic could be addressed by a “system overall” approach. We believe that this is precisely what the Green Paper on Land Reform sets out to achieve”, said Möller. “Stakeholders involved with the evaluation of the Green Paper should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to also address the perceived problems with the “willing buyer, willing seller” dispensation. Institutions envisaged in the Green Paper such as the Land Management Commission and a Valuer-general can in our view contribute a great deal towards addressing the criticism lodged at the “willing buyer, willing seller” dispensation by ensuring fair and equitable prices i.e. market prices having been determined by uninterrupted market forces. A Valuer-general which is currently foreseen to oversee valuations as well as the auditing and vetting thereof should be allowed a chance to put the price determining mechanism of land on a more sound footing and to alleviate the aforementioned problem areas. We believe that this approach should be adopted and that abolishing the “willing buyer, willing seller” dispensation, in its correct form, should not be pursued”, Möller said. Issued by Agri SA, Directorate: Corporate Liaison Search Website