On WHICH & WHOSE Titles can Sime UEP based on for the Re-Development?
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!!
Approved by MPPJ to PKNS & EMKO in 1984 -Lots 3067 & 1127 in 1984
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!
Why take my posting OFF? I repeat the following:
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, ......!! !!