Park Green


merci_puku

New Member
Sometimes the MC will change the date of the monthly meeting. It is better to check with Roland. Normally, it is the last thursday of the month.
 

dracwy

New Member
three possibilities for taking up more than one parking lot per household:-
(i) parkgreeners must have been either doing well (to afford so many cars), or
(ii) they've been parking their family members' cars in the extra lots (to save on hdb season parking for nearby carparks); or
(iii) they've been commuting using their own business/company vehicles (to save on using their own vehicle petrol), and parking these vehicles in the extra lots, in addition to their own vehicle.

my view is we just need to find out who have been taking up more than one parking lot, then take necessary action on these people, rather than cause inconvenience to other innocent households who own only one vehicle or none.

anyway, really no point resorting to uncivilised behaviour. as what bbmaru said, attend the meeting and raise your concerns. if not free to attend the meeting, feedback or give your suggestions to the MC at [email protected]. the MC has been doing their best to solve this problem, and they have been really quick to respond to any positive suggestions.
 

merci_puku

New Member
A nonresident commercial van has been parking in the PG illegally (carpark lot 24) since 15 March. MC/MA has clamped the vehicle and pasted notices all over the place to inform the owner. So far nobody own up.

If this vehicle parked here for more than 1 month and unclamping fee is $100 dollar, it is still cheaper than parking in a HDB carpark. Further more it enjoys the security service here for free.

Legally, MC/MA cannot do anything about it other than wait for the owner to turn up. Even Traffic police is not able to help much (Legal fee, vehicle storage, towing fee and any damage to the vehicle need to be borne by PG !!!)

AhBeng and Aries, what do you think PG should do to these vehicles so that these illegal owners will think twice to try their luck parking in PG next time?
 

monsterkid

New Member
In the case of the commercial van, how come it take more than a month before security guards realised that the vehicle has parked illegally?
Why was nothing being done before that?
The van at this moment is just wasting one parking lot. Maybe should do more than just $100 unclamping fee.
 

corolla

New Member
Regarding the van, the notices pasted on the lift stated that the van entered through the resident lane via transponder. since the transponder is registered, why dont the MC go and knock on the resident door for immediate remover of the van? or is this just a show from the MC for us to see that they have done their job?
 

merci_puku

New Member
MA register the serial number of the transporders to the unit when they are issued to residents.

According to security guards, the system do not register the serial number and time as the vehicle enter PG. The details on the illegal entry was known from video recording from the guard house.
 

arieson

New Member
This time is a bit unusual. The minutes of the last meeting is unsually late and there is no annoucement of the meeting date, let alone the invitation of observers.

CN, your suggestion is valid and you should feedback via email asap in case of changes to the meeting details.

Merci, you ask what PG should do to these vehicles so that these illegal owners will think twice to try their luck parking in PG next time? I believe we should start when afresh: -

One car per household
Visitor lot rights to be respected including parking overnight.
Principles of granting adhoc lot be approved at AGM and other proper meeting and be made known to all.

Enforce it rigorously but compassionately too. In compassionately, I do not mean giving leeway to resident who insist that visitor lot is theirs too when he or she has a second vehicle.
 

arieson

New Member
CN, you said who do I go to insist on my right of a parking lot if all lots are taken up?

My observation when I was back late.

Parked at a corner, parked at handicapped lot, parked besides another car if the space besides the lot is bigger. Wake up early to move the car when lots are available.

Or maybe, like during some celebration by the temple nearby, park along buangkok drive.

Acceptable to you?
 

boheng

New Member
Aries, u mean we residents who have religiously paid maintenace fees on time and those with one car couldnt find a parking lot got to park our car illegally along buangkok drive?? then why still need to pay maintenace fees?
 

merci_puku

New Member
Currently, what has been accepted at the meeting in view of the PG parking situation of 391 resident lot, 10 visitor lot and 4 disabled lots are as follows. Total 405 lot
1) 391 resident (1 per household)
2) Visitor can only park at visitor lot or else car will be clamped after 11pm.

Unconfirmed
1) Visitor car parking at visitor lot can park overnight without restriction
2)To charge for second car parking in PG.
 

arieson

New Member
Boh Eng,

Dun be angry. I am stating what I have seen and forecast would happen in the event if no car owners get cars. If this is not acceptable, then we have to stop the rot now and ask MC to change or maybe give us something back like lower maintenance fees like another resident has suggested, or what Merci Puku suggested under the unconfirmed row.

Yes, must thank Merci for all the updates too.
 

limay

New Member
<font color="119911">Here is an email reply from the MC to my comments on the parking lot:

Dear Li-May,

Thank you for your suggestion.

The MC indeed thought of this approach of alloting parking lots through balloting as per suggested. We deliberated and noted that this will create another set of problem, i.e. the unavailability or insufficient visitors lots especially over the weekends, given that currently we have only 16 of such lots.

During the daytime over weekends, there are a plenty of parking lots. Should we proceed with dedicated lots for each and every unit, visitors will still park their cars nearest to the lift landings. Assume if we do enforce the rules strictly that they should only park at visitors lots, there will be this issue of lack of lots for them. Already, we have received comments from some residents questioning us on the timing set at 11pm, which they wanted an extension.

Hence, the MC has to consider all factors and decided that the way forward is to resolve the issue progressively with a multi-prong approach as stated in our circular.

We will closely monitor the situation, and we will not discount your suggestion should the need arises

Thank you and look forward to your valuable feedback
regards
Benny Yeo

Li-May wrote:
Hi there,

I am a resident writing in from block 6.
With regards to the issue of a shortage of parking spaces, I am proposing that the management committee:
1) Collects back ALL transponders from every unit.

2) Assign adjoining parking lot numbers for each block (i.e. the lots nearest to the block would belong to the residents from that block).

3) Get all residents to come by the MC office or have another meeting to ballot for their new lots (meaning that each unit gets assigned ONE lot, regardless of the number of cars owned.) The specific parking lot number would be based on the number the pull out from the ballot box, so no one can complain if their lot is abit further away from the lift landing. Each unit has their unique parking lot number, and any unauthorized usage by other residents (or visitors) would be subjected to a fine or wheel clamp.

4) Units with no cars can opt to "rent" their car park lots to those who need 2 or more lots. This can be agreed between the 2 units.

This way, every unit is entitled to ONE lot, &amp; those who need >1 lot can pay to rent the car park lot from the unit with no car. Rental cost depends on demand &amp; supply &amp; whose who think rental is too expensive can sell their 2nd car or look for alternative means of parking outside of Park Green.

I think this is one of the more equitable ways to solve this problem.

Cheers,
Li-May</font>
 

arieson

New Member
Quote

"Already, we have received comments from some residents questioning us on the timing set at 11pm, which they wanted an extension.

Hence, the MC has to consider all factors and decided that the way forward is to resolve the issue progressively with a multi-prong approach as stated in our circular. "

Unquote

I am not sure when the reply is dated. However, would like to ask Merci Puku if the above contradict what you just said:

"Unconfirmed
1) Visitor car parking at visitor lot can park overnight without restriction
2)To charge for second car parking in PG."

I also don't quite understand the reply. Visitor lots are there, and if you enforce it strictly, any additional visitor car can be turn away else you just manage them like ask them to park in a corner etc. Only if you are lax, then they will park near the lift landing.

Same logic as second car owner has their 1st and 2nd cars park at lift landing and deprive those with only one car to park there.

Also dun understand how the multi-prong approach will work as raised by some other residents here.

Hope I make sense.
 

bbmaru

New Member
I think the "1 car per household" policy is fair to all and Limay had oso came up wif a brillant idea of asking them to ballot for their individual parking lots based on the respective blocks they stay in. However, balloting (for a good lot near the lift landing) involves some luck and tat might not be tat fair afterall. I prefer to think tat a first come first serve basis wld be fairer to all. If u come home late, then expect to park further away cos the better lots wld hv been taken by those who return home early (but at least u are guaranteed a lot to park if the 1 car per household policy is enforced).

I've spoken to Roland over the phone this morning and had voiced my opinions (the 1 car per household policy and about the inflexible 11pm rule).

He said he will bring my suggestions up to the council for further discussion and he had oso encouraged us to attend the meeting so tat they get to hear wat everyone's got to say. Since we are not satisfied wif the council's decision and do not wan to depend on the "minority" to decide for us, we shld be present to voice out our views.

The meeting will not be held this mth but postponed to next 8 May (Thu) @ 8pm and venue will be at the function room.

Those who are interested to attend pls let me know (either PM me or simply indicate here so tat I can keep Roland informed of the number of pple attending, or if u wish, u can call Roland personally to inform him of ur attendance).

Rather than to ask one anor questions about wat's wat, why not attend the meeting personally to find out exactly wat's being discussed/debated over this car park issue?

Alternatively, for watever reason u might not wan to attend/or cannot make it to the meeting on 8 May, would those concerned residents here wan to do a small "gathering" next week to give us ur feedback/opinions so tat those pple (like me) who will be attending the meeting can convey ur views to the council?

If there are anyone who would be interested to meet up among ourselves, do let me know.

On a lighter note, I do hope Ah Beng will be present so tat we will all get to see how the real Ah Beng looks like... see if he's really tat Ah Beng in real person... hahaha!! :p
 

5wd

New Member
seems to me it is quite obvious one option can never satisfy everybody...

i'll throw in my take on the matter. take it as after-dinner read and disregard it if you feel it's bullocks! LoL

1. Re-confirm current number of 1st car only units and no-car units.

2. Re-confirm latest number of additional cars requests, if available to all requests, no balloting required. if demand > supply, have a bonaza draw, talent-time, super idol thingamajik, watever... LoL in all casese, allocation comes with conditions.

3. Decide the optimal number of visitor lots to set aside strictly for parking WITHOUT dics/labels (gotta be fair to residents who hosts visitor who needs the lot). well it doesn't stop unsuccessful additional car owners from trying their luck with these lots but not everyday sunday you can secure one of these limited lots, with paperwork. be prepared to play roulette! LoL

4. Implement some sensible visitor parking regulations and ENFORCE it consistently (via controlled documentation) to prevent misuse! Make provision for adjusting such regulations during peak holiday period (e.g. shorten allowable parking duration during peak visiting hours to prevent perpetual non-availability to other visitors)

5. Buy more wheel clamps! LoL. Seriously, do so.

Well, the suggestion is one thing but the implementation takes alot more. I cant attend the meeting in the week of 8 May. But if there's anyone of you who buys my less-than-perfect ideas. feel free to bring it forward. you take all the credit... and the blame! LoL

cheers
a
 

limay

New Member
<font color="119911">Aries (arieson)- I wrote the MC &amp; got a reply within the same day. This was early last week.

On another matter, do u guys know which unit in block 6 is the one with the open house (divorce case)? I know its at my block cos they are already moving out, with the lift padded for the movers. Someone asked me if it was a unit on my floor &amp; I said I didn't think so...but come to think of it, might be
sad.gif
</font>
 

minkeemonkee

New Member
visitors lots shld be kept for visitors. if parking overnite, they shld be charge $5 etc a nite if pass 12am.
i hv 3 kids n my husband is always on overseas trips. my mom will come by to help me occasionally. sumtimes i do ask her to stay as she live in jurong.

10 lots is very little for visitors.
pple with 2 shld pay for 2nd car..($150/yr) 3 car owners shld keep min 2 cars or pay $5 etc a nite to park at visitors lot.. we shld only allow Max 2 cars. if they hv more cars, they shld get themselves a landed ppty n park all the cars.
 

merci_puku

New Member
MC/MA has deliberated on the suggestion to have individual car lots through ballot like what limay has said.

The problem with this suggestion is that this will likely to be a magnet for disputes and quarrels between residents.

Reason: If one resident come home and realise that some other vehicle/visitor is occupying their lot, the resident will go and get the guard to clamp the vehicle. This will be a chain reaction, even if the resident is good nature enough not complain and park in other residents lots.

Like many reported disputes (Joo Chiat) between landed owners, 90% of them started from disputes which arises from car parking.

Do we want create an environment to invite unnecessary disharmony between resident ?
 

boheng

New Member
How come the van is still there? should have tow it away. taking advantage of free parking and security for more than a month.
 

boheng

New Member
How come the van is still there? should have tow it away. taking advantage of free parking and security for more than a month.
 

tupidham2003

New Member
I came home late late night. There were ample lots for me to park! a great improvement comapred to CNY time where my hubby has to go around in circles. I guess the solution did work. however, the 11pm rule is too inflexible. When my brother in law wanted to visit us after 11pm, the guard refused to let him in initally!!!! There were still visitor lots avaliable but he was not allowed in! Worse still, the cars parked at the lots are non resident cars. Why can a car stay after 11pm but cant come in after 11pm? Double standard?
 

arieson

New Member
Someone asked me why company cars are allowed now even if it is not in resident name as stated in MC circular. Anyone know why?

Merci, i am not directing this at you but questioning the rationale of MC in your reply. Haven't we also created an enironment that invite disharmony between residents now, judging from the many posts here?

Lin and Janice, I would support your case if there are available lots.

I am still waiting for the official annoucement on the meeting date.
 

bbmaru

New Member
Aries,

U mean the MC/MA meeting date? I've mentioned in my earlier post tat it's going to be held on 8 May @ 8pm (according to Roland).

I think the visitors' lot shld be reserved solely for visitors and will be fair to whoever's visiting us.

I think the MC/MA shld just hold their horses and not implement further interim policies until they've heard more suggestions/feedbacks and after further deliberations.

So wif this much talk, are u all attending next Thu's meeting? I really hope u all do!
 

arieson

New Member
CN, must thank you for the coordination. Apologies if I sound like not trusting you.

I think in the past, the official way is to have a written notice for meeting and invitation of observers either documented in a circular or in the March minutes and paste on notice board.

As at yesterday, none is out yet and even out now, notice to the residents is shorter than usual (i may be wrong).

I am just being careful as I dun want to keep on making adjustment trying to attend the meeting.
 

merci_puku

New Member
According to Roland in the last meeting on company cars parking in PG, he cannot find any reason not to accede to the residents request if residents can give proof that their company have given them a company car for their daily usage.
 

5wd

New Member
hokay... not playing detective here or what...

but i was home very very late thursday (May 1) morning say 245am and i was unable to find a regular parking lot all around. in the end parked myself in one of the 2 remaining visitor's parking lot.

now, if each household entitled 1 lot and there are some household not taking up the entitlement so that some second/third cars label can be issued. why should there be insufficient regular lots available at any one time?

maybe it's visitors on a holiday's eve i dunno. if so, then it's back to square one. and i spy second cars without labels still (transponder still onboard). so...

the maths dun stack up. someone smart please enlighten me leh.

cheers
a
 

5wd

New Member
>>>>>>>>>>>>
i have yet to return it but i take it there may be 2nd/3rd car owners who can access the parking without the discs becoz the maths just don't add up in the current circumstances.

anyhow, i am also not fully convince the recall of physical dics to be replaced by paper labels will resolve the issue of the lack of 1 entitled parking space for each household if management cannot enforce the measure to monitor and disallow unauthorised parking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

what i think is happening, indeed looks like is still going on. :p

anyhow, i am chin chye abt 2nd cars and visitors. i've complied and returned the 2nd transponder for ease of accounting by the MA/MC. if the design of whatever new measures is well-intended and does not have too much loop-holes (dun think it will be perfect thats why!), then any shortcomings are due to implementation and enforcement lapses. the security uncles are human beings afterall and carpark policing should not be their only task. i'll worry about perverts sneaking in and lurking near dark corners instead.

too bad, not able to attend may8 meeting due to outstationed work.

hopefully people realises additonal cars not easy to upkeep and the problem will unwind itself eventually. boom-times' no more anyways. LoL

meantime, i can only ask of fellow residents to keep an open mind and not over-react.

cheers
a
 

monsterkid

New Member
Will the issue of the wheel-clamp van be discussed during the MC meeting?
The van is there for almost 2 months.
Can anything be done to remove the van?
Really wasting a parking lot......
 

tupidham2003

New Member
Heard that the van cannot be moved out without permission. If we do want to remove the van, we need to sought lawyer's advice and help. And end up wasting money! Would the owner pls own up and just remove the van? Why let us resort to all these? It create a very negative and sad environment. If the owner could just remove the van before 8 May, maybe we just forgive that person? No fine?
 

merci_puku

New Member
NTUC Choice Home is Park green MA. Why can't MA seek free advice from their in house lawyer. This kind of issue should be fairly common for MA who has managed a number of condo and estate.

Can the owner of the van who park here illegally sue Park Green MA if vandalism happen to the van ? Especially if there is a statement saying that the MA/MC do not have any responsibility for anything which happen to the any car parking in PG.
 

monsterkid

New Member
Think the road tax for the van is expiring soon......
I saw the road tax tab last week.
Maybe the owner will appear soon as the van needs to renew the road tax.
Can we trace the owner through the road tax label?
Think Merci is right. Why can't NTUC Choice Home help in legal issue.
I mean a vehicle has been parked in our carpark for more than 2 months and if this is to happen to any government building carpark, police will be called in as who knows what is placed inside the abandoned van.......
 

merci_puku

New Member
Visited Pebble bay and water place. I think we can use the rules stated below.

Visitors parking rules are as follows.
1) Visitors are only allowed to park at visitors designated lots. Or else vehicle will be wheel clamped.
2)Display Ticket on front of dashboard of vehicle. Vehicle will be considered parking illegally if ticket is not displayed in the vehicle.
3)Overnight parking is subject to Approval by Mgt Office and/or Guardhouse after office hours
4)Parking at own risk: THe mgt will not be held responsible for damage and mishap while visitor park in the premise of the Waterplace Condo
5)Parking at the handicapped lots, occupying two parking lots, any obstruction, parking in a way causing others not to be able to park in a adjacent lot will result in your vehicle being wheel clamped.
6)$200 Unclamping fee is payable within 24 hours; additional $50 will be imposed every 12 hours thereafter if vehicle is not removed.
 

bbmaru

New Member
Did anyone notice tat the management's notices pasted on the van had been taken down and wheel clamp removed?

I think the owner has appeared to pay the fine to unclamp the wheel...
 

monsterkid

New Member
And the van is still there?????
Me currently overseas and so no idea if the van is still there.
Will see if the van is still there when I am back.
 

kompass

New Member
The van is still there this morning.
I think the guidelines provided by Merci Puku is good reference material. If we have implemented S/N 6, our sinking fund would have benefitted from the van's parking over the last 1- 2 months.
 

monsterkid

New Member
Hahaha....
2x30x2x50 + 200 = $6200 for parking 2 months illegally in our car park.

That's a lot of money for our sinking fund.
Has the clamp been removed?
 

bbmaru

New Member
Yes, the clamp has been removed. I've checked wif Roland on tat matter and he told me tat the van's owner is NOT a resident of PG but his brother is. So tat's why I think he's able to enter as a visitor. But FYI, he was made to pay a hefty sum of "parking fee" + unclamp fee amounting to more than $1.5K before they unclamped the vehicle. As to why it's still allowed to be parked there, I will ask more when I attend tonight's meeting.

As mentioned in my earlier post, the council meeting is THIS EVENING @ 8pm. For those who wan to be there just for the parking issue, u may come after 8.30pm as "observers" (on wat issues they are going to discuss on) and discussions will be opened to the "observers" after the conclusion of the meeting.

So for those who will be attending later, see u then!
happy.gif
 

merci_puku

New Member
Obviously, the car park rules currently are clearly not enough to curb futurely illegal parking in PG. Visitors need to know upfront what kind rules and penalties, they are subjected to if they flout the rules.

Secondly, points observers may like to bring up for discussion are the owing of maintenance fees of up to $16,000 by two units #04-01 and #13-09 as stated in the last meeting minutes.

Do you people that if will be difficult to recover the money once the units are sold ?
 

monsterkid

New Member
Hi just came back last night and the van is no longer in the carpark.

As for owing of the maintenance fees of 16k for 2 households works out to be 8k a household.
This means they did not pay maintenace fees for close to year.
Can nothing be done to household not paying maintenance fees?
I think it will be hard to recover the money. It's never easy to recover money from someone. Not an easy job.

Sorry was not able to attend the meeting last night. But how did it turn out? Anyone went for the meeting?
 

rensea

New Member
ya... can anyone share if they have install film and advise the est cost? we are staying blk 2 and the sun gets into the unit directly.... sigh
 

ryue

New Member
hi i install the films a few years back. quite good, room is not so hot in the day and easier to cool down at night. think they go by per foot thingy. the really good ones like $11 bucks per foot, but could really get it down to $6-7. u need to know the stuff u r getting.
 

minkeemonkee

New Member
does anyone hv spots on the black flr tiles in the master toilet? i cant seem to clean them out? need to repolish the flr?
even in the common toilet, the black wall tiles are so difficult to clean.. not sure if i am able to pain them white..
 

taka

New Member
Hi my fren is interested in renting a 3 bedroom apartment in Park Green. Anyone keen or know if there is any vacancy? Can pm me the details. Thanks.
 

merci_puku

New Member
Authorised and Recommended from Architect is Sunshield Solar Film Deluxe and Decorative series. $2-$4.8 per sq feet.

3M solar film from $4.5 to $13 per square feet
Huperoptik $5 to $12.50 per square feet
Vkool $8 to $21.50 per square feet

So far has anyone installed the above ?
 


rensea

New Member
my unit have 3 bedrooms ... all windows are full length windows (every room!!!) ... not sure how many square feet would that be altogether, including living room?
 

Top