kathimerini.gr
Greek Developers Secure Building Permits Before Bonus Removal
Greek housing developers secured building permits in September using NOK bonuses before their anticipated removal, resulting in significantly larger average building areas (1091 sq.m in Attica) compared to previous months; the government's proposed amendment protects these permits.
- How did the average building area and volume in Attica in September compare to July and June, and what factors contributed to these differences?
- This strategic move by developers highlights the significant financial implications of the NOK bonus changes. The average building area in Attica in September (1091 sq.m) was 31.4% higher than July's (830 sq.m), reflecting a rush to secure permits before the bonus removal. This contrasts with June's average area of 555 sq.m, indicating developers' hesitancy during peak uncertainty.
- What were the immediate consequences of Greek housing developers' actions in securing building permits in September, given the anticipated Supreme Court of Appeal ruling on the New Building Regulations (NOK) bonuses?
- In September, many Greek housing developers secured building permits utilizing bonuses from the New Building Regulations (NOK), anticipating a potential Supreme Court of Appeal (SEA) ruling. The SEA's December 11th announcement confirmed the anticipated removal of these bonuses, prompting developers to act swiftly to avoid construction area reductions.
- What are the potential long-term implications for the Greek housing market based on the ongoing public consultation, the government's proposed amendment, and the pending final ruling from the Supreme Court of Appeal regarding NOK bonuses?
- The government's proposed amendment suggests a strategy to protect permits issued before the SEA ruling's publication, preventing cancellations until clarity on what constitutes 'work commencement' is provided. This creates uncertainty in the market as the government seeks clarification on the details of the ruling. Future implications depend heavily on the final ruling and subsequent governmental action.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the calculated risk-taking of construction companies, highlighting their anticipation of the Supreme Court's decision and their subsequent actions. This framing potentially portrays them in a more sympathetic light while downplaying potential negative consequences or criticisms of their approach. The use of terms like "calculated risk" softens the potential negative implications of their actions. The headline (if any) would strongly influence the initial framing, and the emphasis on the numbers related to building permits reinforces this focus.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, though the characterization of the companies' actions as "calculated risks" could be interpreted as subtly positive. Terms like "in anticipation of" could be replaced with more neutral phrases such as "responding to" or "acting in response to.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the actions of construction companies in Attica, potentially omitting the broader national context beyond the provided data on nationwide building permits. While national figures are included, a deeper analysis of regional variations and their causes outside of Attica would provide a more comprehensive understanding. The article also doesn't explore the perspectives of residents or other stakeholders affected by new construction.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the situation, focusing primarily on the dichotomy of construction companies taking a risk versus not. It doesn't fully explore the nuanced perspectives of other actors involved, such as local authorities or environmental groups. While the article mentions challenges faced by authorities, it doesn't delve into their potential responses or viewpoints.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a surge in building permits in September, driven by anticipation of changes to building regulations. This suggests increased construction activity, potentially contributing to the development of sustainable urban areas, although the long-term sustainability of these constructions remains to be seen given the legal challenges.