Subang Ria Park - Page 10
Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 220

Thread: Subang Ria Park

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    USJ 12
    Posts
    4,478
    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.
    Last edited by kwchang; 10-07-2007 at 08:14 AM.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    MALAYISA
    Posts
    51

    Had LHB forgotton how many versions he had on Subang Ria?

    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
    ."

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    MALAYISA
    Posts
    51

    Why not Challenge the Ownership, this time?

    Quote Originally Posted by pcyeoh
    The Star Metro
    Monday July 9, 2007


    Park’s land use must remain recreational
    Stories by LIM CHIA YING


    Derek Fernandez
    THE Subang Ria Park land title has always been zoned as recreational and must rightfully be maintained as such, said lawyer Derek Fernandez, a local government legal expert.

    .....

    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.

    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?

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    MALAYISA
    Posts
    51

    Is the Proposal valid for a Public "Objection" Hearing?

    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!!

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    MALAYISA
    Posts
    51

    Why a Public Relation Office can tell the Truth but not many Others!!

    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!!

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Subang Jaya
    Posts
    704
    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...
    Lain kalilah

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    USJ 12
    Posts
    4,478
    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.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    https://twitter.com/#!/hurricanemax
    Posts
    7,857
    ...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
    in luv with bikes...in lust with AphroditeS AWAS! Suspek is an Avid procurer to myths, lies, legends, folklores, i-ching, rumors, misinformation, cakap-ayam, spɹoʍ uʍop ǝpısdn puɐ˙˙DLL .
    p/s Take all the above with a XL salted duck egg, wash down with 2fingers of sodium hypochoride, and suck on to a pebble size tmn negara Rock salt

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USJ
    Posts
    116

    Show up this Sunday -- help to make the head-count a considerable figure

    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!

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    SJ, Malaysia
    Posts
    184
    I have not registered but have received the invitation. 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.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Used to be @ SS12
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by tohca
    I have not registered but have received the invitation. 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
    Willi -

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USJ
    Posts
    116

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by tohca
    I have not registered but have received the invitation. 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, 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.

    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!

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    MALAYISA
    Posts
    51

    For a BASELESS "objection". WHY promoting Majority?

    Quote Originally Posted by eileenc
    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.

    ........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!

    .....
    !

    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"!!

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    USJ 12
    Posts
    4,478
    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.
    Last edited by pcyeoh; 14-07-2007 at 11:11 AM.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    USJ23
    Posts
    1,860
    I fully agree with PC on this.

    =
    =
    =
    =
    Live long and prosper - Tuvok
    Live in USJ23 - Robert
    And that's the bottom line cause Stone Cold said so!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •