And I will vouch for Chang 100% on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwchang
=
=
=
=
Printable View
And I will vouch for Chang 100% on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwchang
=
=
=
=
This is interesting. I read in The Star's Metro Page M@ today that the All Petaling Jaya Pro Action Committee (APPAC) has submitted a registration to the ROS.
It's a coalition of residents association. It aims at residents' rights and governance issues. Maybe we could also do the same for Subang Jaya (to include Putra Heights) :)
The Ad Hoc committee met again last night to deliberate on the 7 action plan. Unfortuantely I was unable to attend the meeting due to injury I sustained at my knee cap. I am mentioning this to assure those who are against the develpment at Subang Ria Park that things are moving and it is not all talk and posting here only.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwchang
House Victim like what Chang said, I agreed with him. Maybe you should by now summarise all your 24 postings from 13th June to 12.26am this morning putting all the salient points and arguments down for easy reading for the benefit of all to be well equipped themselves for the hearing.
Thanks advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
1. I believe each JKP are equipped with 2PC by MPSJ for necessary updating even without a meeting and I noticed JKP was introduced by this website as:
"JKP is an oligarchic organisation led by Lee where a select group of ratepayers are appointed to represent the grassroot community in the Subang Jaya municipality in a unilateral manner."
with even a Treasurer to be appointed by LHB.
Therefore, the "consultations" with JKP on SJMC car Park and to take proposal from SIME UEP on Subang Ria Park, in my opinion were similar to talking to his fingers or toes!
2. The Proposed Re-Development is said to be a Re-Development of Subang Ria Park with Housing Project on 66.63 Acres of Land. On base of information, even only on Published informations, following discrepancies/facts can be found:
A. Sime UEP could only have a piece of land from 7Ha or upto 30 Acres (from various reports) dated back to 1975. But, the title was "mistakenly" issued and restricted for recreation" with possible liability to the original purchasers of Subang Ria.
B. From the Plans as in posting #38, the land behind Holiday Villa for this "Re-Development" (about 1/2 of the overall Re-Development) was from a piece of Land from PKNS for the Wangsa Baiduri Project in 1986. Therefore, it cannot be under SIME UEP as reserved land from some previous Development. Part of the Land for this "Re-Development" are the existing Holiday Villa, the Service Apartment (used as Hotel) and the "Condos" by the name of Spring Villa, Summer Villa, Subang Boulevard I and the proposed Subang Boulevard II. The land is under a Development Project having more units than their preliminary approval already. Therefore, cannot be repeated for another Development.
Wangsa Baiduri Project had due liability to the residents on the facilities and Green Area to be fulfilled.
Therefore, those land for the club and existing Wangsa baiduri Housing Project cannot be accounted in this Re-Development. The remaining areas concerned are IN FACT Water Retention Ponds in which the dry area can never sustain a Housing Project. And surely cannot be subject to Re-Development.
THEREFORE, THE RE-DEVELOPMENT IS BASELESS TO BE PROPOSED, not only on ownerships but due liabilities.
3. Even if the Proposal is to be "heard", according to the procedures set under TCPA, a proposal to be "Objected" have to go through consultation and verification by different Departments, such as the Land Department where at least the ownership had to be confirmed, the use and other facilities, such as those from DID (Drain & Irrigation Department), etc..
IT IS A VIOLATION OF PROCEDURES NOT TO HAVE ALL NECESSARY VERIFICATION BEFORE PUTTING TO "OBJECTION" but instead to raise questions in the meeting. A number of salient points and arguments had been put up by a number of other residents, they should be provided answers before such an "Objection" procedure to take place. I wonder why you asked me to provide summary to prepare for the Objection? Shouldn't JKP sort out the matter with LHB before calling the Residents to attend?
Once again, I do not see the proposal can be started and it cannot be at a Stage of Objection. Nothing can proposing without the sorting out of the ownership & due liabilities on the land concerned.
By the way of how JKP was set-up, I wonder any JKP dare to ask LHB to clarify on the ownership & due liabilities!!
I will keep posting, (as there are still a lot more of loopholes to justify the Groundless of such proposal). Unless I am barred from login, I expect to talk to anyone of you here every day, unless "Silent" Mode is used.
Man, you still haven't answered my earlier question .... what is it you are posting here? I tried to read but as usual I get nothing out of it less than a quarter way through. I am totally lost as to the contents of your posts.
I don't know if it is the way you structure it or the way you word it but all I get is zero sum. It is pretty amazing, perhaps someone ought to collect your posts and make it a classroom discussion on communications skills.
Thanks your Comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwchang
1. JKP is no doubt a network of MPSJ, isn't it? If JKP is promoting the "hearing" with blurr information, your statement is scaring!
2. Do you mean the decision of SJMC car park with consultation to Zone 1 JKP was based on blurred information as well as the go ahead with the submission of proposal on the Redevelopment when it was repeated many many times with a lot of question marks in the past N years?
3. From the threads for the period of July-Aug, 2005, it shown that quite a number of people are quite well verse with this kind of Planning and objections. Wasn't SSP (Selangor Structural Plan) the basis for SJSP (Subang Jaya Structural Plan) and Subang Ria Park was mentioned where the question of ownership, liability, etc. were known to be "Blurred". Are those JKP dummy not to ask or clarified when this Park had been repeated with questions? At least PC had given advice on how to object on the SSP and he did object something, hasn't he? To be on basis of blurred information?
With the experience of Derek, should he question the lakes as Water Retention Ponds and the way how the proposal came to such a "HEARING“ when he is well verse on Town Planning? With his experience on Kelena Jaya Lake and the Taman Sri Ria cases, shouldn't he had queries on the Subang Ria Park?
If JKP were/are not interested in SSP or SJSP, should there be such a number of communication on the topic? At least a number are familiar with Development, so that how to interpret those layout or proposal and to ask at least a site plan with lot no. is quite basic, and to sort out the ownership and liabilities when they were repeatedly in doubt?
Even if it is correct that those information are blurred to all JKP, should JKP get all the necessary and sort it out after all the queries and inputs here and STOP hearing as they are much Pre-mature in all respect?
AFTER BEING A WATER RETENTION PONDS, A DEVELOPMENT THAT HAD ALREADY BEING DEVELOPED WITH CONSIDERATE PENDING LIABILITIES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, SHOULD JKP TAKE ANY PROPOSAL FOR RE-DEVELOPMENT?
Hope this length is good enough for your understanding.
By the way, should PC told the residents that something is cooking when the information are as blurred as those common residents?
CAN PUBLIC MATTER BE DONE WITH "SILENT" MODE?
I RESPECT THOSE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND NETWORK TO BUILD A BETTER SJ/USJ. But can it be done if even one Single Project can be so manipulated? Should JKP take a deeper look into the matters if they should works as ears and eyes and voice for the residents? So, can we ask the JKP to get the necessary information on ownership, DID reports, etc..
MY HONOR OF HAVING COMMENT FROM YOU AS THE ADMINISTRATOR! Good Day!
By the way, are you in JKP? Otherwise, how do you know JKP has blur information and no information being divulged from MPSJ?
Sound like in Manhattan the 50's or 60's!Quote:
Originally Posted by kwchang
The Key point is whether JKP understands it!
I wrote all of them with a Heart & Soul. May be it need same wavelength for understanding!!
Reading not only require good eyesight but a CLEAR MIND!
If someone only cares about political words being used and not political scandal be promoted, the understanding of politics is limited!!
If you can organize a class on communication skill, I can send my student to head one for you and then you can join free of charge!!
Can't blame you coz' I find that most people nowadays have problems reading lengthy articles. By the time they finish an article, 90% of what's mentioned at the beginning would hv been forgotten!Quote:
Originally Posted by kwchang
I've the same problems too, just like everyone else - NOT because we cannot read or have poor memory, BUT we LACK the passion/DRIVE to pursue a matter which does NOT have direct impact on ourselves.
WE ARE ALL generally VERY, VERY SELFISH people, aren't we??? :eek:
For those who are blurred and also those who are blind and lately to another category of blindness - those who chose to close one eye and not forgetting those who chose to look the other way.....gosh, I must be referring to 98% of our SJ/USJ residents, there are 3 issues here.
1. Selangor Town and Country Planning Department director Datin Paduka Dr Halimaton Saadiah Hashim, who chaired the dialogue, in her reply, said in the case of the Subang Ria Park a mistake had been made when a separate title for the Subang Ria Park was issued to the developer.
The contention we are fighting here is if a bank has wrongly creditted RM 30 million into your account, can you say that the money is yours? The same thing goes to this land title. Sime UEP cannot say that the land is theirs and now proposing to redevelop it. They also have to cheek to tell us that they are giving back to us the 70% which is anyway ours rightfully.
2. The Restriction in Interest and the Usage stated in the title is that this land shall be for RECREATION purpose only. Therefore the 30% for redevelopment MUST not be approved unless Sime UEP has earlier sought the approval of the State Exco to change the usage of the 30% to BUILDING and the State Exco cannot change this overnight as the Selangor Structure Plan clearly states that this piece of land shall be for RECREATION only. If they allowed the 'tukar syarat kegunaan' especially when they know the history of it, then it is scandalous. Definitely TWO WRONG DOES NOT MAKE ONE RIGHT. Here Sime UEP is on the losing end. Just because the title is under their name, they have to pay and I know they are paying the quit rent of more than RM 500,000 every year for the last 20 years or so. And yet they must maintain it as a park. This doesn't make any business sense until their submission of their development proposal and their true technicolours are beginning to show now.
3. The other contention is mathematical in nature. In approving the Subang Jaya Township, the then MPPJ which was the approving authority dictated that Sime UEP has to contribute 10% of its land area for RECREATION or so called GREEN Lung. And Sime UEP said that the Subang Ria Park is more than the 10%. This sounds like the Merchant of Venice where we are getting the 1 pound of flesh and also its blood as well. They went on to argue that the pockets of land in between houses, the land at the road side which we call road reserves and those under the power line and not forgetting those land above the gas pipe line all add up together with what they have in Subang Ria Park are more than 10%. And Jesus......er er.. must mind my language, Sime UEP is saying that all of us are Jesuses who can walk on water and even outdo the original Jesus by running on water too !! I think a big portion of the Subang Ria Park is the lake lah or pond lah. We can only boat n it. What we are saying is that Subang Ria Park may not even meet the 10% compliance if we deduct away the water body portion.
We don't want to even talk about their breach of promise to the Wangsa Baiduri or Ning Baizura folks. We should have taken a court injunction to stop MPSJ from holding the hearing on July 15 as what they are going to discuss on that day is null and void but unfortunately when an email was circulated by JKP Zon 1 for people to come forward to support this court action, everybody balls frozed. Now we have no choice but to attend the hearing and give them hell and then unfreeze our balls and take a court action to declare the hearing null and void. Hopefully, this time we can walk tall with better clearance between our legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Jasmine
EXCELLENT QUOTE!
They can't even manage a park and they want planning permission to build some more?!
Above extracted from PC's posting. Emphasis by HV.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
PC. Thanks for providing the ground for elaborations:
A. Comment to your Issues:
!. SIME UEP "Title" - NULL & VOID
2. Restrict to RECREATION, doubtful when most of the areas are Water Retention Ponds. Anyway, DUE LIABILITIES to Subang Ria/Wangsa Baiduri Residents and MPSJ should be there to be revealed by the original Planning Approvals.
Area: From the Proposed Plan, The "Park" Area behind Wangsa Baiduri & the so called proposed
TAMAN KEDIAMAN 1 = 800 TLK
TAMAN KEDIAMEN 2 = 500 TLK
which are the existing Holiday Villa, the Hotel Block, Spring Villa, Summer Villa, Subang Boulevard I & II + Sura, etc, included the lakes are around 22-20hectres. Therefore, the "could be" area for SIME UEP is around 10hectres only. Cutting road reserves, etc.
QUIT Rent: Even taking the land for housing, it cannot be more than 200,000 per year. To take other factors into consideration, it should be much much less.
3. Therefore, it is baseless to CALL for any hearing, especially an "OBJECTION" Process. As mentioned earlier, to Void any decision after an "OBJECTION" will complicate any Legal Action if the Court does not start with the Legal Standi of the Calling of hearing BUT to mingle with the Decision. STOP THE HEARING get all necessary background published!!
I do not understand your ground of "we have no choice but to attend the hearing". I can only say, I smell RED HERRING!!
BEFORE THE OBJECTION, the case could only be against WHO proposed.
AFTER THE OBJECTION, the case will surely extend to include WHO accepted the PROPOSAL for OBJECTION and WHO HAD MISLED the Residents to do so!
Misappropriation of land and Breach of Duty/Trust, in my understanding, are criminal offenses!
--------------------------
B. Reasons for above comments are:
1. LEGAL ACTION TO SEEK CLARIFICATION OF OWNER
a) This was published under 'Take park developer to court'
The Malay Mail 17/5/2005 By Halim Said
....
This advice came from Kelana Jaya MP Loh Seng Kok after a meeting with some 30 residents at Sri Kuala Lumpur school in SS15 here last night.
....
The meeting was held to discuss measures to preserve the park. The residents have been protesting against the move by a developer to turn a portion of the 30-hectare park in SS15 into a theme park, comprising a paint ball field, a go-kart circuit, a fishing lake, a futsal centre and a restaurant
....
Fernandez, meanwhile, said residents should get legal advice to determine their right to the park. "If, it is a fact that the park has been promised as a public recreational park, then they have the right to demand that the land be preserved as one," he said....
He added the residents must ascertain as to how a title could be issued for the land if it is a public recreational park.
2. Some JKP+Your Understanding of the SSP (State Structural Plan) in July 2005 with some advice from Derek...
3. LHB had been communication with YOU+other JKP on SSP & MPSJ Structural Plan that was displayed in 2004 & 2005 http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/uploa...ead.php?t=8582
4. Points of Concerns had been raised by Bobkee including:
# Suspected doctoring of figures (ie. supposedly 90% of Selangor's rivers are clean, when 3 years ago the State Inspection Report indicated that up to 90% of Selangor's rivers are polluted)
# Suspected illegality of the document itself (procedural non compliance with the Town & Country Planning Act)
>>>>Do these justify the saying that JKP are having "blur" information as the normal residents?
>>>>Do I have to set out all the correspondences among JKP and others to justify the WARNING that the coming one is a "OBJECTION' PROCESS under TCPA?
A FACT doesn't need NUMBER of voices or noises to testify but by itself!!
The Culture of Kampung has not changed!!
Please educate each and every one of us, no matter it is ADUN or AH Gong or AH Po, to stick to Rules & Regulations.
THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS HAD DIFFICULTIES IN UNDERSTANDING AS A LOT OF PROCEDURES HAD EITHER BEEN MANIPULATED OR MUCH LACK OF TRANSPARENCY!
GIVE THESE NONSENSE A FULLSTOP!! BE by YOU, JG, or anyone who care with their hearts & Souls!!
Declaration of not understanding will not be accepted in Court - we are not kids as referred in my previous posting!!
'House Victim' ps contact me! thanks :)
JG: pls email wsbdr@yahoo.com. Your Copyrights will be respected!
was passing by the site and realized that the new "car park" is only at ground level....a large patch of dark asphalt and concrete is what they are building....
and it is really big, all the way from the SJMC north building to meet up with the Jalan Kemajuan Subang road....
with all this talk about destroying green space and developing water catchment areas...this is the worst thing that they could do...
Sheeshe....
Cheers, m
Updating:
1. For record, I had not received any contact or e-mail from JG. He has no responsibility towards me as I am not his 4,600 signatories. He only has to think about his promises here and his statements as far back as 2000.http://www.drjacobgeorge.com/myweblog/
2. Instead, I was contacted by Residents in the Condos, regarding Joint-action on Transfer of Strata Title, Common Facilities & ...... Therefore, we can go ahead on our own. In principle, we will not stop the “Objection” as any “wrong” done will be covered in our coming action. It will provide LHB or MPSJ or JKP, a chance to tell the TRUTH OF SUBANG RIA "PARK" if they wish to avoid any "wrong doing". This is subject to the final opinions from the lawyers.
Some Figures for references:
1. Wangsa Baidrui (including Subang Boulevard), EACH YEAR, had provided MPPJ or MPSJ an annual Assessment of close to a million (excluding the Quit Rent). By excuse of Gated Community, they had allowed the Developer to charge Maintenance fee to the TOWNHOUSE (excluding Condos, estimated >1.3 millions) for around 350,000 per year without proper maintenance. This happened for the last almost 20 years with taking Security Charge instead of Maintenance Charge some years ago!
So, for more than 1.35million (excluding maintenance fee for Condos) PER YEAR, we cannot even have a normal 10% Green Area?? Does this happen in USJ?? Or even other area in SJ?
2. Subang Jaya /USJ – Green Area
From a Report from Sime UEP, the area they developed in Subang Jaya since 1974 was 583 hectares and for USJ since 1988 is 728 hectares. Can anyone find the 10% Green Area in these two districts？ Subang Ria Park (around 20 Hectares) are Water Retention Ponds in which 10 Hectares is within Wangsa Baiduri!!
The Star Metro
Monday July 9, 2007
Park’s land use must remain recreational
Stories by LIM CHIA YING
For more detail reading, click the URL below
http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.as...93&sec=central
To all folks who have registered to attend the public hearing, it is this coming Sunday, 15th July 2007 at 2.30pm. The venue is at the Grand Ballroom, Holiday Villa, Subang Jaya.
M E T R O
Central
Monday July 9, 2007
Lee: The people’s views will count a lot
ON the issue that Subang Jaya has no local plan, Subang Jaya assemblyman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng said the council had submitted the plan to the state government last year but it had yet to be approved.
“Yes, the local plan is needed for a public hearing, so since no approval has come back to us, we do not even need to have a public hearing.
“Yet, from the start, I've insisted that this public hearing is needed,” said Lee.
“MPSJ has not approved anything yet that's why I'm asking everyone to not .
“The people's views will count a lot,” said Lee.
He said the statement on the mistake made admitted by the then Selangor Town and Country Planning Department director Datin Paduka Dr Halimaton Saadiah saying that a separate title was issued to the developer was not accurate.
“SS12 to SS19 Subang Jaya were approved in 1980, while this park was formerly mining land alienated in the late 1980s. Sime UEP applied for it and got it.
“This means that Subang Ria Park was never part of the SS12 to SS19 development approved in 1980,” said Lee.
“I hope residents come for the public hearing to give their views.
“This is the first time we are having this so there may be flaws. However, I'm obliged to fight for residents if the majority say no to development,” said Lee.
---------------------
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM ABOVE
1. Obviously, from the above, Approved Local Plan has to be based on for public hearing. Therefore, why public hearing when no approved Local Plan?
2. Since draft of Local Plan been submitted, had it been opened to the Public especially when the Public is called to a Proposal which should be based on a Local Plan?
3. Should an inaccuracy of title by the Director of Town & Country Planning Department be announced by their Department, if the Director had become a "then" Director? The Inaccuracy herein was referred to how it came out. So, the use of land as recreation remains!
4. LHB is correct to say that Subang Ria Park was not part of SS12-SS19 in 1980 as the Land for the Park was part of the Wangsa Baiduri approved in 1984/86!!
5. If there is no "majority" to object the Development, then, should LHB obliged to object the Development??!!
However, if referring to B (Below)- the reports on what LHB (& the "then" Director of the Selangor Planning Department) had said in August 2005:
6. The Land was 10% of SS12-SS19 which should be handed over to MPSJ in late 70's or early 80's for recreational.
7. The area was 32ha or 7ha whereas the last mentioned by LHB was 17.56+55.07=72.63 = 29.39ha.
9. This 29.39ha was mentioned as under Lot 17394 as unsurrendered land from the Developer for Recreational Park by Loh Seng Kok [ Kelana Jaya] in 2006 Parliament
KAWASAN SUBANG RIA RECREATIONAL PARK DIWARTAKAN
Sehubungan itu, tapak yang dinyatakan sebagai taman rekreasi, seperti di atas Lot 17394, Mukim Damansara, Daerah Petaling Selangor seluas 29.39 hektar, yang telahpun diberi nama Subang Ria Recreational Park semenjak projek pemajuan Subang Jaya dimulakan pada 1970an hendaklah diambil tindakan oleh agensi Kerajaan berkaitan, PBT, pejabat tanah atau pemaju untuk diwartakan segera mengikut proviso Seksyen 62, Kanun Tanah Negara.
From Sime UEP own report,
10. They had developed 583ha in Subang Jaya since 1974, then moved to USJ for another 728ha.
From the Approval of Wangsa Baiduri,
11. Lot3067, which covered the existing Subang Ria Park, Lot 17394 was alienated to PKNS for Wangsa Baiduri in 1984 with project approval in 1986.
From the Proposal Plan in #38 of this forum
12. This 29.39ha includes the existing Holiday Villa Club, Hotel Block, Spring Villa & Summer Villa & Subang Boulevard I & II. Therefore, could the Park be 29.39ha?
13. There are monsoon drain into those "lakes". Therefore, the "Lakes" are no doubt Water Retention Ponds.
Questions of logic
1. Why SIME UEP should apply this 29.39ha of "Water Retention Pond" when they should be busy with their 583ha in Subang or with 728ha in USJ during the period? And, let it idle for 20 or more years for liabilities of providing recreation?
2. If they are not related to SS12-SS19, why inviting residents from those areas to the "objection hearing"? Or, just to make up the "majority"?
3. But, then, where are the 10% for SS12-19?
4. How can part of a piece of land be alienated for Wangsa Baiduri be alienated to SIME in the same period, or, vice versa when Lot 17394 was Part lot of 3067 on which the Clubs and the Condos stands and will stand?
5. LHB had been dealing with several approvals for Wangsa Baiduri since not later than 1995 upto recently, don't he has all the details that Lot17394 is part of Lot3067 being part of Wangsa Baiduri under EMKO properties?
THE HEARING IS BASELESS AS CLAIMED BY LHB TO BE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF LOCAL PLAN and what had been laid out above.
SO WHY HAVE TO WAIT FOR "MAJORITY"?
To change "Baseless" to something else with "Majority"?
BASELESS BECAUSE
- The ownership of land is doubtful in the above Sequences.
- The Size of the Land is doubtful
- The Land cannot be subjected to two Developments when the existing one already exceeding the original approval.
- Emko has due liabilities to Wangsa Baiduri Townhouse and Condo's which are known to LHB!
WHY STRUGGLE FOR HEARING IF IT IS NOT FOR A DECISION MAKING & to be promoted by others and SIME UEP TO ANNOUNCE THAT THEY MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS!!
B. The articles
The Star 8/8/2005
http://aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.n...0?OpenDocument
Subang Jaya assemblyman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng, who brought up the issue, said the park had never been handed over to the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) even though it was marked as a green lung years before.
“The developr is still holding on to the 32ha park’s title even though the land was the agreed upon 10% of development land that was supposed to be set aside as a green lung when the area was developd,” he said, adding that the park was supposed to serve residents from SS12 to SS19.
”It is because of this park that nearby residents find only small pockets of open space within their housing areas. The MPSJ wants it handed over so that it can take over the maintenance of the park,” said Lee, who is also a MPSJ councillor .
The Sun 05/08/2005 http://aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.n...2570540009bae6
The fIrst to raise questions was Subang Jaya assemblyman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng,
who wanted to know the direction of development in Subang Jaya and the status of
the Subang Ria public park.
"This park makes up 10% of the green area from SS12 to SSI9.
"However, this plot was not surrendered to the state for recreational purpose as
required," said Lee, adding that this should have been done in the late 70s and early
80s.
To ask developer Sime UEP to surrender the park now Will put the state in a messy
situation as the private owners have been paying assessment for he 7ha property all
these years.
State planning director Datin Paduka Dr Halimaton Saadiah Hashim said: "We admit
it was a mistake (not taking over the land) and the 10% land was sold off."
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
Following is the rest of the article:
Fernandez said under the Town and Planning Act 1976, Subang Jaya is supposed to have its own local plan.
However, he claimed that the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) had not prepared such a plan for the past 11 years.
“The failure to present a local plan has resulted in ad hoc planning.
“In theory, no development should be allowed without the local plan,” claimed Fernandez.
He said under Section 21(a) of the Town and Planning Act 1976, the developer is required to submit a number of documents for residents to view to enable them to properly exercise their right to object.
----
So, Derek has seen the Title?
1. Can he confirm the size and ownership and the transfer record since 1980 and, the quit rent besides confirmation that it is for recreation?
2. Since MPSJ was divided out of MPPJ, so, should the Local plan for MPPJ since 1996 be applicable for those 11 years?
3. So, the hearing is lacking of "a number of documents" for residents to view?
As such, the "OBJECTION" is Pre-Mature. So, the coming "hearing" CANNOT BE TERMED AS "Objection Hearing" under TCPA!!
Questions:
1. WHY Derek is not suggesting Challenge of OWNERSHIP this time?
2. Why not challenging the fact that the Lakes are Water Retention Ponds?
3. Why shouldn't all queries be answered and all process done according to TCPA with all related departments before the "Objection" hearing?
4. Why STILL ENCOURAGING HEARING FOR MPSJ TO TAKE IT AS AN "OBJECTION" HEARING which according to TCPA can also be a step to admit conversion of use of land?
5. Had JG shown PC's group the Letter of Approval from MPPJ on Lot 3067 & 1127 to Wangsa Baiduri in 1984?
Then, JG please advise what had you done on those documents collected?
The Star Metro
Monday July 9, 2007
Company says all requirements met
A spokesman for developer Sime UEP said the company has adhered to all the requirements within the law.
The application and development proposal report under Section 21 (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act has been submitted to the local authority.
With reference to Section 21 (b) of the act, the spokesperson said all relevant information has been made available to the public and displayed for 21 days at the office of the local authority.
“The company has also carried out a traffic impact assessment study and a social impact study.
“Both studies exceed the requirements set out in Section 21(a),” said the spokesman.
On Fernandez’s claim that use of land is controlled under the Town & Country Planning Act, the spokesman said any application for land conversion is under the purview of the authority subject to its compliance with the Town & Country Planning Act and the Land Code.
In a press statement, the developer also said Subang Ria Park will remain a recreational park as part of their plans to transform the site into an ultra- modern integrated hub of leisure, commercial, and residential lots.
The developer said it is not taking away the park from residents.
The statement said the land had been alienated to Sime UEP by the Selangor state government in December 1987.
It has never formed part of the Subang Jaya development master plan, which had been approved by the local authority (Majlis Bandaran Petaling Jaya) in March 1980.
The site is on a 99-year lease from the state government, which would expire in February 2087.
It added that when the Subang Jaya master plan was approved in March 1980, the requirement for open space was only 5%.
“With the proposed re-development of Subang Ria park, Subang Jaya will still have 10% open space,” continued the statement.
The statement added that the recreational park would be handed over to MPSJ after upgrading works were completed.
---------
From the above,
1. The statement had not confirmed that the proposal had gone through all necessary Departments to be ready for public “objection”, such as DID or Land Office.
2. The statement has confirmed that they did not meet the requirement on period of display and the propaganda of the proposal. 21days are for the response after received of any notice.
3. The proposal with commercial and residential lots already taken part of the area into non-recreational. When dry land is considered, most of the area already taken up as much as some part of the area of the “lake”. When Water Retention pond is consider, it also taken up some area for Water Retention Ponds. Some of the area in the Park already had been taken up (in the calculation) to enable their built-up of another 1600 units.
4. If this is not part of the Subang Jaya development master plan, then, why should they be accounted for the 5% or 10% open space.
5. If the area was 5% of the previous development in 1980, how can they meet 10% after most of the dry area be taken for the Development of commercial & residential?
6. Since Sime UEP reported a development of 583ha (freehold) in Subang Jaya since 1974 and 728ha in USJ since 1988. Why should Sime UEP be alienated with the Water Retention Ponds in 1987 with leasehold and recreational and idled for close to 20years?
7. The piece of land is under Lot 3067 by PKNS for Wangsa Baiduri since 1984 and being sub-divided in 1987 for the Townhouse and the Condos. So, how come it becomes alienated to Sime? And, surely cannot be Re-Develop again to more than double the Housing Unit within the same lots of land for Wangsa Baiduri.
8. The Traffic Impact Assessment was last done for Subang Boulevard.
9. Since works already started with a Car Park next to Subang Medical Centre, some Development already started without permission.
10. Even if 5% should apply for open space of 583ha Subang area, it cannot be justified by 29.39ha of mainly “Lake”, especially when 29.39ha includes the area for the existing Holiday Villa Club, hotel Block, Spring Villa, Summer Villa, Subang Boulevard I & II.
11. If the proposal needs to be based on Local Plan which is not yet approved (as claimed by LHB), so why Sime UEP prepares for a Public “Objection” hearing that meets all requirements?
With all the information in hand, the statement did not disclose any convincing new information that could qualify a valid Proposal for Development on land with doubt in ownership, area, use of land. STOP THE "OBJECTION" hearing!!
1. The Star 11/4/2007
http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.as...48&sec=central
"MPSJ public relations officer Azfarizal Abdul Rashid confirmed that a public hearing would be held as this was a prerequisite before approval of any development project."
2. Can LHB explain how 10% of 583Ha (freehould) of Subang Jaya Development in 1975-1980's became leasehold for Wangsa Baiduri in 1986 via PKNS?
SS12-SS19 & Wangsa Baiduri, GET LHB a clear declaration that the meeting/Hearing does not fall into AN OBJECTION procedure under TCPA before the "hearing"
Get matters under 2 above be sorted out and answered within a time frame with publications and documents!
STOP THE PULLING AROUND BY RED HERRINGS!!
did anyone receive the drop in letter by SIME UEP explaining their side of the story? i went home and found it in my letter box...
Metro Star
Friday July 13, 2007
Sunday’s the day residents get their say
By LIM CHIA YING
WITH just days to go before the public hearing of Subang Ria Park on Sunday, fuming residents allege that the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) is making it difficult for them to attend by imposing various conditions.
“Some have received the letters but many of us have not. There are also those who only received it a day before the deadline.
Read details here
http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.as...32&sec=central
MPSJ public relations officer Azfarizal said the MPSJ have sent AR Registered mails to some 1,060 people who are eligible to attend the hearing after some thorough screening. But many have not received this letter. Is it a ploy by MPSJ to send by AR Registered knowing the fact that many residents will not be around to receive such letter? But according to Dato Lee Hwa Beng, those who failed to receive their letters can still attend by bringing evidence of your property ownership such as your quit rent or assessment tax receipts. Why so troublesome when MPSJ already has your record on your interest to attend when you registered 21 days ago before the deadline.
...some 1,060 people who are eligible to attend the hearing after some thorough screening. But many have not received this letter..." unquote.
================
well,
1) I hv registered b4 the deadline.
2) I didnt receive the AR reg letter from mpsj.
3) I will be attending with my 'evidence of property ownership' and see what will happen next...
Yang Akan Berada disana lato tupai
Whether you are a resident of SJ or USJ, we would like to appeal for as many residents as possible to TURN UP at the Holiday Villa Subang THIS SUNDAY at 2.30pm.
This will be a physical show of support that the Subang Ria Park should remain as it is originally intended -- i.e. for RECREATIONAL PURPOSES -- and not any other purposes. In short, the message we should all jointly agree is:
-- YES to remain as it is and for the park to be regularly well-maintained
-- NO to commercial development
Even though it is stated that only "registered" resident-owners from SS12 - SS19 will be allowed to participate in the public hearing, it is important that we all unite and TURN UP ...
... the sheer presence of thousands (we hope) of residents turning up at the venue -- whether we do get to enter the ballroom or not -- will be OUR MESSAGE that concerned residents DO NOT WANT any real-estate development at the Subang Ria Park.
Remember, the media will be there ... the mere sight of a massive crowd of residents turning up will be news-worthy ... more so as we will make sure the press will be made aware of the large sector of concerned residents who are not being allowed to participate in the public hearing due to legal eligibility or otherwise.
On behalf of the USJRA, our special request to especially USJ residents ... please attend and BE THERE. Thank you for your presence and contribution of a Sunday afternoon!
Date: 15 July 2007 (Sunday)
Time: 2.30pm
Venue: Holiday Villa Subang
Thank you for your support!
I have not registered but have received the invitation. :D However, I kind of like the proposal to develop the place. Sorry folks if I difer from your opinions. I'd rather have a smaller park, but one that is well maintained than a hugh unkempt park. Besides I think it will enhance the real estate value of properties in and around Subang Jaya area, especially for those at SS12 and SS15.
tohca - you potong steam la... as if the traffic around SS12 & SS15 is not heavy enough at this point of time :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by tohca
Tohca, for one thing, you may not actually realise but there is a great possibility of worsening traffic with the proposed development in that area. As it is, currently there is only one entry point (one main road) servicing entry/exit to that area just to cater for guests going to the 2 hotels there AND the entire housing precinct of Wangsa Baiduri houses and condo units. And this does not even count for those going to SJMC mainly in the daytime. Thus, the traffic-flow there is chaotic at most times, to say the least! And you have not even factored in the noise and environmental pollution that comes in tandem with increased traffic.Quote:
Originally Posted by tohca
Secondly, how certain are you that the real estate value will be enhanced? It could be to the contrary, and if the traffic is a factor & quality of life is affected, we could have a case of residential owners in that area who may instead choose to "want out" of there in search of more conducive housing alternatives instead ... and this will affect real estate value.
(By the way, the Subang Ria Park does not just cater for the privileged residents of SS 12 - SS 19 ... residents from USJ too do frequent the park for their recreational needs. And the Park was one of the selling points to enhance property sales of residential phases in both SJ and USJ!)
Generally the folks of SJ/USJ are not against development in SJ/USJ -- but any development must NOT be at the expense of worsening quality of life ...
The consensus over the Subang Ria Park issue is simple:
- NO to commercial development. The Park must remain for use according to its original purpose
- YES to continued and regular maintenance of the Subang Ria Park
Nevertheless, we respect your right to have a differing opinion. But we hope you will at least spare a thot to the contrary views.
So to all USJ/SJ folks reading this, whether you meet the prerequisites for attending the public hearing or not, DO TRY TO MAKE YOUR WAY to the Holiday Villa Subang Ballroom for the public hearing this Sunday 15 July at 2.30pm. PLEASE do TURN UP to help boost the head-count and show your support.
PS: Errrmm, and if for any reason you are not allowed to enter for the public hearing even as an observer, just let your ADUN
Subang Jaya know that you were "barred" !!!! He will be there ... so make it known to him! :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eileenc
Is the ABOVE calling an ANSWER to http://hwabeng.org.my/node/518the CALLING FROM LHB on MAJORITY on 9/7/3007:
Is LHB suggesting VOTING??
1. The BASIC MATTER to be sorted out are:
a) WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THE 10% OF OPEN SPACE from Sime UEP THAT SHOULD BE for SUBANG JAYA? Obviously Subang Ria Park is the Location. But, why 29.39 ha (if it is correct) and not around 58ha?
b) Who and WHAT SHOULD BE EQUIPPED & MAINTAINED FOR THAT OPEN SPACE?
c) How come the area be part of Land for Wangsa Baidrui Development, but as LEASED HOLD?
d) WHAT kind of Project is Wangsa Baiduri？ that
-can go without any Recreational Facilities
-the Club and Part of the lot for Spring Villa condo can turn into a Hotel owned by another party.
-the "Condos" had become Apartment where the Chairman of the Condo - Ken Koo declared himself an "Apartment" Resident in the news?
-the landscaped garden in the Condos was declared as Public Park by LHB in 2006
-the total units is existing their approval of 1429 units to more than 1700?
a) b) c) should be the Common Interest and Rights for all Subang Jaya Residents
d) should be the Rights of Wangsa baiduri Residents to demand for an answer.
2. WHY USJ is promoting the "Hearing" & No. of Participation when USJ had no legal Standing on the matter?
Is Batu Tiga phenomenon has "switched on" again?
3. Should USJ RA be looking at WHAT HAPPENED to their 10% of OPEN SPACE from their 728Ha of USJ Development?
TRICKS should not BE USED TWICE!!
4. USJ RA: We appreciate your coming to support but SORRY no VOTING!! PLEASE get yourselves identified and ASK for a Specific Area in the Hearing. Unless this is to be followed, this will provide another point for Nullifying the "Objection" even by what had been done so far, the "objection" hearing had not met TCPA specifications
a) on the way the proposal is tabled for objection, where the Display had not been 3 months and not published in the Newspaper once a week and....
b ) A HOUSING PROJECT CANNOT BE STARTED ON A PIECE OF RECREATIONAL LAND.
c) All areas in the lot must had been used to provide the necessary Plot Area, if 1600units are to be developed. Therefore. what is to be returned as possible "recreational park" is again a kind of "magic" in creating more housing units if development by Phrases.
JUST IMAGINE, it needed Lot 1127 & Lot 3067 to support Wangsa Baiduri for a 1429 units - an area of around 58ha!!
5. WE ARE PREPARING A DECLARATION TO SORT OUT THE MATTER IF WE CANNOT HAVE SATISFACTORY ANSWER IN THIS HEARING!!
a) We will consider units outside Wangsa Baiduri if we can receive more than 100e-emails to wsbdr@uahoo.com under the Subject: WE WANT DECLARATION ON SUBANG RIA DEVELOPMENT. Content: I/we agreed to joint. and which SS you belongs.
b) After than we would like to have 2 representatives from each SS to be on the list with a contribution of RM2,000.- for each SS.
c) After that we need the moral support from those concerned with deposit into a special account of RM10
(i) by cash if they want not to be known or
(ii) transfer from their account.
We will announce on the web the Deposit slip ref. for counter check by the Depositor.
SAY NO TO THE "OBJECTION" HEARING
TURN IT TO BE A CLARIFICATION WITH ANSWERS TO POINTS IN 1 ABOVE & OTHERS!!
SUPPORT THE "DECLARATION"!!
At this point of time we are not interested in arguing on the technicality and who has better local standi.
We are not bothered about all these jargons and definitions - Wangsa Baiduri kah, Summer Villa kah, Spring Villa kah (but Holiday Villa yes), Subang Boulevard I & II kah or Emko, Lot 17394, 29.39ha, house victim vs lee hwa beng, jacob george vs house victim, house victim vs derek fernandez, Water Retention Ponds, Datin Paduka Dr Halimaton Saadiah Hashim, Town and Planning Act 1976, wsbdr@uahoo.com and now the latest RM2,000 ??? We also don't care a shiit what this developer has to say in his press statement that Subang Ria Park will remain a recreational park as part of their plans to transform the site into an ultra- modern integrated hub of leisure, commercial, and residential lots. It is alot of bullshiit as all this is to enhance their selling points of their commercial project at the expense of our green lungs.
What we simple uSJarian folks of this United Subang Jaya community comprising of Subang Jaya, and USJ know is that we have to be there tomorrow at Holiday Villa at 2.30pm and whether we get to enter the Grand Ballroom doesn't matter for we strongly believe that
THE Subang Ria Park land title has always been zoned as recreational and must rightfully be maintained as such and it belongs to the people.
The only way to do this our show of strength in numbers and not blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Don' bother to count the blah. It is 36 times.
I fully agree with PC on this.
=
=
=
=
THIS IS SURELY A "BATU Tiga" Phenomenon!Quote:
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
DO NOT DRIVE THE MATTER INTO POLITICS!
MALAYSIA IS WORSEN BECAUSE Even a Simple and Straight Forwards Administrative Procedures is run Politically!
"People Representative" are Appointed by the State without election & So are RAs or JPK!
Rights or Wrong doesn't need Numbers but Facts & Legal Standi!!
Don't Drive a 21Century Township as Kampung!!
THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE IS TO KNOW THE TRUTH & NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH OF What was Due from the Developer(s) & MPPJ/MPSJ to the Residents of that Particular Development - Subang Ria and Wangsa Baiduri!!
Reserved Land for Subang Jaya popped up in a Separate Title for Recreation is AT LEAST a "Administrative Mistaken", especially when Water Retention Ponds are included.
Should every State Land be issued with Titles?
The "as is" of the "Park" is the negligence of Duty of MPSJ to chase after the Matter for the Past 25-30years and failure to maintain the "Park" with the Sweat & Blood of those Ratepayers of Subang Jaya!
LHB as Councilor of MPSJ and Chairman of the Planning Committee that had been "handling" the matter since 1990's has undoubted responsibility on the "failure" to sort out the matter for the Residents of the concerned area - Subang Jaya NOT USJ!
PROVOKING USJ Residents to ‘PRESERVE" a Wrong Title in Subang Jaya is Humiliating!
Any reasons of PROVOKING USJ Residents to "PRESERVE" the Wrong Doings of the Developers & MPSJ in Subang Jaya?
Irresponsible POLITICIANS in this country has long been addicted to the kind of "we are not interested in arguing on the technicality and who has better local standi." attitude.
The Land of so called "Subang Ria Park" was in a Lot belong to Wangsa Baiduri as Residential since 1980's. Even the Holiday Villa Club should be the "Recreational Facilities" to Wangsa Baiduri, the land is NEVER been zoned as Recreational or the Land on which the Hotel Block stands!
The Land for the so called "Subang Ria Park" was subdivided from the Residential Lot 3067 in 1990's.
So, what period of History is PC referring?
RE-ZONING needs State Town Planning Approval!
Anyone aware of such RE-ZONING hearing in 1990's? Are they in the Structural Plan in that Period?
As mentioned, USJ residents are welcome to support our Rights morally and not to confuse or even intruding OUR RIGHTS to address the NEGLIGENCE of those who have Statutory Obligations and a Duty to Perform!
WHILE A LEGAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN, THOSE BREACHING THE LAW WILL SURELY WILL BE TAKEN INTO THE ACCOUNT. The posting here are good Documentation!! And, we will discuss the Technicality & Legal Standi in COURT to anyone PROVOKING such IGNORANCE in the coming HEARING!!
As Administrator or Moderator of any Forum, discussion should be focused on matter and what had been said by someone and not leading to the assumption of XX vs YY! Personally, I respect professionalism if it has been performed accordingly.
For USJ RA, Please think carefully the position of USJ RA in this Hearing!!
Please ask MPSJ to provide you a CLEARLY designated area on the "FLOOR" if you want to voice your Moral support to SJ to demands their Rights! Let the media be documenting USJ's Support in an ORDERLY manner.
The only Staircase for MPSJ/LHB and Sime UEP to step down Glorally & ethically on this coming Hearing is to Tell the Truth & nothing but the Truth!
FULFILL THE OBLIGATIONS, DELIVER THE LIABILITIES, PERFORM THE DUTIES!!!!
YOUR RESPECT OF THE RIGHTS & LEGAL STANDI OF S J RESIDENTS WILL BE HIGHLY APPRECIATED!!
IF USJ IS MISSING A "PARK" PLEASE CHASE AFTER MPSJ as USJ is on a Development of 728ha. USJ SHOULD HAVE A PARK OF 72.8ha! Please start your blah blah blah 48times or more! AS YOU COULD HAVE MISSED A BIGGER PARK OF YOUR OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS:
The Declaration do not need the SJ Residents outside Wangsa Baiduri but it is a Gesture to other Sections in SJ for their Demanding their Rights. Even with a contribution of 2000 per section, anyone familiar with legal fee in this country should know it is only a very minor portion of a case of this size that could affect 400,000 Residents! In average, only 4 sens per SJ Residents!
Anyone has an idea of what is the cost for the hearing? The most important the Energy, Concerns, & Confusions and the social & psychological impact of such NONSENSESSSSSS!! (...Out of Scope!! as it should be 400,000 times if only to be accounted by SJ residents!!)
Since JKP have confessed that they have blurred information, SO, they are promoting a BLURRED hearing and a BLURR staircase!! NO WONDER WHY!!!
By the way, Subang Ria "Park" is NOT A PARK in the Official sense. Or, rather a piece of reserved land for SJ but "abandoned" with liabilities & Duties!! So, the hearing is on a piece of land NOT on a Park!!
I stand what I say and I just want to add another one blah as I counted one more at 03:04 PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
http://penangwatch.net/files/Locatio...iduri-SB_0.jpg
I got the Location Map of Wangsa Baiduri from another Resident submitted by Emko in one of their application to the Authority, including areas for the "Park".
It can be realized that the "Park" should compile of Lot 3065 + Lot 983 in the Left and Parts of Lot3067 + Lot 1126 in the Rights.
Lot 3067 in Map + other PT384, 385, 389, etc... are in fact all under Lot 3067 in the Approval.
The Big Lot 3067 in the Map is having a new lot no. as 17394 in some of the articles or even in 2006 Parliament Motion by Kelana MP. However, from the Map, it alone cannot be 20.39ha.
So, to clarify from the hearing are:
1. ON WHICH TITLES & OWNERSHIP SIME UEP IS PROPOSING THE REDEVELOPMENT?
2. LHB CANNOT BE IGNORANCE ON THERE OWNERSHIP AFTER SEVERAL APPROVALS FOR WANGSA BAIDURI.
3. ARE ALL THESE TITLE RECREATIONAL???
SHOULDN'T LEGAL STANDI AND TECHNICALITIES BE DISCUSSED DURING THE LAST 3K MEETING IN JUNE TO CME UP WITH 7 action plans?
Is Recreational, % of Open Space, % of land for the Development - Topic of concerns by LHB & Residents?
Is the Re-Development was proposed because SIME UEP claimed to own the Titles of the Land that started this NONSENSESS HEARING!!
THEN MAY I ASK WHAT USJ RESIDENTS SHOULD ASK FOR IN THE COMING HEARING, IF EVEN "RECREATIONAL" IS IN DOUBT!!
http://penangwatch.net/files/Approva...Baiduri-84.jpg
Lot 3067 - Lot covering the Part of the Subang Ria Park & the Club, the Condos was approved in 1984 by MPPJ to PKNS & EMKO!!
Should they be REDEVELOPED BY SIME UEP?
SIME UEP/LHB/MPSJ HAVE TO ANSWER IN THE HEARING OR COMING DECALARATION!!
IF USJ RESIDENTS COME AND ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS, SHOW THEIR DEMANDS TO SIME/LHB/MPSJ/EMKO TO JUSTIFY ANY OF THEIR CLAIMS, IT WILL BE APPRECIATED!!
IF USJ RESIDENTS ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THESE KIND OF TECHNICALITIES AND LEGAL STANDI. PLEASE BE EXCUSED!!
Any JKP PROVOKING USJ residents to come to support SIME/LHB/MPSJ for not answering and NOT sorting out the matters should ask where are their SOUL AND HEART for JUSTICE!
When I asked one of the press whether they are coming, they said, "Oh yes we are. But have you all changed the time of the public forum?" I said, "No. It is still schedule to start at 2.30pm and could stretch till midnight." Then they said, "Strange, in their letter of invitation to us, we were all asked to come at 4.00pm." Then I said Shiit, so here they say it is a public hearing but then 'buayaly' (since there is a Crocodile Farm in this park) asked the press to come at 4.00pm for a press conference (might as well come for tea)when everything is over. That mean they also planned to finish the forum at 4.00pm!!! That also mean they will also rush things through. These people are behaving like our ruling party in Parliament where they dare to pass important bills with lightning speed and dare to call their Parliamentary Caucus on security a public hearing when they barred all the press from covering it. So I gave a call to my good friend who have good contact with the presses to do the necessary and the needful. No need to blah blah here what my good contact can and will do. I hope you people will turn up to show your support. These people are raping OUR Subang Ria Recreational Park. I don't care whether some people chose to call a park or a piece of land so long as it is not a cemetery to bury our green lung.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
If "Preservation" is just for a Park, why 7 functions??Quote:
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
1. If to be at "as is", there are Tons of Reasons for LHB to do it!! Including the Marvelous saying of "....to roll over my dead body", etc...
2. If to be a RE-Development, it has been a great number of NONSENSE excuses, ranging from
a) Amazing Mistakes on A Wrongly issued Title with the size much exceeds the possible.
b) A DUE LIABILITY of that came at least 20-25years late from Sime UEP but Bargaining for a possible 400 million project, NOT on 58ha but a merely 30!
c) Having taking million/years of Assessment & Quit Rent, MPSJ/State had not maintain it for the last 20-25years.
d) the latest, Sime got a piece of Leased hold land with Water Retention Ponds after Sime had completed Taman Subang Ria (Subang Jaya).
d) Changing a 10% of Open Space to 5 %....
e) hiding the facts that "Objection" is procedural for Decision making and not "View taking".
f) hiding the fact that the Re-Development is a "Double Development".
etc..
3. To "Maintain" it as a Public Park, then, it will be Gazetted, as being part of the new Structural Plan. WILL THE STATE HAVE TO COMPENSATE??
4. Regarding the RUSH. Yes, MPSJ/LHB are rushing that they had not complied with the requirement of Display of 3 months and allow a 3 week to respond to the "Invitation", etc..besides the proposal have not been possibly been preliminarily endorsed by the necessary Departments concerned.
5. Under TCPA, there is NO Provision for the Authority that they must consider the "Objection" and so WHY "MAJORITY" has to be emphasized!!
6. THE LAND is a reserved land for Subang Jaya but in A TURMOIL as it appears to have become a piece of land under an Existing Development and yet this Development appears to be part of the Re-Development to make up the "proposed Areas" for a "fascinated" kind of Plot-area calculation.
7. WHY USJ RA have to emphasized "OUR"park when it is a a matter of Subang Jaya and they had never been officially as a "Park"?
8. The Funny thing is that LHB has to organize this BIG show before he can
tell MPSJ or the State Government "the view of the SS12 – SS19 residents" as well as taking the Press as "Representative of the People".
WHY has to emphasize that the Land is Recreational zoned?
WHY has to emphasize that it is a Park iso a reserved land for Subang Jaya?
WHY has to emphasize it is for the People iso for Subang Jayan?
THE WAY HOW THE HEARING IS PROVOKED IS A CEMETERY WHERE THE AUTHORITY & HIS RUNNERS ARE STEPPING ON THE RIGHTS OF THE SUBANG JAYANS WITH THE INTRUSION OR INVASION by ITS "DEAREST" NEIGHBOR!!
EVEN IT IS NOT A CEMETERY BUT IT BURIED A LOT OF GRIEVANCES OF THOSE BEING TORTURED BY THE BULLIES OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE SO CALLED "Representative of the People" and the So Called "Representative of the Residents"!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The land could has rested
The Rights is under tested
Why a Park when it is clearly of 4 different Parts
Why recreational Not in the Past
but now even a Recreational Park!!
Never told by MPSJ but why by USJ?
Why USJ being blurred to tell SJ: YOUR RIGHTS ARE BURST!
Guys,
Time to stop the debate among us, usj or sj or bla bla. We are all in it one way or the other. Each have their point(s). The focus should be to stop this development by a 'socially responsible developer' like Sime. Yes strength in numbers can be a force but can't be the only thing we should rely on.We need to have laws on our side and the facts to back up our objective cos the authorties may not be on our side.
hearing is soon.Lets work on this together.Please....
See you guys tomorrow.
BTW nice PR by Sime on the letter to the resident. Got mine today. Didn't get an AR from MPSJ. Got two ARs last month from others, was asked to collect them at the SS13 post office via a red card left by posman cos I was not at home. if they, MPSJ did send me a AR, why is the procedure different than the 2 ARs I received last month.MPSJ AR special kah? Did MPSJ really send out ARs as they claim or this is just plain BS? :rolleyes:
Let us have a minute of silence and let the pictures do the talking. This is our park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcyeoh
Baffled!
Seems clear the developers want to develop the park area...
And MAJORITY of the residents want to keep the park...
Now WHY is it that ONLY 'certain residents' are 'required' to register FIRST before making their voices heard... :confused:
If MPSJ says that registration is to ensure only AFFECTED residents turn up, then they shud do away with the registration and allow ALL residents with a freaking MPSJ assessment bill to turn up... PERIOD.
And what is this to LHB ??? :mad: MAKE IT CLEAR WHETHER YOU'RE WITH THE RESIDENTS OR AGAINST THE RESIDENTS on this matter. Stuff the political rethorics... :rolleyes:
....and by the way, LHB - you were neither elected as ADUN nor as a MPSJ councillor... both posts were handed to you by default!!! So the least that you could do - is to publicly stand on your own two feet and make a STAND FOR THE RESIDENTS and the PARK...Quote:
Originally Posted by HouseVictim
Quote:
If "Preservation" is just for a Park, why 7 functions??
.....
3. To "Maintain" it as a Public Park, then, it will be Gazetted, as being part of the new Structural Plan. WILL THE STATE HAVE TO COMPENSATE??
See what the expert had said on 9/7/07:
“If the original approved layout plan has designated the land as a park or open space, then it cannot be amended or remain in the hands of a private individual under present policies.
“It should go back to the government,” he said.
According to him, since the state government had admitted a mistake in issuing the title, the next remedy was to acquire the land.
----------------
1. Why not Cancellation?
2. Who should be paid?
SO THE TAX -PAYERS TO SUFFER??
-----------------------
The "Objection" hearing is "recreational", blending "mistake", grievance (for 25 or more years), greediness, and victimization not only by the officials but the "People" represent People/Residents, RED HERRINGS, Hearts & Souls for sales, ......!! !!