SantiagoDR, some guys cannot help themselves. if they did not have Obama to hate, it would be Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or, maybe Wesley Snipes , Denzel Washington, Tiger Woods, or the Williams sisters. they would find a substitute, however. even some guy at DR1.
- Thread starter PICHARDO
- Start date
Another super Mall for Santiago!!!!
SantiagoDR, some guys cannot help themselves. if they did not have Obama to hate, it would be Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or, maybe Wesley Snipes , Denzel Washington, Tiger Woods, or the Williams sisters. they would find a substitute, however. even some guy at DR1.
A sizable amount of people here are socialists and/or have inclinations towards that side of the ideological spectrum and this explains much of the positions people adopt in this forum on most issues, especially those that have to do with the economy. Once you understand this, it will all make sense. Heck, that's when I decided to retreat from this.
Often times, debating with socialists is like talking to a wall.
The rest of the doom/gloom group is made up of a combination of frustrated people, trolls, a few that are not too bright, and a very intelligent Libertarian that has been making claims that he knows people in this website will eat up, all in the name of not giving up the thought that the DR economy is mostly self-sustained.
Ah yes, and then you have people for whom DR1 is just a source of entertainment and with their contribution, they make sure it remains like that. This covers all sorts of people, including some that fall in the other categories I've mentioned here. :smoke:
Most people here mean well, though. That's the good thing.
A sizable amount of people here are socialists and/or have inclinations towards that side of the ideological spectrum and this explains much of the positions people adopt in this forum on most issues, especially those that have to do with the economy. Once you understand this, it will all make sense. Heck, that's when I decided to retreat from this.
Often times, debating with socialists is like talking to a wall.
The rest of the doom/gloom group is made up of a combination of frustrated people, trolls, a few that are not too bright, and a very intelligent Libertarian that has been making claims that he knows people in this website will eat up, all in the name of not giving up the thought that the DR economy is mostly self-sustained.
Ah yes, and then you have people for whom DR1 is just a source of entertainment and with their contribution, they make sure it remains like that. This covers all sorts of people, including some that fall in the other categories I've mentioned here. :smoke:
Most people here mean well, though. That's the good thing.
what is the link between socialist thinking, and opposition to a needless proliferation of malls?
I don't oppose malls, as long as they don't get any "help" from the government. Help being is this case, reduction of taxes, allowing construction on otherwise public places, overlooking traffic problems, etc.
If malls are built on 100% private investment, they are ok in my book. They are usually nice to see, even convenient at times.
I think what most people here oppose is the fact that malls are just to show. Behind the facade of the malls there is a very different reality that people tend to forget while looking at the beautiful stores. That is true, but that is not the malls' fault.
Some other people dislike the fact that malls are the flagship of an economic model unfitted for this country, where most people can't really afford anything they sell at those stores. I understand the reasoning, but still, it's no the mall's fault.
And then some others feel uncomfortable with seeing DR become a scaled-down, film-studio-like version of the hometown they left behind looking for exactly the opposite on this tropical island. That would indeed be the malls' fault, but hardly a strong argument against them.
If malls are built on 100% private investment, they are ok in my book. They are usually nice to see, even convenient at times.
I think what most people here oppose is the fact that malls are just to show. Behind the facade of the malls there is a very different reality that people tend to forget while looking at the beautiful stores. That is true, but that is not the malls' fault.
Some other people dislike the fact that malls are the flagship of an economic model unfitted for this country, where most people can't really afford anything they sell at those stores. I understand the reasoning, but still, it's no the mall's fault.
And then some others feel uncomfortable with seeing DR become a scaled-down, film-studio-like version of the hometown they left behind looking for exactly the opposite on this tropical island. That would indeed be the malls' fault, but hardly a strong argument against them.
Last edited:
All solid points.
I don't have a problem with malls as long as gubmint isn't responsible for the debt, financing or upkeep. Drug money? Meh. It's the fault of society drug money has to be laundered in the first place, a fool's errand of enforcement and a total waste of treasure. Private development doesn't compete with gubmint largesse.
It's interesting to see the reaction of folks come here for one reason and then the country changing away from that reason. I first moved to FL in 1971 and people were complaining about folks coming down to live; the comments were faintly aimed in my direction. I went back last week for a week and had dinner with a coiple that moved down in 2007 who complained about "outsiders" moving down.
So people came to the DR because of the huge bargain the exchange created. I know I did 25 years ago. And now it's no longer a cheap paradise and folks complain.
If this were a normal country permission for a new mall would not be given if there was not a proven need.
Also if there no risk of damage to existing shopping.
London, UK, and its shopping centers such as Oxford Street generate much tourist revenue. Much more than if the planners had allowed the city to be cluttered up with 1/2 or more empty eyesore malls; motorways feeding them.
Some parts of Florida have many empty run-down hotels offered at bargain rates. A tourist needs a car and gee-wiz today guess what - we will visit a shopping mall! Better check it is not a dead or near dead mall!
yapask1
Also if there no risk of damage to existing shopping.
London, UK, and its shopping centers such as Oxford Street generate much tourist revenue. Much more than if the planners had allowed the city to be cluttered up with 1/2 or more empty eyesore malls; motorways feeding them.
Some parts of Florida have many empty run-down hotels offered at bargain rates. A tourist needs a car and gee-wiz today guess what - we will visit a shopping mall! Better check it is not a dead or near dead mall!
yapask1
Not a single Mall in the DR has gotten public money, tax breaks. God forbid! Using public land, impacting traffic any more than just regular traffic growth will at any given time around their sites, etc...
Not the same that can be said for most if not about all major Mall investments in the U.S. or U.K or CAN or etc...
It's the same in the agricultural sector within the DR. What happens is that the first in actually do make money. Take onions for example. Some years back some farmers made a killing in onions in La Culata. In San Jose de Ocoa another group of farmers made tens of millions in tomatoes. So what followed next. There was a mad rush into these two vegetables and of course we all know what happened next. An oversupply ensued and the majority of the farmers fell flat on their face.
I figure its the same with this mall frenzy. Investors unable to produce a return via other methods are piling into the one area where it seems some have hit it big. The first in are making a killing and therefore the rest believe that their new mall construct will make even more money by cannibalizing the rest by offering what the others do not. Most will fail and a few will be left standing. It'll be those who are able to marshal their resources accordingly in this time of over-saturation and over-supply.
All of this over-supply of malls will only produce the destruction of most of them. The DR is not growing a population fast enough to meet the needs of all of these malls. So, don't sweat it. Just sit back. You'll have many investors go bust whether it's clean money or dirty. In the end independent of the source all money needs a return or else it is just destroyed.
Chiri with all due respect a statement like yours could only infer that one group owns all of the malls - which I doubt is the case.
Yes, they get public money. Vendors on streets selling food claim solidarity payments when the stream of customers dries up.
The electricity they consume is not at full market price - it is subsidized by the government. Hence the electric companies and government debt on power generation.
Highways built in SD etc. incur huge debt to allow users to ride to free car parks in shopping malls. Something like 1-3 $ per mile per vehicle is realistic pricing for urban motorways.
Hospitals provide free service for those who used to work in conventional shopping areas and are now unemployed now due to malls - not able to afford medical insurance - the government pays!
The loss of tourism due to near dead malls and lack of good markets, facilities attractive to tourism, deprives the government of taxes on tourist revenue. Many countries in the far east, europe where hotel rates are far cheaper are competing for the tourist dollar.
Yes every time people in this government approves a potentially half or totally dead mall they are driving a nail in this countries coffin.
People have branded this idea as socialist.
UK now has a coalition government - conservatives ( right wing ) and liberals ( center ) - yet if you were attempt to drive a scheme for a new mall in London with associated roads/freeways etc. I doubt if 10% of politicians and people would support you.
The Conservative ( right - wing ) majority in London support the congestion charge - 15$ per vehicle per day in Central London.
Look up the hotel charge rates and hotel occupancy rates in London, UK. Policies pursued are attractive both to Londoners and visitors - tourists.
Now is the time to withdraw licences to the fools developing new malls in the DR. Preserve the land for the people and develop truly attractive open air markets etc. that increase revenue streams from tourists and allow DR entrepreneurs
their good chance.
So P end your Joking!
This is capitalist common sense - the start of the US was in the West was granting tracts of land to people to make what they wanted - some succeeded others did not. Many people respect entrepreneurship, me included, but when government policies exclude local people in deference to soulless international corporations operating in malls one must question the sobriety of the people in charge.
yapask1
.
No of course not, but if you're an entrepreneur assessing the viability of a proposed new project you might take into account that Malls X, Y and Z are not able to fill two-thirds of their units before deciding whether to go ahead and build another one.
Because unlike that as usual in the biz model you come from, in the DR a group of investors only get a less than 50% loan from a local bank, built the Mall and sell the assigned space to repay the short term loan back. The few anchor tenants pull in some foot traffic, the rest of the "locales" is free and clear of any financial burdens and allocated to each investor as their share of investment was negotiated.
The sold space still pays fees to the administration of the Mall (as usual) and thus produce income on the non-owned space. The space left is then leased at the said investor's wished margin of profit, or not as it's the case in many instances for years.
The property itself always gain value and the returns on the fees is shared by all the investors, which is usually higher than what most banks would offer accounting for inflation and security.
The key anchors are never allowed to buy their locales, and there's a contract which is legal binding for both sides. On one side the anchor tenants get a quality of services and upkeep for the said property in regards to their rental. The leasing partner gets a locked deal that if broken exposes the lease holder to stiff penalties.
As far as I know, the Mall must have not more than 60% vancancy on the first 5 years and then it reduces to 50% in the next 4 and reaches 40% on the next 2. The contracts stipulate no less than 30% thereafter in vancancies after 12th year or so. That only applies to the leases of large and anchor tenants.
If you ask about the rates for a local in the Bella Terra Mall today, the rates you get will make you think they are having a less than 5% vancancy...
But for a paid-for Mall that's how biz rolls in the DR... Most small plazas are even worst, since very few ever needed bank loans to build up, whilst they seldom if ever sold any of the locales rather than just leased them.
If in fact these Malls were in the practice of money laundering, you'll for sure see a wall to wall occupancy rate all the time to that end... It's that simple, but for first world superior minds like most expats here to grasp, yet...
From the consumer's point of view it's inconvenient to have shops, banks and supermarkets spread out over several malls - the whole point of a mall is to be able to do everything under one roof.
There are several malls that work well in the DR - Bella Vista in Santo Domingo and San Juan in B?varo stand out, along with Mega Centro in the Zona Oriental and Plaza Central in the capital where people actually appear to be spending money. (I can't comment on Santiago because I've rarely shopped there.)
In my experience, most of the rest are huge, incomprehensible white elephants.
There are several malls that work well in the DR - Bella Vista in Santo Domingo and San Juan in B?varo stand out, along with Mega Centro in the Zona Oriental and Plaza Central in the capital where people actually appear to be spending money. (I can't comment on Santiago because I've rarely shopped there.)
In my experience, most of the rest are huge, incomprehensible white elephants.
Santiago is not as a speculative real estate market like places in Europe and the US so investments in real property have only one way to go - up.
As far as an investment needing a return, assuming that most of the capital was there in banks drawing a pittance on interest and being looted (10% income tax) why would investing in real property that may start in the red but will eventually go black, even if just, a bad investment?
People should quit trying to apply "supposed" Western investment standards to a business model based on most of the capital up front.
This is not a unique concept either as I have a French client in Orlando that I'm designing an industrial subdivision for. He and his partners have a million in capital to burn and are willing to invest in something that will take quite a few years to recoup their investment. But as I've stated if the construction is paid in cash and the overhead is low and the business plan decent it will make money at some point in the near future. In this particular case the owner is my age and only wants this project to be solvent for the children of the investors by the time they are adults.
Last edited: