Fight fight fight at Parc Oasis (Jurong)

[ecimbew]

Contentious issues at Parc Oasis include a row over the use of its carpark. Residents will vote on a monthly parking fee of $100 on those owning a second car and $150 for subsequent vehicles.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...e-condo-201306

SOME owners at Parc Oasis in Jurong East are up in arms over attempts by the condominium's management council to raise funds and cut costs to cover a shortfall in the maintenance fund.

The revenue-raising plans involve imposing parking fees, but the proposals have caused friction between residents.

Two meetings have already been held with no resolution, and another is set for tomorrow, with owners expecting more rows.

The issue is money. The management council told residents last month that it expects a $118,000 deficit for the year to June 30, and $353,000 in the next fiscal year.

[waterviewer88]

Interesting to know where the shortfall comes from? If it's strictly a shortfall in the maintenance fund, could it not have been anticipated earlier? $350+ K is a big amt to miss

Contentious issues at Parc Oasis include a row over the use of its carpark. Residents will vote on a monthly parking fee of $100 on those owning a second car and $150 for subsequent vehicles.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...e-condo-201306

SOME owners at Parc Oasis in Jurong East are up in arms over attempts by the condominium's management council to raise funds and cut costs to cover a shortfall in the maintenance fund.

The revenue-raising plans involve imposing parking fees, but the proposals have caused friction between residents.

Two meetings have already been held with no resolution, and another is set for tomorrow, with owners expecting more rows.

The issue is money. The management council told residents last month that it expects a $118,000 deficit for the year to June 30, and $353,000 in the next fiscal year.

[kane]

Is there a shortage of carparks in the first place? If so then very fair to charge more for a second lot.

[Ringo33]

The reason why they need to charge car park fee is because owners are unwilling to pay more maintanence fee to maintain their aging property

[kane]

coughing a few hundred dollars more a quarter to maintain the place nicely so that potential buyers will cough out a few tens of thousand more for any unit in the project is a great decision. the myopic owners are losing sight of the forest for a tree.

[bakasa2002]

Is there a shortage of carparks in the first place? If so then very fair to charge more for a second lot.

Heard there is no lack of spaces but owners w more than one car is used to not paying and mgt wanna charge cos of deflict...

[EBD]

If there is no lack of parking space - then they should not be introducing charges until it becomes an issue where new owners can't park their first car.


Sounds like cheapo owners don't want to face reality of expense of living in a private condo.

If you collect less than you spend - it's easy to see what will happen.
I have seen this stupid stuff at AGM's before where well thought out and presented cases for increasing the monthly contribution to ensure there is no short fall or deficit are voted down by idiots who maybe think magical money will appear from the sky and create a solution.

[minority]

coughing a few hundred dollars more a quarter to maintain the place nicely so that potential buyers will cough out a few tens of thousand more for any unit in the project is a great decision. the myopic owners are losing sight of the forest for a tree.

Typical. Willing to pay Millions for a prop. refuse to pay $100 to maintain. thats the myopic mind set many have. want cheap cheap mah..

but cost are rising. cleaners, security etc. can expect everything cheap cheap yet pristine condition. while expecting tip top services.

All I can is many are so cheap!

[VS]

Typical. Willing to pay Millions for a prop. refuse to pay $100 to maintain. thats the myopic mind set many have. want cheap cheap mah..

but cost are rising. cleaners, security etc. can expect everything cheap cheap yet pristine condition. while expecting tip top services.

All I can is many are so cheap!

Sometimes, ppl want the place to rot, then push for enbloc, since maintenance or big overhaul is going to be expensive.

[reporter2]

http://www.todayonline.com/business/...asis-calm-parc

Property

Not an oasis of calm at the Parc

Residents oppose move by condo MC to impose more car parking fees in order to raise funds

By Conrad Raj
-
14 June

SINGAPORE — A battle is brewing over car parking fees at the 950-unit Parc Oasis condominium in Jurong East, as the management corporation (MC) struggles to raise funds to balance its books while trying to maintain service standards.

Some residents with more than one car are opposing a move by the MC to raise money by imposing a fee of S$100 a month for the second car and S$150 a month for subsequent cars. Several owners plan to ask the Strata Titles Board (STB) to make a ruling on the legality of the targeted fee, which will be tabled at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of owners tomorrow.

If the fee move succeeds, the MC will raise the condo’s monthly maintenance fees by only S$3 per share. If it fails, the maintenance fee will be jacked up by S$8 monthly. A typical unit has four shares.

The MC had written to residents saying that the 18-year-old condo would be incurring a deficit of about S$19,000 for the year ending June 30, 2013. It had earlier forecast a deficit of S$118,000 but various cost-cutting measures had pared this down.

For the following financial year, a deficit of S$353,000 is forecast unless the fee increases are approved. If not, further cost-cutting measures are to be imposed.

“The practical implication is that we will no longer be able to enjoy a condominium living environment. In fact, the quality of life can be equal to or, more likely, worse than what you would expect in public housing,” wrote MC Chairman Lim Taik Leong in May and earlier this month.

But the owners of more than one car — there are 150 owners in Parc Oasis with a second car and about a dozen with more than two — argue that there are sufficient car parking spaces to accommodate every car. As no added costs are involved, it is unfair to ask them to pay more, they said.

“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,” an owner of several cars told TODAY.

The resolution was narrowly defeated after the fee move failed to get approval from 75 per cent of the votes cast at the annual general meeting (AGM).

Some residents had in fact written to the STB for a ruling on the matter but withdrew their application following the defeat of the resolution at the AGM.

A resolution at an EGM in January to impose a fee on second and subsequent cars was similarly defeated.

“We got what we wanted then, but we probably will have to make another application to the STB to resolve the matter once and for all,” an aggrieved resident said.

“We are not unreasonable as we are prepared to pay should the car situation worsen and space becomes a problem. But why should we be penalised when there is more than enough space to pitch a few tents?” the resident asked.

[bakasa2002]

" But why should we be penalised when there is more than enough space to pitch a few tents?” the resident asked.

Hahahahahaha .................

[waterviewer88]

“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,”

If this is true, then the MC is taking the wrong approach in raising funds for the upkeep of the estate. This approach violates the principle of "user pays" and penalizes car owners in making them foot the bill for non-car related costs. The MC would have made a better case of raising a one-time payment across the board to meet the immediate shortfall and an increase of maintenance fees across the board to meet the long term needs. All these numbers can be easily supported by facts and figures.

[ysyap]

coughing a few hundred dollars more a quarter to maintain the place nicely so that potential buyers will cough out a few tens of thousand more for any unit in the project is a great decision. the myopic owners are losing sight of the forest for a tree.

Now all should be happy coz no potential buyers will enter this place. Too much negative publicity....

[ysyap]

“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,”

If this is true, then the MC is taking the wrong approach in raising funds for the upkeep of the estate. This approach violates the principle of "user pays" and penalizes car owners in making them foot the bill for non-car related costs. The MC would have made a better case of raising a one-time payment across the board to meet the immediate shortfall and an increase of maintenance fees across the board to meet the long term needs. All these numbers can be easily supported by facts and figures.

Very poor magnament leh! MA sleeping?

[teddybear]

Such condo has units mostly for own-stay by owners, don't need to maintain nice nice since not going to rent out that can collect more money from rental. Therefore, owners majority will not want to pay more maintenance fund, so will be left to rot. Same same for many OCR condos when they become old...

This is so different from CCR condos. Tell you my experience: My condos proposed maintenance fund increase by >15%, so I thought would see many owners turn up during AGM to vote. End up I still see the same few old faces, only 3 "newer" owners turn up and the maintenance fund increase resolution was passed by >75% of votes. See the difference between CCR and OCR condos?

coughing a few hundred dollars more a quarter to maintain the place nicely so that potential buyers will cough out a few tens of thousand more for any unit in the project is a great decision. the myopic owners are losing sight of the forest for a tree.

[teddybear]

Increase in maintenance fund cannot go through because majority of owners don't want to pay more...

“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,”

If this is true, then the MC is taking the wrong approach in raising funds for the upkeep of the estate. This approach violates the principle of "user pays" and penalizes car owners in making them foot the bill for non-car related costs. The MC would have made a better case of raising a one-time payment across the board to meet the immediate shortfall and an increase of maintenance fees across the board to meet the long term needs. All these numbers can be easily supported by facts and figures.

[westman]

A friend of of mine vested there...
Sadly... Parc Oasis mostly rented out...

Not many own stay...

Herd mentality: Since purely investment... why pay more to erode profit? Minority owners (own stay) suffer!

[Rysk]

Very poor magnament leh! MA sleeping?

950 units must be lot of fund
Think better change the mgmt..

[star]

Just keep the water features off and swimming pools dry for 1 year. Should have spare funds by then.

[mygeemeel]

Just keep the water features off and swimming pools dry for 1 year. Should have spare funds by then.

Or turn the swimming pool into reservior. Can sell water and make profit. I like this idea as mostly nobody will go swimming bcos next door got nice water park and bikini clad syt.

[teddybear]

Didn't realize Parc Oasis mostly rented out but yet owners don't want to pay more to up-keep after collecting rental! So that means OCR property owners mentality are so different from CCR property owners mentality! OCR property owners only want to collect money but bark at paying even little more additional money to up-keep their property!

A friend of of mine vested there...
Sadly... Parc Oasis mostly rented out...

Not many own stay...

Herd mentality: Since purely investment... why pay more to erode profit? Minority owners (own stay) suffer!

[westman]

Didn't realize Parc Oasis mostly rented out but yet owners don't want to pay more to up-keep after collecting rental! So that means OCR property owners mentality are so different from CCR property owners mentality! OCR property owners only want to collect money but bark at paying even little more additional money to up-keep their property!

Not so la... CCR also have this kind of mentality..
Oftenly... investors often care less in upkeep.. own stayers care more and more willing to pay to upkeeing...

Vested in CCR before:

I voted no for fee hike in CCR before as I dunt stay there..
I voted yes for fee hike in OCR as I am staying...
can kinda of conclude no differentiation between both..

[hyenergix]

Not so la... CCR also have this kind of mentality..
Oftenly... investors often care less in upkeep.. own stayers care more and more willing to pay to upkeeing...

Vested in CCR before:

I voted no for fee hike in CCR before as I dunt stay there..
I voted yes for fee hike in OCR as I am staying...
can kinda of conclude no differentiation between both..

So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.

[westman]

So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.

Yup. That my point.

[sgbuyer]

So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.

Wah like that? Another slump in the making.

One good reason why not to buy hdb dweller owned condos in heartland.

[hopeful]

So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.

westman said Parc Oasis mostly rented out.
so more investors than own-stay.
likelihood of maintenance fee hike is slim.

owner with 2-3 cars refuse to pay more for parking.

so end result is own-stay owner prefer to live in badly maintained condo?

[hyenergix]

westman said Parc Oasis mostly rented out.
so more investors than own-stay.
likelihood of maintenance fee hike is slim.

owner with 2-3 cars refuse to pay more for parking.

so end result is own-stay owner prefer to live in badly maintained condo?

Drag everyone down loh. Then wait for enbloc.

[darkseed73]

Drag everyone down loh. Then wait for enbloc.

A lot developer prefer to buy land from govt instead of buying enbloc becos of difficult residents.

Looking at the location of Parc Oasis - they can wait blah for enbloc, developers rather buy JE lands when more is release by govt.

[ysyap]

Just keep the water features off and swimming pools dry for 1 year. Should have spare funds by then.

I would first boot the management out and replace one. Next, should look through the cost of all the maintenance staff, from cleaners to security guard to landscaping to swimming pool maintenance, etc. Scout for cheaper options where possible. Sure can save a couple of thousand a month. Then consider doing away with one security guard for night shift and one for day shift, and one less pool maintenance a month and one less landscaping a month, etc... sure can get out of the red within couple of months. Then when things are stabilized, then start looking at option of raising maintenance fee and start saving for sinking funds... the management must be strong and efficient!

[westman]

westman said Parc Oasis mostly rented out.
so more investors than own-stay.
likelihood of maintenance fee hike is slim.

owner with 2-3 cars refuse to pay more for parking.

so end result is own-stay owner prefer to live in badly maintained condo?

In Parc Oasis... many jap as Parc Oasis has a small driving range...
Very rare to see such in most condos.