SEPTEMBER 2 — Do you recall the movie Captain America: Civil War, where Cap was trying to find, defend and protect the Winter Soldier or Bucky, his friend, from being hunted, but Tony Stark, on the other hand, wanted to uphold the law and bring Bucky (whom Stark believed was guilty) to justice? 

Both the Avengers were “right” but their standing on opposite ends of the spectrum caused them to see each other as enemies to be overcome.

Cue the Urban Renewal Act (URA) 2025, which I see as a similar example of how different parties experience and express almost polar opposite values.

The URA is the new plan to spruce up our ageing cities. Think crumbling derelict flats and buildings (I’ve seen quite a few around Pudu, Cheras, etc.). 

The URA, tabled in Parliament in late August, wants to give these spots a modern face-lift but it’s got folks split right down the middle. 

Some are cheering it on, others are marching with pitchforks. Not unlike Captain America and Iron Man fighting over the Winter Soldier.

The two sides

First, the cheerleaders.

If I’m staying in a 1970s flat with dodgy wiring, a lift that feels like an ancient death-cage and parking so tight I’m playing Tetris with my Proton then of course I’m going to support the URA. 

I’ll see it mainly about tearing down or revamping old, unsafe buildings and turning them into shiny new homes or community spaces. 

The old Strata Titles Act needed everyone to agree — 100 per cent — before any bulldozers could roll in. 

Good luck getting that one grumpy uncle or aunty to sign off. 

The URA makes things easier by requiring only 80 per cent approval for buildings under 30 years old, 75 per cent for older ones, or just 51 per cent if the place is abandoned or a safety hazard.

Obviously, Housing Minister Nga Kor Ming swears this is a win. He will point to projects like Razak Mansion, where folks swapped rundown 400 sq ft units worth RM70,000 for swanky 800 sq ft homes valued at RM450,000. 

No forced evictions and compensations supposedly better than market rates. Future plans include 139 redevelopment sites in KL alone, potentially worth RM355 billion. 

With 80 per cent of Malaysians expected to be city-dwellers by 2030, the government argues that the URA will keep our urban vibes fresh and home-owners’ feelings happy.

So what’s the problem? Why did over 80 residents’ associations stage a protest recently?

Well, they’re worried the URA is too developer-friendly, potentially leaving homeowners in the dust. 

The lower consent thresholds — 75 per cent or even 51 per cent in some cases — mean if you’re in the minority, you might have to pack up and go, like it or not. 

Critics, like the National House Buyers Association, say this could mess with your property rights under the Federal Constitution. What’s “adequate compensation” anyway?

Then there’s the fear of getting priced out. Redevelopments in places like Kampung Baru could jack up property values and taxes, pushing out the very folks who’ve called these neighbourhoods home since forever. 

PAS has also cried foul, saying the URA might break up tight-knit communities or mess with Malay and Indian enclaves. They reckon existing laws could do the job if enforced properly.

Therein lies the rub. 

Just like how Cap saw Bucky as a friend but Stark saw him as a criminal, some see the URA as a blessing (and minority homeowners as an obstacle) but others see it as (a symbolic and literal) bulldozer pushing past the legitimate concerns of homeowners (regardless of their minority status). 

The former group also obviously trust developers more and usually speak from within a situation of hardship; the latter have fewer complaints about their homes but more concerns about developers and their motives.

Middle ground?

I don’t know if there are on-going dialogues between the government, the URA supporters and those who object. I’m sure there are.

All parties need to understand each others’ concerns and preferences clearly. Around the region, Singapore and Hong Kong have pulled off urban renewal, but they’ve also seen folks displaced when developers get too cozy with their newly granted power.

Inevitably, the two opposing sides will need to meet halfway. Reality is like that, isn’t it?

What if the government bumped up the consent thresholds to, say, 95 per cent? (Note that during the second Parliamentary reading it was bumped up to 80 per cent) 

What if redeveloped areas can be ensured to stay affordable for original residents, not just the new owners moving in? Would ideas like these help? 

In that light, the Parliamentary Special Select Committee’s push to delay the second reading for more feedback and to ensure that demographic data is factored into the planning was a good start.

Anything to get people united around commonly agreed benefits. Ultimately, the URA’s success hinges on balancing progress with fairness, ensuring vibrant cities don’t come at the cost of displaced or dissatisfied communities. 

Like Cap and Iron Man, both sides must find common ground and not, you know, make things worse.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.