View Full Version : Paying for second / third / forth car park in a condo
The issue has turned out to be very ugly in The Seaview.
The owners of second / third cars are so aggressive (see New Paper / ST today)
I still prefer the system in HK, where car park lot is sold separately.
I also learnt that in Germany, the owner can rent out their carpark lot.
Wild Falcon
27-11-10, 13:25
When you buy your condo, you pay a premium for a whole suite of facilities including the car park. You also pay for the communal land of the condo comprising the facilities and the car park. I don't see why residents should pay for extra parking lots, UNLESS there is insufficient lots to go around. If you prefer the "pay per use" concept and not communal living, you really should be buying a HDB flat because you do not own the land around you. Please note all condo residents own the land, not just your unit. Why should anyone pay to use the land that is legally yours? Therefore, I cannot agree to some stupid condos charging pay-per-use or rental for the facilities - it cheapen the whole place and defeat the purpose of staying in a condo. Usually residents who complain are the have-nots, the have-nots who become green-eyed monsters when they see their neighbours with cars or use the tennis court and start to want to punish their neighbours from using the privileges associated with living in a condo. If you don't want to use the parking lot or don't use facilities, that is your perogative, But please do NOT come up with silly policies that penalise residents who use the facilities and make the place feel like home.
There is a difference between a condo and a HDB flat. The problem is , many of us grow up in a HDB flat environment when you only own your unit. That is when people become really selfish. A person who buy a condo pay for the land surrounding the condo - that's why there is such a huge premium. Why would anyone pay to use this own land which he has already paid the right to use the land upfront? Pay per use should be not applicable.
It's a different story if there are not enough lots. Then maybe the need to ballot arises. But if there are many empty spaces, there is no reason to charge people from using what is rightfully theirs.
kingkong1984
27-11-10, 13:31
if enough lots, such not bother.
I think its an issue of not enough lots..
Families with 3 cars fighting with another family with 3 cars .. then buay song... other families with 3 cars also join in.
shauntanzs
27-11-10, 13:32
Constructive opinion wild falcon, I like your post..
Wild Falcon
27-11-10, 13:34
In the case of Seaview, the residents say there are enough lots leh! Then the charging for the second car is NOT justified. The management committee should be serving the residents and not profiteering from the residents!
if enough lots, such not bother.
I think its an issue of not enough lots..
Families with 3 cars fighting with another family with 3 cars .. then buay song... other families with 3 cars also join in.
kingkong1984
27-11-10, 13:45
In the case of Seaview, the residents say there are enough lots leh! Then the charging for the second car is NOT justified. The management committee should be serving the residents and not profiteering from the residents!
not wonder must fight. Must hoot the management committee hard hard.
:hell-hath-no-fury:
It's true that there are more than enough carparks to go around. In the past, SV residents are allowed to have 2nd or 3rd carpark free on a temporary renewable basis.I suspect this new policy is a mean to increase the maintenance fund for the development. Due to its large compound, the cost of maintaining the development is very high. Currently the MCST fees are already very high and most residents opposed to further increase. So my guess is that this maybe a way to obtain more funds for the management office, rather than across the board increase in maintenance fees.
Wild u r in a dreamland. Buying a condo does not mean u r given the infinite use of the land. No u r not entitled to buy as many cars as you want. Because the pty is shared, technically speaking u need every one's approval to use the plot. An owner buying 3 4 cars are depriving other owner's entitlement of the land, regardless whether the space is sufficient or not. For example, u have desirable lots over not so desirable ones. And the very idea of knowing there is always a lot available is an attribute of thr quality of the development. Communal living is a shared responsibility. I fully support the mngt council of this condo.
And I fully agree the HK system is far fairer.
Understand many new launch projcets (especially those near to MRT) only allocate 80~90% of carpark lots/Units as the developer assume not all owners will own cars.
Would expect this kind of complaints to become frequent in the future..:doh:
Complaints, and even fights will eventually happen in some of these newer condos where number of lots is less than number of units! How to allocate fairly? Even balloting is unfair! A proper condo should have at least 110% number of car park lots to number of units (the extra 10% for visitors + 2nd cars for some owners)!
Understand many new launch projcets (especially those near to MRT) only allocate 80~90% of carpark lots/Units as the developer assume not all owners will own cars.
Would expect this kind of complaints to become frequent in the future..:doh:
Complaints, and even fights will eventually happen in some of these newer condos where number of lots is less than number of units! How to allocate fairly? Even balloting is unfair! A proper condo should have at least 110% number of car park lots to number of units (the extra 10% for visitors + 2nd cars for some owners)!
Another homework to do before making purchase of condo for own stay going forward...
:tongue3:
So much for a gracious society....:doh:
acidic.straw
27-11-10, 20:20
Serving in the mgt council is a thankless job. Council members are normal residents and they do not get paid for serving. No sane mgt council will enact by-laws to make profits as whatever policy they make will also hit themselves. Short of committing a criminal act, no money made from fees or fines go to council members.
Parking lots is communal property. Charging for 2nd, 3rd or even 4th cars is a reasonable policy when cars exceed parking lots. The mistake made by Seaview MC was in introducing the policy when there was no such shortage earlier on, hence not enforcing the policy. Now that they want to enforce, residents will naturally resist. Polcies that hit the pockets must be enforced immediately when the mandate from the House is still fresh.
Wild Falcon
27-11-10, 20:23
I find it ridiculous for anyone to bring up the stupidest argument that the car park lot increase maintenance costs. The car park lot is there already. How can it increase maintenance costs? If you don't drive, then don't buy a condo with many car park lots and then start complaining about others having free car park lots. Even if the non-drivers want to remove the carpark lot, that small area still has to be cleaned and washed right? What incremental maintenance are we talking about? I have attended some condo AGM and the arguments presented by the non-drivers sometimes are just outrageous. It's green-eyed monster effect. Theoreticaly, why should anyone be upset just because other people enjoy the condo's conveniences and facilities more than you, as long as it doesn't affect you negatively? They bought the condo with their eyes open - next time they should just go around finding condos with no parking lot - then they will be very happy because they don't get jealous about others using more privileges and facilities more than them.
It's about being gracious. And for those condos with numerous empty lots, it's just ridiculous to prevent owners from using them.
Anyway, these ungracious condo dwellers who want everyone to pay-per-use for facility within their own land just because they don't use them are doing themselves a big disfavour. Their condo value will surely go down as people are aware what sort low-class and selfish people stay in that condo.
It's true that there are more than enough carparks to go around. In the past, SV residents are allowed to have 2nd or 3rd carpark free on a temporary renewable basis.I suspect this new policy is a mean to increase the maintenance fund for the development. Due to its large compound, the cost of maintaining the development is very high. Currently the MCST fees are already very high and most residents opposed to further increase. So my guess is that this maybe a way to obtain more funds for the management office, rather than across the board increase in maintenance fees.
i also think as long as there are enough lots there is no reason to charge for 2nd and 3rd cars...
after all the $ is going to the sinking fund which is shared by all, so why shld 2nd or 3rd car owners be subsidising the sinking funds this way ~
devilplate
27-11-10, 20:31
Each unit only entitled one lot in the first plc... Its fair to pay a reasonable sum for 2nd car lot onwards. Even got spare lots shd always leave some for visitors
Each unit only entitled one lot in the first plc... Its fair to pay a reasonable sum for 2nd car lot onwards. Even got spare lots shd always leave some for visitors
look, the developer build the condo with x number of lots
whether u use your entitled lot or not the developer will still build x number of lots
when u buy ur condo u know this fact
u cannot tell the developer hey i dun own a car so i shld pay less for the condo purchase, right?
if u start charging (even when there is enough lots), the $$ collected from 2nd or 3rd car owners by right shld then go to purposes catered only to 2nd and 3rd car owners (e.g. free car wash for 2nd and 3rd car owners), but this is not the case as the $ goes to sinking fund which is utilised by all owners.. so why shld 2nd or 3rd car owners be subsidising the sinking funds?
Can put tissue paper on the parking lot to reserve the place....haa haa :rolleyes:
I find it ridiculous for anyone to bring up the stupidest argument that the car park lot increase maintenance costs. The car park lot is there already. How can it increase maintenance costs? If you don't drive, then don't buy a condo with many car park lots and then start complaining about others having free car park lots. Even if the non-drivers want to remove the carpark lot, that small area still has to be cleaned and washed right? What incremental maintenance are we talking about? I have attended some condo AGM and the arguments presented by the non-drivers sometimes are just outrageous. It's green-eyed monster effect. Theoreticaly, why should anyone be upset just because other people enjoy the condo's conveniences and facilities more than you, as long as it doesn't affect you negatively? They bought the condo with their eyes open - next time they should just go around finding condos with no parking lot - then they will be very happy because they don't get jealous about others using more privileges and facilities more than them.
It's about being gracious. And for those condos with numerous empty lots, it's just ridiculous to prevent owners from using them.
Anyway, these ungracious condo dwellers who want everyone to pay-per-use for facility within their own land just because they don't use them are doing themselves a big disfavour. Their condo value will surely go down as people are aware what sort low-class and selfish people stay in that condo.
There is something wrong with your eye sight, so please see your doctor. Where did you see that I said extra carpark lot will increase maintenance cost? I just suspect that this could be a method employed by the MCST to increase the maintenance fund kitty. You see, in SV there are a handful of residents who do not own a car (mostly expats), whereas on the hand, there are many residents who own more than 1 car. Hence, one equitable way is to charge extra for those who need more than one carpark to assist in the maintenance of the project, rather than across the board increase in maintenance fund. Whether this is right or not is debatable. You are right to say that u do own a portion of the land, depending on the share value, but it doesn't mean that u can use the facilities as and what u deemed fit. For example if the swimming pool is hardly use, can u open a swimming school there on the excuse that u own a unit and the swimming pool is hardly use? Use your brain lah, condo is not landed properties, you need to look at the overall welfare of the residents.
There is something wrong with your eye sight, so please see your doctor. Where did you see that I said extra carpark lot will increase maintenance cost? I just suspect that this could be a method employed by the MCST to increase the maintenance fund kitty. You see, in SV there are a handful of residents who do not own a car (mostly expats), whereas on the hand, there are many residents who own more than 1 car. Hence, one equitable way is to charge extra for those who need more than one carpark to assist in the maintenance of the project, rather than across the board increase in maintenance fund. Whether this is right or not is debatable. You are right to say that u do own a portion of the land, depending on the share value, but it doesn't mean that u can use the facilities as and what u deemed fit. For example if the swimming pool is hardly use, can u open a swimming school there on the excuse that u own a unit and the swimming pool is hardly use? Use your brain lah, condo is not landed properties, you need to look at the overall welfare of the residents.
car park, swimming pool, etc all these are under common area/facilities
is for all to use
whether one chooses to use them more or less one still pay same maintenance fee
is not pay per use leh ~
i dun see how someone who has 2 or 3 cars will deprive the welfare of non-car owning owners when there are more than enough lots
is like saying hey i cannot swim so i dun use the pool.. so somehow those swimmers who use the pool are depriving my welfare ~ lol
Blackfire excellent point ! Wild while u r talking abt being gracious, the idea of "I bought a condo therefore I can do whatever I want" is most definitely not gracious.
Why 2nd and 3rd car owners deprive other owner's "welfare"? Say I have 1 car. I know for a fact there will always be an empty lot near my lobby if every one just have 1. Now if everyone starts parking their 2nd and 3d car, very soon the lots will be full, and I have to drive to the end of the compound to get a lot. Imagine if I have old folks. You are depriving my "welfare". Those empty lots are collectively owned by me too. U have no rights to make it yours. Can u guarantee ur 2nd car parked only at the extreme end where "visitor" I.e. Extra lots are designated ?
While asking 2nd car owners to pay may not be equitable, I fully understand the rationale: to dissuade 2nd car, and if u insist, channel funds to compensate the community for making something collectively owned exclusively yours.
Blackfire excellent point ! Wild while u r talking abt being gracious, the idea of "I bought a condo therefore I can do whatever I want" is most definitely not gracious.
Why 2nd and 3rd car owners deprive other owner's "welfare"? Say I have 1 car. I know for a fact there will always be an empty lot near my lobby if every one just have 1. Now if everyone starts parking their 2nd and 3d car, very soon the lots will be full, and I have to drive to the end of the compound to get a lot. Imagine if I have old folks. You are depriving my "welfare". Those empty lots are collectively owned by me too. U have no rights to make it yours. Can u guarantee ur 2nd car parked only at the extreme end where "visitor" I.e. Extra lots are designated ?
While asking 2nd car owners to pay may not be equitable, I fully understand the rationale: to dissuade 2nd car, and if u insist, channel funds to compensate the community for making something collectively owned exclusively yours.
this is stretching logic leh
u mean single car owners wont park near to lobby or watever desired lot(s)? the number of cars will always exceed the number of these desired lots anyway, no?
until u can prove that those cars parked always to your desired lot(s) belong to owners with more than 1 car, u are just blaming the fact that u cannot park there (probably due to timing or watever) on those who have more than 1 car.. very flimsy logic
besides how big is your condo? is it as big as D'leedon which will have over 1700 lots such that u have to walk 500m from one end to reach your tower lobby? also there are always drop off points even in basement condo parking.
devilplate
27-11-10, 21:41
Buy landed lah. Haha.... If not buy 3 or more units n rent out the rest to tenants without cars! Haha
car park, swimming pool, etc all these are under common area/facilities
is for all to use
whether one chooses to use them more or less one still pay same maintenance fee
is not pay per use leh ~
i dun see how someone who has 2 or 3 cars will deprive the welfare of non-car owning owners when there are more than enough lots
is like saying hey i cannot swim so i dun use the pool.. so somehow those swimmers who use the pool are depriving my welfare ~ lol
Well you have a point, so that is why this is debatable. The only solution is for the residents who are unhappy to volunteer to be the council members and vote for the change.
A properly designed car park will always try to evenly distribute the lots ard the units, so overall there are no "hot spots". However with the 2nd cars, areas with plenty of 2nd cars will become hot spots, regardless whether the car park is evenly distributed or not. These hot spots bring great inconveniences to 1 car owners, that's why it is very unfair.
(In many cases, due to design constraint, certain areas are hot spots even when everyone has only 1 car. Like those design where there is a concentration of units in particular corner. For these cases, you buy your units with eyes open. You know your area will be tight. So you should not complain when you cannot get a good lot when u come back late. But this is different from hot spots created by 2nd car owners)
You have to remember, those empty lots are not free. 1 car owners own them too. This is what communal living is.
Swimming pool is the same. I know of one project in the east, Water something. Since the pool is not used much, one resident uses the pool to conduct diving lessons, to his clients outside.
Btw thanks for the concern. my place has plenty of car park lots. I have 2, my neighbor has 3. And yet the car park is still quite empty. That's not the point though.
this is stretching logic leh
u mean single car owners wont park near to lobby or watever desired lot(s)? the number of cars will always exceed the number of these desired lots anyway, no?
until u can prove that those cars parked always to your desired lot(s) belong to owners with more than 1 car, u are just blaming the fact that u cannot park there (probably due to timing or watever) on those who have more than 1 car.. very flimsy logic
besides how big is your condo? is it as big as D'leedon which will have over 1700 lots such that u have to walk 500m from one end to reach your tower lobby? also there are always drop off points even in basement condo parking.
There is no stretching of logic, it is based on personal circumstance and view. The system is very democratic, the majority wins. Attend the general meetings and vote for your preference. Buy landed if you don't like the system.
What if one who does not have cars now but own a car later and there is no more parking lots as some residents have 2nd or 3rd car? Should this person be given top priority as this is the first car of the household then?
What if one who does not have cars now but own a car later and there is no more parking lots as some residents have 2nd or 3rd car? Should this person be given top priority as this is the first car of the household then?
Good point. They should be given the first priority. Supposedly the carparks are full with the 2nd and 3rd cars, the first car owner may need to wait for the 2nd or 3rd cars temporary permits to expire before they can officially park their cars there.
acidic.straw
27-11-10, 22:14
What if one who does not have cars now but own a car later and there is no more parking lots as some residents have 2nd or 3rd car? Should this person be given top priority as this is the first car of the household then?
This is a common but sticky problem. Once cars exceed parking lots, there must be balloting. Priority goes to 1st cars which are guaranteed a lot, then subsequent cars. For practical purpose, balloting is held once a year so there may be instance where 1st car owners may have no lot if they bought the car after the ballot. There is no ideal system as far as I know :beats-me-man:
Wild Falcon
27-11-10, 22:15
First car will always have priority. If not enough lots, then need to ballot already. Some condos will ask 2nd or third car owner to find parking elsewhere in some HDB carpark. It's understandable when there are insufficient lots. In fact, just not too along mentioned in a Telok Kurau thread, even some first car need to ballot for lot! Nowadays new condos no. of lots are less than units. So first car is no longer guaranteed a lot.
What if one who does not have cars now but own a car later and there is no more parking lots as some residents have 2nd or 3rd car? Should this person be given top priority as this is the first car of the household then?
Geylang OKT
27-11-10, 22:28
Interesting debate! :D
Let me post a question to further tickle your intelligent minds. :cool:
Can an owner park his car in his condo (i.e. his entitlement 1 car lot per 1 unit) if he has rented out his unit, and his tenant does not have a car? :D :D :D
rattydrama
27-11-10, 22:34
why not engage a car jokey?:spliff: no need fight so hard.
This is a common but sticky problem. Once cars exceed parking lots, there must be balloting. Priority goes to 1st cars which are guaranteed a lot, then subsequent cars. For practical purpose, balloting is held once a year so there may be instance where 1st car owners may have no lot if they bought the car after the ballot. There is no ideal system as far as I know :beats-me-man:
From my experience so far, the answer is no, although I wish I could use the carparks of some of my condo units which are rented out.
Interesting debate! :D
Let me post a question to further tickle your intelligent minds. :cool:
Can an owner park his car in his condo (i.e. his entitlement 1 car lot per 1 unit) if he has rented out his unit, and his tenant does not have a car? :D :D :D
It depends on the MCST policy. I have only one condo that do not allow me to have a carpark season pass. Those in the CDB or near CBD do not have carpark shortage issues.
Interesting debate! :D
Let me post a question to further tickle your intelligent minds. :cool:
Can an owner park his car in his condo (i.e. his entitlement 1 car lot per 1 unit) if he has rented out his unit, and his tenant does not have a car? :D :D :D
Carparks at Cote D Azur are much more stricter. All visitors must be verified strictly. This is becos many shoppers try to park their cars there while doing their shopping at PP.
A car park space is more a real estate then a facility. In many countries they can be bought, sold and rented like an investment. For example, Hong Kong http://www.parkinghongkong.com/en/# . Imposing a levy on an additional car space is simply a form of management of the real estate. In my opinion, a prudent one.
What a sweeping statement to say residents who want to impose such a rule are ungracious green-eyed monsters. Many of those who want to impose such a rule not only own a car some actually do own more than one car.
The ungracious ones are those who refuse to pay because it was free before. The mistake of the MC was not implementing it from the get go even though the rule was already there. To enforce it now when the space is getting tighter is so much more difficult.
In any case, the system is totally transparent and democratic. If there are enough people who feel strongly against it, they can vote out the MC and implement free-for-all parking. I know a condo that a car dealer uses to "hold" cars.
A condo may start with "more than enough lots" initially, but the demographic may change and the demand for car lots may change too. Trying to deal with it later rather than sooner may be more difficult.
Geylang OKT
27-11-10, 22:49
From my experience so far, the answer is no, although I wish I could use the carparks of some of my condo units which are rented out.
Aha! But some resident condo owners purposely want this loophole, so they can take advantage and park their second and third cars free of charge due to the tenant having no car and they don't allow the non-resident owner to park there.
In other words, this parking lot space "kena confiscated" to be shared among the 2 and 3 cars resident owners even though it was meant for the owner who has since rented the place out to a no car tenant ;)
It depends on the MCST policy. I have only one condo that do not allow me to have a carpark season pass. Those in the CDB or near CBD do not have carpark shortage issues.
This is not true. Condos at CBD areas have limited carparks, and need to pay even for your 1st lot. Even then, it is on first come first serve basis.
Interesting debate! :D
Let me post a question to further tickle your intelligent minds. :cool:
Can an owner park his car in his condo (i.e. his entitlement 1 car lot per 1 unit) if he has rented out his unit, and his tenant does not have a car? :D :D :D
Well, I was trying to do exact that. But the Developer clarified that according to law (which I have not got a chance to read): once you have rented out the unit, you are no longer "resident". So the short answer is no. You cannot park your car, you cannot use the pool, etc.
However, you can be a "guest" of the resident. So you can be invited to use the pool (when the resident is around). You can park your car at visitor slot (but not overnight if the House Rule says so).
Make sense to me. You've got the money, you cannot have both: the money and the benefits. I have indeed passed the car door key to my tenant who doesn't own a car at the moment. He can borrow a friend's to drive one day, or that parking slot is just used by other resident who has 2nd car.
Thanks,
Richard
Some MCST will want to the tenant to apply for the carpark via the owner of the unit. At the end of the day, the owner will be held responsible as there is no contract between the MCST and the tenant but you.
Well, I was trying to do exact that. But the Developer clarified that according to law (which I have not got a chance to read): once you have rented out the unit, you are no longer "resident". So the short answer is no. You cannot park your car, you cannot use the pool, etc.
However, you can be a "guest" of the resident. So you can be invited to use the pool (when the resident is around). You can park your car at visitor slot (but not overnight if the House Rule says so).
Make sense to me. You've got the money, you cannot have both: the money and the benefits. I have indeed passed the car door key to my tenant who doesn't own a car at the moment. He can borrow a friend's to drive one day, or that parking slot is just used by other resident who has 2nd car.
Thanks,
Richard
Geylang OKT
27-11-10, 22:54
Well, I was trying to do exact that. But the Developer clarified that according to law (which I have not got a chance to read): once you have rented out the unit, you are no longer "resident". So the short answer is no. You cannot park your car, you cannot use the pool, etc.
However, you can be a "guest" of the resident. So you can be invited to use the pool (when the resident is around). You can park your car at visitor slot (but not overnight if the House Rule says so).
Make sense to me. You've got the money, you cannot have both: the money and the benefits. I have indeed passed the car door key to my tenant who doesn't own a car at the moment. He can borrow a friend's to drive one day, or that parking slot is just used by other resident who has 2nd car.
Thanks,
Richard
Precisely, and who made up the by-laws? The MC. And the MC is made up of self serving folks residing in the condo, most likely those old aunties who own 2 or 3 cars. :D :D :D
These aunties in the MC will say... See? Got so many available car park lots what (all confiscated the non-resident owner lots)... so no need for my 2nd or 3rd car to pay. :tongue3: :D :D
Pity the visitors to such condos especially during festive season like christmas, chinese new year. Got to park in a HDB carpark (if there is one) and walk in.
Precisely, and who made up the by-laws? The MC. And the MC is made up of self serving folks residing in the condo, most likely those old aunties who own 2 or 3 cars. :D :D :D
These aunties in the MC will say... See? Got so many available car park lots what (all confiscated the non-resident owner lots)... so no need for my 2nd or 3rd car to pay. :tongue3: :D :D
I am fine for those old aunties to park their 2nd and 3rd cars. They are the residents there, they form the community there.
I just collect the money. For the period I rent the unit out, I give up all the benefits to the community there. To me, that's fair.
Unless one day I stay there, I will then take back all my rights - including parking my 2nd cars.
Thanks,
Richard
PS. I like the idea of community ownership. I find the concept in China to pay for the swimming pool in your own condo funny. Let's pray it is not coming to Singapore.
Quite a no. of new condo developments in the bay area has to pay for parking lots.
Geylang OKT
27-11-10, 23:28
I am fine for those old aunties to park their 2nd and 3rd cars. They are the residents there, they form the community there.
I just collect the money. For the period I rent the unit out, I give up all the benefits to the community there. To me, that's fair.
Unless one day I stay there, I will then take back all my rights - including parking my 2nd cars.
Thanks,
Richard
PS. I like the idea of community ownership. I find the concept in China to pay for the swimming pool in your own condo funny. Let's pray it is not coming to Singapore.
Let's hope that these old aunties and uncles are not the same ones making alot of noise when they are made to pay for the 2nd and 3rd cars some time down the road when more cars are added to the community.
That is what is happening now at some condos when they need to give up their extra lots or are made to pay for the 2nd and 3rd car park lots :D :D :D
Afterall, must be fair and seen to be fair to ALL condo owners.
It depends on the age group composition of residents in the condo. Young family may only have 1 or 2 cars (husband and wife). 50-60s age group will have children who has reached legal age to drive and own cars. This is when problem balloons with 3rd or even 4th cars. When you have an aged estate, the problems of carparking may subside as they are too old to drive.
Quite a no. of new condo developments in the bay area has to pay for parking lots.
I guess you are referring to HK.
The situation in China is even worse. Car parks are always sold seperately (sometimes an extra income for the local authority.) Most of the residents don't buy parking slots. They just park their cars along the road within the condo project (Management Committee charge a small fee - as their extra income). So you will see basement car park is vastly empty (only a few extremely expensive cars), yet the roads within the condo are full of cars here and there.
Once again, I like the Singapore concept of community ownership. You buy a unit, you collectively own the facilities as well.
Thanks,
Richard
International Plaza is one development where the carpark space is added to the unit floor area. One can lease out the carpark space separately.
Geylang OKT
27-11-10, 23:39
I guess you are referring to HK.
The situation in China is even worse. Car parks are always sold seperately (sometimes an extra income for the local authority.) Most of the residents don't buy parking slots. They just park their cars along the road within the condo project (Management Committee charge a small fee - as their extra income). So you will see basement car park is vastly empty (only a few extremely expensive cars), yet the roads within the condo are full of cars here and there.
Once again, I like the Singapore concept of community ownership. You buy a unit, you collectively own the facilities as well.
Thanks,
Richard
Singapore was not always like that though. The condos then in the early to mid 70s (not strata-titled) all had designated car park lots for the owners :D :D :D
I am referring to marina bay and shenton area.
Quite a no. of new condo developments in the bay area has to pay for parking lots.
I guess you are referring to HK.
The situation in China is even worse. Car parks are always sold seperately (sometimes an extra income for the local authority.) Most of the residents don't buy parking slots. They just park their cars along the road within the condo project (Management Committee charge a small fee - as their extra income). So you will see basement car park is vastly empty (only a few extremely expensive cars), yet the roads within the condo are full of cars here and there.
Once again, I like the Singapore concept of community ownership. You buy a unit, you collectively own the facilities as well.
Thanks,
Richard
The issue has turned out to be very ugly in The Seaview.
The owners of second / third cars are so aggressive (see New Paper / ST today)
I still prefer the system in HK, where car park lot is sold separately.
I also learnt that in Germany, the owner can rent out their carpark lot.
Australia condos also the same thing.
You can sell/rent your carpark lot when you buy an apartment and you do not need the space.
Serving in the mgt council is a thankless job. Council members are normal residents and they do not get paid for serving.
I think people who wants to be in the mgmt council are either :-
1) seeking social relevancy within the community..
2) want power and authority
3) get entertained by vendors?
4) let "relatives" know of biz opportunities within the condo and bid for them.
any more? :)
I think people who wants to be in the mgmt council are either :-
1) seeking social relevancy within the community..
2) want power and authority
3) get entertained by vendors?
4) let "relatives" know of biz opportunities within the condo and bid for them.
any more? :)
maybe kaypo too :D :D :D :D
proud owner
28-11-10, 01:14
Good point. They should be given the first priority. Supposedly the carparks are full with the 2nd and 3rd cars, the first car owner may need to wait for the 2nd or 3rd cars temporary permits to expire before they can officially park their cars there.
i feel it is fair to charge owners with more than 2 cars...
and to use different color code for the transpondent..
say black for 1st car ...blue for 2nd and red for 3rd/4th
and designate the lots .. ONLY black can park near lobby ..
the rest to be park further away , .. then up to the owners to decide which car (who is driving) to have the black, blue or red ..
proud owner
28-11-10, 01:20
I think people who wants to be in the mgmt council are either :-
1) seeking social relevancy within the community..
2) want power and authority
3) get entertained by vendors?
4) let "relatives" know of biz opportunities within the condo and bid for them.
any more? :)
if old project ... to push for enbloc
Geylang OKT
28-11-10, 07:01
I think people who wants to be in the mgmt council are either :-
1) seeking social relevancy within the community..
2) want power and authority
3) get entertained by vendors?
4) let "relatives" know of biz opportunities within the condo and bid for them.
any more? :)
5) have vested interests to realise e.g.
(i) allocate more carpark lots to suit their number of cars (usually 2nd and 3rd cars),
(ii) organise swimming lessons for their children to chope the pool,
(iii) organise condo social activities and get "friendly" vendors to bid,
(iv) get their friends to bid for all the jobs (security, maintenance, pest control, cleaning, MA)
(iv) build more facilities that they prefer (all organised and paid using MCST funds).
To be fair, the rest of the apathetic condo owners have themselves to blame if you don't take an interest in what's being done :D
i feel it is fair to charge owners with more than 2 cars...
and to use different color code for the transpondent..
say black for 1st car ...blue for 2nd and red for 3rd/4th
and designate the lots .. ONLY black can park near lobby ..
the rest to be park further away , .. then up to the owners to decide which car (who is driving) to have the black, blue or red ..
Agreed !
In fact, I strongly favor the HK "buy ur parking lot" system.
Those who think they own a unit therefore they have the right to park as many cars as they want are simply selfish. Even if there are more than sufficient lots, they created parking hot spot areas which causes inconveniences to 1 car owners. They also created inconveniences for the visiting guests of everyone.
Interesting debate! :D
Let me post a question to further tickle your intelligent minds. :cool:
Can an owner park his car in his condo (i.e. his entitlement 1 car lot per 1 unit) if he has rented out his unit, and his tenant does not have a car? :D :D :D
No, just like you cannot use the facilities there either.
When you rent out your property you transfer all rights to the tennant.
Is it true that carpark lot is not stated in all condo s&p contracts without exception? If not stated it is not an entitlement or purchased item. It is just like all other facilities or communal area in the condo compound. I.e. Selling or leasing out is not applicable. I wonder if the by-law say any thing about carpark lot. If not they should amend and state something on it to provide a guidance on a reasonably fair treatment.
I know of one condo Gxxx8, where the car number has exceeded the number of lots available, and the estate has difficulties to pass in the AGM to impose fee for the second car and it ended up, all residents, at times have to go round the carpark to look for lots.
It is easier for the MC to impose only 1st car-parkng FOC at the first instance. The remaining cars have to pay and rates increases with the no. of cars. Otherwise, it will be difficult for this to be implemented later. Any surplus fund will go to the sinking fund.
just learnt of a loophole where the residents with second car/third car, come in as visitor and park free.
Maybe that is what happen to the visitor's car which was wheel-camp for parking overnight at Seaview.
just learnt of a loophole where the residents with second car/third car, come in as visitor and park free.
When one stays in an HDB apt, and own say 4 cars, he has to pay $xx X
4 cars. Does anyone dispute that with HDB ?
So why when it comes to condo, we expect free parking for the additional cars when Developer has already stipulated in the S&P agreement that one unit entitled to park one car free of cost.....
The argument that there are empty lots is not relevant as the management has the obligation to provide car park space to the unit owners who may at the present time not own a car but will do so in the near future.
Furthermore imposing charges is more of a deterrent than a money making exercise.
Imagine a condo development of 100 units with 120 car park lots and if 60% owners start to park more than one car - do the math and one will realize
the problem.
Each unit only entitled one lot in the first plc... Its fair to pay a reasonable sum for 2nd car lot onwards. Even got spare lots shd always leave some for visitors
Agree 101% :)
So why when it comes to condo, we expect free parking for the additional cars when Developer has already stipulated in the S&P agreement that one unit entitled to park one car free of cost.....
Are you sure mentioned in S&P? Carpark lots actually form part of the shared or common property and not form part of the purchased condo unit....This is where problem arises..:(
kingkong1984
28-11-10, 14:36
No, just like you cannot use the facilities there either.
When you rent out your property you transfer all rights to the tennant.
Easy way out, borrow access card from tenant.
Condo Collector
28-11-10, 15:05
Easy way out, borrow access card from tenant.
It is all depend on house rules - FULL STOP.
Agree 101% :)
Me too.
I think one should pay for the 2nd and onwards carpark lot.
acidic.straw
28-11-10, 15:52
Me too.
I think one should pay for the 2nd and onwards carpark lot.
Yes agree too.
When you buy a condo, you will know how many parking lots there will be and I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out that if everyone wants more than 1 car there will be a carpark lot shortage.
I'm also sure you are smart enough to figure out that the MC will implement some way to allocate and some people will not get a lot for their 2nd, or 3rd car or 4th cars.
I'm also sure you are smart enough to figure out that if you really really want to have more than one car with a lot for each of them, you will buy a landed property with a big garage for all your cars.
So what's the problem? :stop_war: :stop_war:
Wild Falcon
28-11-10, 17:26
Let's not debate this. For those with more cars, just look for condos that are less inclined towards "pay-per-use" concept lor. Yes, everyone is entitled to 1 lot but there are always some units who do NOT own a car. So for those condos with a lot of empty lots, it's about whether as a neighbour who does not own a car, do you mind your fellow bro/sis in the same development using that lot? It doesn't harm you in anyway since you do not own a car? And you make others happier for using something that you have absolutely no use for. For my condo, there are sufficient lots for 3-4 cars and nobody makes noise because people just don't mind and get on with life happily. For others, they feel upset others are taking more than one lot even though when they buy the place, they're fully aware that no. of lots is 150% to the no. of units and half the car park is empty. Some people are more generous - if I don't use something, I don't mind others who need it more to use/enjoy it. Others count every single cent - other people's gain is always seen as their "loss" even though they don't lose anything. So just buy those condos with more magnanimous heart :) Check around before you buy.
The question here is who should be given the carpark lot among the 2 or 3 car residents. What is the selection criteria? What if the resident who does not own a car and suddenly bought a car?
Let's not debate this. For those with more cars, just look for condos that are less inclined towards "pay-per-use" concept lor. Yes, everyone is entitled to 1 lot but there are always some units who do NOT own a car. So for those condos with a lot of empty lots, it's about whether as a neighbour who does not own a car, do you mind your fellow bro/sis in the same development using that lot? It doesn't harm you in anyway since you do not own a car? And you make others happier for using something that you have absolutely no use for. For my condo, there are sufficient lots for 3-4 cars and nobody makes noise because people just don't mind and get on with life happily. For others, they feel upset others are taking more than one lot even though when they buy the place, they're fully aware that no. of lots is 150% to the no. of units and half the car park is empty. Some people are more generous - if I don't use something, I don't mind others who need it more to use/enjoy it. Others count every single cent - other people's gain is always seen as their "loss" even though they don't lose anything. So just buy those condos with more magnanimous heart :) Check around before you buy.
There you go again, implying those who approve of a levy as selfish and those who don't (such as yourself) as magnanimous.
Some people are more generous - if I don't use something, I don't mind others who need it more to use/enjoy it. Others count every single cent - other people's gain is always seen as their "loss" even though they don't lose anything. So just buy those condos with more magnanimous heart :) Check around before you buy.
Condo Collector
28-11-10, 18:03
The question here is who should be given the carpark lot among the 2 or 3 car residents. What is the selection criteria? What if the resident who does not own a car and suddenly bought a car?
For those estate having issues with carpark, MC will have to base on fair share and use principle to generate new house rules.
Common practise is periodic balloting for those seeking more than 1 parking lots. Of course 1st parking lots should be given priority.
Wild Falcon
28-11-10, 18:10
It's true. I'm talking about cases when there are numerous empty lots to go around. Why would you be upset if your fellow neighbour use it more than you unless you're selfish/jealous? The car park lot does not incur incremental costs, so the maintenance argument is moot. In fact, if you convert the carpark to landscape, maintenance cost can only go up.
And there are lots of developments that do not charge for second lot if there are enough spaces for all - everyone lives happily together - they don't fight over such immaterial things. I won't be surprised next time some idiot "condo=dweller" will start suggesting a "time-counter" hourly charge. If one really wants to be calculative, it is never ending.
A lot of condos do not charge for second lot if there are sufficient spaces. So I'm not more "magnanimous" than a lot of people. Those who appear in the papers are the unusual ones with horrifying neighbours who want to charge everything.
And of couse, if there are INSUFFICIENT lots, then balloting/charging would be necessary.
There you go again, implying those who approve of a levy as selfish and those who don't (such as yourself) as magnanimous.
Relax, nobody is upset. Except you it seems. And again whose talking about maintenance costs?
You assume that a person who owns 2-3 cars would not want such a levy. You also assume that a person who does not own a car is green with envy hoping to exact some form of penalty on car owners. Don't you think that is too judgemental and self-righteous on your part?
You are indeed lucky to be staying in a harmonious condo with ample lots and no control. However, if the demographics in your condo changes and parking does become a problem you'll find the harmony easily broken. To introduce control measures then would lead to even more acrimony. This is exactly the situation in Seaview.
When things are hunky dory, it is actually better to introduce a control measure perhaps just for a token sum. Which some condos attribute to additional costs for printing a car label. Maybe even a one time payment. Stepping up the levy accordingly if required. If the lots remain ample, well then no change.
Just my thoughts.
It's true. I'm talking about cases when there are numerous empty lots to go around. Why would you be upset if your fellow neighbour use it more than you unless you're selfish/jealous? The car park lot does not incur incremental costs, so the maintenance argument is moot. In fact, if you convert the carpark to landscape, maintenance cost can only go up.
And there are lots of developments that do not charge for second lot if there are enough spaces for all - everyone lives happily together - sometimes I use one facility more than you, sometimes you use more facility more than me. Or some individuals always travel and they don't keep counting who should be charged for car park lots. If one really wants to calculate about others enjoying more facilities than himself, it is never ending.
A lot of condos do not charge for second lot if there are sufficient spaces. So I'm not more magnanimous than a lot of people. Those who appear in the papers are the unusual ones with horrifying neighbours who want to charge everything.
And of couse, if there are INSUFFICIENT lots, then balloting/charging would be necessary.
Many multiple car owners in Seaview readily complied with the levy and feel that it is reasonable. However a few have turned hostile even threatening to scratch the cars of those who complied (among other forms of harassment).
Are these actions of a generous and magnanimous human being?
Although the there appears to be empty slots, the fact remains that the parking is oversubscribed 652 applications over 546 lots. Of course, initially it all started with "numerous empty lots" so even though there was a policy of a levy it was not enforced so "-everyone lives happily together-".
Those 'chow kuan' multiple car owners have taken it to be an entitlement rather than a privilege leading to today's ugly situation.
Are you sure mentioned in S&P? Carpark lots actually form part of the shared or common property and not form part of the purchased condo unit....This is where problem arises..:(
Upon TOP - developer hands out the Handbook which stipulates the
condo laws - on usage of pool, tennis courts, car park, etc....
Actually..... when I signed my papers with my lawyer, she did mention a clause about my purchase - that it comes with an additional space (quite small) that is not within my entitlement to sell later on. We guessed that it was a carpark lot so I take it that I am entitled 1 carpark lot (as in it belongs to me even if I do not use it), but I cannot sell it. I feel that they should reserve exactly 1 lot per unit, and mark the rest 'red' as visitors. Those will be on first come first served basis. Carpark 1st-priority labels can be given to all units and 2nd cars will have to fight for the others on first-come-first served basis?
acidic.straw
28-11-10, 20:40
... so even though there was a policy of a levy it was not enforced so "-everyone lives happily together-".
That's the mistake of the MC. It shld enforce right at the beginning and you will likely avoid all these problems now...looks like not everyone lives happily together after all..
Geylang OKT
28-11-10, 20:40
Actually..... when I signed my papers with my lawyer, she did mention a clause about my purchase - that it comes with an additional space (quite small) that is not within my entitlement to sell later on. We guessed that it was a carpark lot so I take it that I am entitled 1 carpark lot (as in it belongs to me even if I do not use it), but I cannot sell it. I feel that they should reserve exactly 1 lot per unit, and mark the rest 'red' as visitors. Those will be on first come first served basis. Carpark 1st-priority labels can be given to all units and 2nd cars will have to fight for the others on first-come-first served basis?
Wow! When did you sign your S&P agreement? In the 1970s? :D :D :D
(just kidding) ;)
Geylang OKT
28-11-10, 20:44
The problem is not easy to solve and I also don't envy the MC's tasks. They have a delicate balancing act. To close one eye for owners with 2/3/4 cars when there are several available carpark lots, and then when the available lots dry up, having to face these owners wrath when trying to solicit payment. :scared-4: :ashamed1: :confused: :D
It's true. I'm talking about cases when there are numerous empty lots to go around. Why would you be upset if your fellow neighbour use it more than you unless you're selfish/jealous? The car park lot does not incur incremental costs, so the maintenance argument is moot. In fact, if you convert the carpark to landscape, maintenance cost can only go up.
And there are lots of developments that do not charge for second lot if there are enough spaces for all - everyone lives happily together - they don't fight over such immaterial things. I won't be surprised next time some idiot "condo=dweller" will start suggesting a "time-counter" hourly charge. If one really wants to be calculative, it is never ending.
A lot of condos do not charge for second lot if there are sufficient spaces. So I'm not more "magnanimous" than a lot of people. Those who appear in the papers are the unusual ones with horrifying neighbours who want to charge everything.
And of couse, if there are INSUFFICIENT lots, then balloting/charging would be necessary.
acidic.straw
28-11-10, 20:46
Actually..... when I signed my papers with my lawyer, she did mention a clause about my purchase - that it comes with an additional space (quite small) that is not within my entitlement to sell later on. We guessed that it was a carpark lot so I take it that I am entitled 1 carpark lot (as in it belongs to me even if I do not use it), but I cannot sell it. I feel that they should reserve exactly 1 lot per unit, and mark the rest 'red' as visitors. Those will be on first come first served basis. Carpark 1st-priority labels can be given to all units and 2nd cars will have to fight for the others on first-come-first served basis?
I doubt the space mentioned by your lawyer is a parking space. What this usually means is a common area only accessible by your unit. This usually occur due to poor design, leaving a "deadspace" that is supposed to be managed by the MC but which it has no access.In some cases where a space like this is useful to the SP, the MC may choose to "rent" out the space to the SP at a nominal cost.
Geylang OKT
28-11-10, 20:46
That's the mistake of the MC. It shld enforce right at the beginning and you will likely avoid all these problems now...looks like not everyone lives happily together after all..
If they enforce it in the beginning they will also get whacked becos these multiple car owners will complain why charge when so many carpark lots are not taken up yet? :D :D :D
Geylang OKT
28-11-10, 20:49
I doubt the space mentioned by your lawyer is a parking space. What this usually means is a common area only accessible by your unit. This usually occur due to poor design, leaving a "deadspace" that is supposed to be managed by the MC but which it has no access.In some cases where a space like this is useful to the SP, the MC may choose to "rent" out the space to the SP at a nominal cost.
What is SP? :confused: :confused: :confused:
SP = Singapore Poly
SP = Singapore Power
SP = Subsidiary Proprietor
acidic.straw
28-11-10, 20:52
What is SP? :confused: :confused: :confused:
SP = Singapore Poly
SP = Singapore Power
SP = Subsidiary Proprietor
SP=Subsidiary Proprietor :o
acidic.straw
28-11-10, 20:56
If they enforce it in the beginning they will also get whacked becos these multiple car owners will complain why charge when so many carpark lots are not taken up yet? :D :D :D
True True:doh: The best timing is to introduce the by-laws when the cars exceed the lots and then enforce immediately upon mandate given by the House. Or if the by-laws are already in place, to seek a year-by-year waiver until there is not enuff lots :spliff:
Geylang OKT
28-11-10, 21:00
True True:doh: The best timing is to introduce the by-laws when the cars exceed the lots and then enforce immediately upon mandate given by the House. Or if the by-laws are already in place, to seek a year-by-year waiver until there is not enuff lots :spliff:
What you say makes sense :cool: :cool: :cool:
The best timing is to introduce the by-laws when the cars exceed the lots and then enforce immediately upon mandate given by the House. Or if the by-laws are already in place, to seek a year-by-year waiver until there is not enuff lots :spliff:
I think the best time to introduce the by-laws are as soon as they are agreed upon and passed down by the MC. Don't wait till the requirement exceeds the available space.
The amount as I mentioned earlier can be small (as a token) to disincentivize multiple car parking. It should not be too high that it overly penalises the multiple car owner if there are still ample lots available.
One of the arguments of the Seaview saga is that the some feel that if such a levy were there in the first place their consideration for buying a 2nd or 3rd car may have been different. They feel it is very unfair that after they have already committed on their 2nd or 3rd car then the levy is enforced.
acidic.straw
28-11-10, 21:39
I think the best time to introduce the by-laws are as soon as they are agreed upon and passed down by the MC. Don't wait till the requirement exceeds the available space.
Agree this is the best time. The keyword is "agreed upon". It may not be easy to get the House to agree when there are ample lots available and no "incentive" to impose controls.
Many multiple car owners in Seaview readily complied with the levy and feel that it is reasonable. However a few have turned hostile even threatening to scratch the cars of those who complied (among other forms of harassment).
Are these actions of a generous and magnanimous human being?
Although the there appears to be empty slots, the fact remains that the parking is oversubscribed 652 applications over 546 lots. Of course, initially it all started with "numerous empty lots" so even though there was a policy of a levy it was not enforced so "-everyone lives happily together-".
Those 'chow kuan' multiple car owners have taken it to be an entitlement rather than a privilege leading to today's ugly situation.
Actually this is very strange as the applications are oversubscribed by 25%, and yet the carpark in SV is indeed rather empty. I suspect there are residents who abuse the carpark system there and apply carpark lots for their relatives to do their shopping at PP during the weekends.
shauntanzs
28-11-10, 21:59
With all these unhappy SV owner, I am willing to take up any fire sales :D
Easy way out, borrow access card from tenant.
And if your tennant has a car, or doesn't want to give you his access card?
This is similar to one cheapskate at my old condo. Rented out his unit but used to try and play tennis as a "guest" of his tennant.
I used to enjoy throwing his punk ass out.
So rich, spend 5-10 bucks and play somewhere.
With all these unhappy SV owner, I am willing to take up any fire sales :D
Hahah! Fat hope! The people won't sell their houses cheaper because of having to pay more for 2nd, 3rd car park lots, although honestly if they want so many cars, they should buy landed property and build big garages.
Let's not debate this. For those with more cars, just look for condos that are less inclined towards "pay-per-use" concept lor. Yes, everyone is entitled to 1 lot but there are always some units who do NOT own a car. So for those condos with a lot of empty lots, it's about whether as a neighbour who does not own a car, do you mind your fellow bro/sis in the same development using that lot? It doesn't harm you in anyway since you do not own a car? And you make others happier for using something that you have absolutely no use for. For my condo, there are sufficient lots for 3-4 cars and nobody makes noise because people just don't mind and get on with life happily. For others, they feel upset others are taking more than one lot even though when they buy the place, they're fully aware that no. of lots is 150% to the no. of units and half the car park is empty. Some people are more generous - if I don't use something, I don't mind others who need it more to use/enjoy it. Others count every single cent - other people's gain is always seen as their "loss" even though they don't lose anything. So just buy those condos with more magnanimous heart :) Check around before you buy.
The problem is simple, the solution is simple.
If I have a unit but no car, why should I give my slot for free? Why can I not sign lease agreement and collect $$$?
Then if I want to buy a car, I have to wait for lease of my lot to lapse - so no over subscription of lots. When I buy my car, I now have a guaranteed lot.
The type of system at seaview prior to the change punishes non car owners who intend to buy a car at some point by selfish buttholes who think they have some God given right to have 3 family cars at the expense of those who have just bought 1 or just moved to that condo.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A stupid question here:
Will SV price be affected with this negative image?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
A stupid question here:
Will SV price be affected with this negative image?
Hmm... let me see.. i own a unit in Seaview...will i suddenly sell it cheaper because i am angry (i only drive one car)?... hmm. Nope.
Hmm... let me see.. i own a unit in Seaview...will i suddenly sell it cheaper because i am angry (i only drive one car)?... hmm. Nope.
Agreed from a owner point of view. No owner would sell low because of that.
How about buyer's point of view? DO you want to buy especially if you have two or more cars?
:confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
devilplate
28-11-10, 23:02
Agreed from a owner point of view. No owner would sell low because of that.
How about buyer's point of view? DO you want to buy especially if you have two or more cars?
:confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
i will buy if i own 2 or more cars...other newer developments may not even got the opportunity to pay for extra lot!:p if $ can solve my problem...its not a problem! other devt ask u to park at public carpark...haha:p
can afford so many cars and yet refuse to pay....hahaha...one word CHEAP:p
Geylang OKT
29-11-10, 08:13
Peace be to All :D :D :D
acidic.straw
29-11-10, 08:20
Actually this is very strange as the applications are oversubscribed by 25%, and yet the carpark in SV is indeed rather empty. I suspect there are residents who abuse the carpark system there and apply carpark lots for their relatives to do their shopping at PP during the weekends.
The solution is very simple. All applications must be supported by the car log to confirm ownership and address. All variations taken on a case-by-case basis.
fooblackie
29-11-10, 09:11
the MC at SV has a tough task. a thankless job.
I used to stay at a medium sized development (about 300 units). The developer built the carpark with exactly 1 lot per unit (very smart indeed :eek: )
When we firsted shifted in, parking was ok until everyone started to buy cars too.. I noted many units with 2 or 3 cars poping up. No fees were charged for these 2nd cars.
Soon, every nite (say after 9pm), you have to circle the car park a few rounds to find a lot. It is frustrating to say the least. You have to park far far away (sometimes at visitors' lot or even do a illegal parking in your own carpark)!
At the same time, you see some of the idle 2nd or 3rd cars sitting (unmoved for several days or even weeks) near the lift lobby collecting dust as they are the collectors' items for some of the residents.
To put it plainly, 2nd and 3rd cars will indeed intrude the convenience of other units. Therefore, if there are insufficient lots or the situation becomes a inconvenience to other units, charges should be levied. It is a price to pay for equitable treatment to all other units.
In addition, I support the MC to take swift and strict actions asap. If it is NATO, soon these 2nd and 3rd cars will continue to pop out worsening the problem. The MC should be tough to eradicate the root issues swifty.
For my case, the MC jus kept saying that it will look into the problem, threatening to clamp "unauthorised" parking blah blah blah.. the problems persitted till today after I have just shifted out. I still see more owners buying more new cars to add to their collections... and the inconvenience of everyone else :doh:
For The Seaview, the problems could come from:
1. When the project was just TOP, the MA (before the MCST take over) issued labels to the owners, their relatives etc....and some of these owners rented out their units, they still keep their entitlement.
In the condo I stay in, some of these owners are really ugly, they come back to use the facilities, gym and pools and claim their entitlement are not transferred
2. Some SP / residents apply for their extended family for weekend visit. I understood, this happens in The Seaview
3. Some friends / relatives of the SP / Residents park their cars (like The Seview), being near to the airport, better security and underground.
Wild Falcon
29-11-10, 11:21
just different attitudes towards life in general. In my case, as long as I have no use for something, I don't mind others using it. You remind me of a friend. When he had no use for something, I asked him to donate to charity. And he told exactly the same thing, he would rather throw the thing away than give it away to anyone else who have use for it. I can't say who is right or wrong. But just different attitude to life in general.
Even for landed property, most do not have garage to park 2-3 cars. so many of us would park our second/third car outside in public spaces. Thank goodness my parent's place neighbours are all nice people and nobody minds anyone parking their car along the road outside their house. BTW, it is a pretty upmarket area - and yet people are NOT fussy - as long as there are enough space to go around. But look at Everitt Road family - they ended up calling the police, filming the neighbours because they were unhappy with neighbours parking on the public road. You may say that they're right, since nobody should be parking their cars beyond their house boundary. But by making a big fuss out of everything, you make the world a horrible place. Not only do you make yourself unhappy, you make your entire neighbourhood unhappy. Is it worth it? Must you really calculate everything? Is someone's happiness always result in your sadness? Yes, your neighbour has one more parking lot, why does it upset you if there are many other lots available? Ever since the Everitt family moves away, the neighbours becomes quiet and peaceful again. There are second cars parked outside, but most neighbours do not mind.
And I've already said numerous times, when there are numerous empty lots, there is no reason to charge or even call police or wheel clamp. Sometimes i think Singaporeans just need a bit of "kampong spirit" when it's ok to help your neighbours. Helping others doesn't mean it will always result in your loss. In fact, as in the Everitt Road example, ever since the calculative family left, there are no longer parking disputes etc even though not all families have 2 cars. The whole area become a much happier place.
That is a bigger reward than quarreling with your neighbour over empty under-utilised parking lots all the time.
The problem is simple, the solution is simple.
If I have a unit but no car, why should I give my slot for free? Why can I not sign lease agreement and collect $$$?
Then if I want to buy a car, I have to wait for lease of my lot to lapse - so no over subscription of lots. When I buy my car, I now have a guaranteed lot.
The type of system at seaview prior to the change punishes non car owners who intend to buy a car at some point by selfish buttholes who think they have some God given right to have 3 family cars at the expense of those who have just bought 1 or just moved to that condo.
devilplate
29-11-10, 11:39
just different attitudes towards life in general. In my case, as long as I have no use for something, I don't mind others using it. You remind me of a friend. When he had no use for something, I asked him to donate to charity. And he told exactly the same thing, he would rather throw the thing away than give it away to anyone else who have use for it. I can't say who is right or wrong. But just different attitude to life in general.
Even for landed property, most do not have garage to park 2-3 cars. so many of us would park our second/third car outside in public spaces. Thank goodness my parent's place neighbours are all nice people and nobody minds anyone parking their car along the road outside their house. BTW, it is a pretty upmarket area - and yet people are NOT fussy - as long as there are enough space to go around. But look at Everitt Road family - they ended up calling the police, filming the neighbours because they were unhappy with neighbours parking on the public road. You may say that they're right, since nobody should be parking their cars beyond their house boundary. But by making a big fuss out of everything, you make the world a horrible place. Not only do you make yourself unhappy, you make your entire neighbourhood unhappy. Is it worth it? Must you really calculate everything? Is someone's happiness always result in your sadness? Yes, your neighbour has one more parking lot, why does it upset you if there are many other lots available? Ever since the Everitt family moves away, the neighbours becomes quiet and peaceful again. There are second cars parked outside, but most neighbours do not mind.
And I've already said numerous times, when there are numerous empty lots, there is no reason to charge or even call police or wheel clamp. Sometimes i think Singaporeans just need a bit of "kampong spirit" when it's ok to help your neighbours. Helping others doesn't mean it will always result in your loss. In fact, as in the Everitt Road example, ever since the calculative family left, there are no longer parking disputes etc even though not all families have 2 cars. The whole area become a much happier place.
That is a bigger reward than quarreling with your neighbour over empty under-utilised parking lots all the time.
i tink u missed out the impt info....its oredi reported tat the carpark is oversubscribed in The Seaview
MC oredi provided the data and yet ppl so CHEAP to make a big hoohaa:doh:
The solution is very simple. All applications must be supported by the car log to confirm ownership and address. All variations taken on a case-by-case basis.
Checking of log cards is a common practice, however there are some residents who claimed their children are staying with them and are residents there but in actual fact they are staying elsewhere. They just want to "chop" a place for convenience, even when they could come in as a guest.
This problem is common for projects near the MRT /shopping malls.
Actually the residents in SV are rather lucky, many new developments nowadays simply do not have enough lots to park your 2nd cars even if you are prepared to pay for it.
For The Seaview, the problems could come from:
1. When the project was just TOP, the MA (before the MCST take over) issued labels to the owners, their relatives etc....and some of these owners rented out their units, they still keep their entitlement.
In the condo I stay in, some of these owners are really ugly, they come back to use the facilities, gym and pools and claim their entitlement are not transferred
2. Some SP / residents apply for their extended family for weekend visit. I understood, this happens in The Seaview
3. Some friends / relatives of the SP / Residents park their cars (like The Seview), being near to the airport, better security and underground.
I can see that u either own a property at the SV(apart from Laguna) or you are a property agent who knows the SV and D15 rather well.
I personally don't find parking a problem at SV. Actually if they have more cars, they can also park along the side road near to the tennis courts because there are public lots there and there is an entrance from the back as well. Otherwise, they can also try the Katong park side.
I personally don't find parking a problem at SV. Actually if they have more cars, they can also park along the side road near to the tennis courts because there are public lots there and there is an entrance from the back as well. Otherwise, they can also try the Katong park side.
yup you are right, u can also park at Paramount Hotel, whereby they allow season parking. But pp want to be park for free and with shelter.
Wild Falcon
29-11-10, 19:02
You are the one mistaken. Over-subscription does NOT mean car park is fully utilised. Why?
(i) LLs who lease their unit to tenant but still take their car park lot even though they never park there. Over-subcription is very common in a lot of high-end/mid-end condos that are tenanted out but the car park is always empty. In many such cases, residents are not charged for second car, as long as the car park is sufficient.
(ii) I know of people who have NO CAR but still subscribe for lots for the uncle and auntie and goodness knows who.
That is why even though the car park (as in this case) is over-subscribed, it is 40% empty at all times - people who do not stay there (scums of the earth) taking up lots. The subscription rate is not the KPI to look at, its the actual occupancy at the car park that is important. And scums like (i) and (ii) will always exist.
The ones the condo should eliminate from the list are scums like (i) and (ii) and not real residents who park their car there. Trace log card to address and those with address far away, just throw their cars out.
i tink u missed out the impt info....its oredi reported tat the carpark is oversubscribed in The Seaview
MC oredi provided the data and yet ppl so CHEAP to make a big hoohaa:doh:
i tink u missed out the impt info....its oredi reported tat the carpark is oversubscribed in The Seaview
MC oredi provided the data and yet ppl so CHEAP to make a big hoohaa:doh:
Yup, missed the point.
Even if it's not oversubscribed it's not fair for current owners who DO NOT YET own a car from having their future slot taken away.
Without some arrangement where I can be guaranteed my own single lot upon purchase and revocation of someone elses second car permit ..... you can bet that they will see it as a right not a privilege if it's given free to start with.
My old place was less than 40 % full, so no one bothered. But if it came close to 90% you can bet we would have acted too.
What if one day your prospective tenant would like to rent your place with the condition of having a carpark lot? Unfortunately, all have been taken up and some residents in the development have more than 2 cars. What would you do?
You are the one mistaken. Over-subscription does NOT mean car park is fully utilised. Why?
(i) LLs who lease their unit to tenant but still take their car park lot even though they never park there. Over-subcription is very common in a lot of high-end/mid-end condos that are tenanted out but the car park is always empty. In many such cases, residents are not charged for second car, as long as the car park is sufficient.
(ii) I know of people who have NO CAR but still subscribe for lots for the uncle and auntie and goodness knows who.
That is why even though the car park (as in this case) is over-subscribed, it is 40% empty at all times - people who do not stay there (scums of the earth) taking up lots. The subscription rate is not the KPI to look at, its the actual occupancy at the car park that is important. And scums like (i) and (ii) will always exist.
The ones the condo should eliminate from the list are scums like (i) and (ii) and not real residents who park their car there. Trace log card to address and those with address far away, just throw their cars out.
What if one day your prospective tenant would like to rent your place with the condition of having a carpark lot? Unfortunately, all have been taken up and some residents in the development have more than 2 cars. What would you do?
Complain that MC never do anything to stop this situation from occurring in the first place :D
Having been on a MC believe me you will not believe some of the crap you have to put up. No one wants to do it, but everyone wants to complain.......:doh:
Especially for large development with demanding residents.
Complain that MC never do anything to stop this situation from occurring in the first place :D
Having been on a MC believe me you will not believe some of the crap you have to put up. No one wants to do it, but everyone wants to complain.......:doh:
I can't believe we are still talking abt this. A total of ONE member disagrees with every one else.
Wild, u seriously believe other ppl SHOULD surrender what's rightfully theirs to YOU, just because you are using it for the moment, and they are not using it for the moment ? And that's a matter of course ? Shouldn't you be grateful to be at the receiving end of other ppl's graciousness and not take it for granted ?
Wild Falcon
29-11-10, 21:02
As I've said earlier, the first car will always have priority. So your tenant who is the resident will have priority.
One cannot keep worrying about things that HASN'T happen yet right? What I'm trying to say is if today, as in the case of Sea View, the occupancy rate is only 60% even with 2nd/3rd cars parked, then we should just allow our fellow bros/sis in the development to park. You cannot keep worrying about "what if" there are insufficient lots in the future. There is also possibility that in the future, the carpark occupancy rate goes down because the % of tenants goes up OR as cars become more expensive, the no. of residents owning cars actually is reduced. In short, future occupancy rate may actually go up or down. Why deprive someone who need to park the car urgently today for something that might or might not happen in the future?
If today and in the foreseeable one year, there are sufficient lots for everyone, then the MCST shouldn't make life difficult for families with more than one car. Some families, esp in areas that are not near public transportation really need more than 1 car. And if there comes a time when the no. of lots is insufficient, then residents should sit down and discuss what is the best way to allocate the lots fairly. Is it so difficult to allow someone to use something you have no use for today?
And MCST should be transparent and provide details of no. of log cards with registered addresses in other areas. Only by excluding these subscriptions do we know the "real" subscription rate of the car park.
What if one day your prospective tenant would like to rent your place with the condition of having a carpark lot? Unfortunately, all have been taken up and some residents in the development have more than 2 cars. What would you do?
Wild F. I know you can be a nice guy. BTW, this question is for you? What would you do? I suppose you will tell your prospective tenant: Too bad. No lots left!
What if one day your prospective tenant would like to rent your place with the condition of having a carpark lot? Unfortunately, all have been taken up and some residents in the development have more than 2 cars. What would you do?
Wild Falcon
29-11-10, 21:12
I can tell you, many condos do NOT charge for second lots ok? So I'm not alone in NOT implementing such draconian rules. I really think it's ok to let others park if there are sufficient spaces :). To each his own.
Anyway, if you like condos who charge for second/third lots - it is your choice lah. I just think I am unlikely to like such developments/areas where my neighbours are so calculative. I just don't see someone's gain as my loss all the time.
I don't think no one agrees with me - going by the no. of condos who do NOT charge for second lots. Trust me, there are MANY condos that allow 2 lots without charging as long as everyone is happy. I guess you will fuming if you see your neighbours with 2 cars parking for free!
It's just that the profile in this forum perfer the "pay-per-use" concept which I think should not apply to condos.
To each his own.
I can't believe we are still talking abt this. A total of ONE member disagrees with every one else.
Wild, u seriously believe other ppl SHOULD surrender what's rightfully theirs to YOU, just because you are using it for the moment, and they are not using it for the moment ? And that's a matter of course ? Shouldn't you be grateful to be at the receiving end of other ppl's graciousness and not take it for granted ?
As I've said earlier, the first car will always have priority. So your tenant who is the resident will have priority.
One cannot keep worrying about things that HASN'T happen yet right? What I'm trying to say is if today, as in the case of Sea View, the occupancy rate is only 60% even with 2nd/3rd cars parked, then we should just allow our fellow bros/sis in the development to park. You cannot keep worrying about "what if" there are insufficient lots in the future. There is also possibility that in the future, the carpark occupancy rate goes down because the % of tenants goes up OR as cars become more expensive, the no. of residents owning cars actually is reduced. In short, future occupancy rate may actually go up or down. Why deprive someone who need to park the car urgently today for something that might or might not happen in the future?
If today and in the foreseeable one year, there are sufficient lots for everyone, then the MCST shouldn't make life difficult for families with more than one car. Some families, esp in areas that are not near public transportation really need more than 1 car. And if there comes a time when the no. of lots is insufficient, then residents should sit down and discuss what is the best way to allocate the lots fairly. Is it so difficult to allow someone to use something you have no use for today?
And MCST should be transparent and provide details of no. of log cards with registered addresses in other areas. Only by excluding these subscriptions do we know the "real" subscription rate of the car park.
This is a case of the owner's needs versus the MCST's responsibilities. I wonder if they can do a poll to see who really do not need a car park label and then re-assess the available lots left after taking care of those who need their lots. These left over lots can be marked a different colour for those with more than one cars to park. If these lots are all taken up, then the MCST can step in to implement a payment system, eg $150 for 2nd car, $xxx for 3rd...etc. I don't think it is fair to expect owners who do not have a car now to automatically give up their lots for the free use of the other residents without first consulting them. It will be great if some indicate that they will never want to own a car, but as of now, there is no mrt station nearby so it is definitely easier to drive. But this may also be the reason why some units have more than 1 car to begin with.
Anyway, I can't believe this is a problem in SV. The carpark is so huge, it almost needs zoning!
Wild Falcon
29-11-10, 21:29
And btw, I don't have 2 cars. And i just don't mind others taking 2 lots free as long as there is a space for everyone in my condo :) In my mind, its not worth fussing over.
Owners of multiple properties for rental will be worried with Falcon's proposition.
Wild Falcon
29-11-10, 22:46
No worries lah :-) Lots of condos allow second car parking free. I can give you an entire list along Bukit Timah, Holland or Upper Bukit Timah. Even Meyer/Amber area has condos that allow second car free. I suspect those condos near HDB are the ones very strict with second cars to prevent abuse. In fact, second cars are the eye candies! You don't know what you've been missing if you keep voting out the second car during AGMs.
No worries lah :-) Lots of condos allow second car parking free. I can give you an entire list along Bukit Timah, Holland or Upper Bukit Timah. Even Meyer/Amber area has condos that allow second car free. I suspect those condos near HDB are the ones very strict with second cars to prevent abuse. In fact, second cars are the eye candies! You don't know what you've been missing if you keep voting out the second car during AGMs.
Haha.This guy is weird and full of nonsense. Previously, he said he preferred to do his shopping at Beauty world rather than PP. I think he finds the maids in the agencies there eye candies. Now he finds 2nd car eye candies. If you own a exotic sport car and a normal car, which car would you put as your first car. would you put your exotic car as 2nd car and risk being without a lot in the future or even wheel clamped.
I know it is free as I have units there too. But some of them are having problems now as children were too young to drive when they move in and now they are grown up and start to own cars. Instead of just 2 cars, some households have 3-4 cars. How to cope even if they have a lot of carparks initially.
No worries lah :-) Lots of condos allow second car parking free. I can give you an entire list along Bukit Timah, Holland or Upper Bukit Timah. Even Meyer/Amber area has condos that allow second car free. I suspect those condos near HDB are the ones very strict with second cars to prevent abuse. In fact, second cars are the eye candies! You don't know what you've been missing if you keep voting out the second car during AGMs.
The carpark charges collected go into the common pool. As such, perhaps, let's look from another point of view.
As the maintenance cost is getting higher, it is fair that for those did not use the entitlement of carpark to keep their maintenance fee, and those who use more than their entitlement, eg the second / third carpark lot, to pay for what they are not entitled to.
why no one thought of implementing hourly parking charges for Visitors?
arent these freeloaders too?
can boost sinking funds too :cool:
Some condos in CBD are doing it. Laguna Park has to pay a per entry charge.
why no one thought of implementing hourly parking charges for Visitors?
arent these freeloaders too?
can boost sinking funds too :cool:
blackpepperj
30-11-10, 15:26
For those newer developments, there are very limited carpark lots. Some even 1:1 especially for those near to MRT stations. Just be grateful when you are allowed to pay to park there for your 2nd/3rd car, at reasonable $ of course.
For those near to CBD, wonder whether anyone will attempt to bribe the security guards for visitor carpark lots.
proud owner
30-11-10, 22:16
why no one thought of implementing hourly parking charges for Visitors?
arent these freeloaders too?
can boost sinking funds too :cool:
pacific mansion at RV has done it for a while now
devilplate
30-11-10, 22:18
pacific mansion at RV has done it for a while now
how much they charge?
proud owner
30-11-10, 22:37
how much they charge?
depending how long you park
i cant quite remember the rate but its manual
the guard will place a note of arrival time ..then when u leave they will charge you
devilplate
30-11-10, 23:08
depending how long you park
i cant quite remember the rate but its manual
the guard will place a note of arrival time ..then when u leave they will charge you
manual one ar...kelong kelong:D
I felt very strange when I have to pay as I enter a condo to visit a friend. It is no different from visiting someone at the HDB flat. It's very sad:doh:
pacific mansion at RV has done it for a while now
We used to get free-parkers too at my old place due to proximity to ngee ann city. Can afford 100k car but cannot afford $5 to park it :doh:
Normally cost them $100 if they got caught......
This is a case of the owner's needs versus the MCST's responsibilities. I wonder if they can do a poll to see who really do not need a car park label and then re-assess the available lots left after taking care of those who need their lots. These left over lots can be marked a different colour for those with more than one cars to park. If these lots are all taken up, then the MCST can step in to implement a payment system, eg $150 for 2nd car, $xxx for 3rd...etc. I don't think it is fair to expect owners who do not have a car now to automatically give up their lots for the free use of the other residents without first consulting them. It will be great if some indicate that they will never want to own a car, but as of now, there is no mrt station nearby so it is definitely easier to drive. But this may also be the reason why some units have more than 1 car to begin with.
Anyway, I can't believe this is a problem in SV. The carpark is so huge, it almost needs zoning!
This is owners want, not need.
hmm.. i feel its alright to charge parking charges to visitors provided the fees r reasonable.. i mean we visit friends n relatives in hdb also have to tear coupon right..:) n like a forumer pointed out, can go to sinking fund.. i.e. the security guards dun sapu the money themselves.. haha
proud owner
02-12-10, 23:31
hmm.. i feel its alright to charge parking charges to visitors provided the fees r reasonable.. i mean we visit friends n relatives in hdb also have to tear coupon right..:) n like a forumer pointed out, can go to sinking fund.. i.e. the security guards dun sapu the money themselves.. haha
i agree ,... although i dont like it .. that visitors are being charged ..
if owners are unhappy and make such a big issue out of it ..
how about channeling the same energy , Mr Sia , to park your car outside parliament ..cos when you visit your friends and PARENTS staying in HDB, also must tear coupon ..
typical singaporean .. bully everyone ..but when it comes to govt .. becomes a mouse
devilplate
02-12-10, 23:33
typical singaporean .. bully everyone ..but when it comes to govt .. becomes a mouse
err...wat a statement....
Vincentacy
05-12-10, 00:42
Just wanna voice my thoughts after reading all 7 pages of this saga (very interesting indeed) :)
When I was staying at this hdb in redhill close, the open carpark ($65) some 30 metres from my doorstep was full, I have no choice but to pay for the multi storey carpark ($90) some 200 metres away.
After almost 6 months, of moving into this place, I was informed by tanjong Pagar town council there were now available lots at the open carpark. The letter stated that these lots will be given to first car owners of nearby household and it's on first come first serve basis upon renewal each month.
I later found out that:
1. many hawkers at redhill food centre were booted out from the open carpark and they have no choice but to pay $90 for the multi storey carpark directly next to the food centre.
2. some residents (some are hawkers themselves) of redhill close whom have relatives who work for them part time at the food centre or work nearby had applied for half priced season parking at the open carpark, also got booted out to the multi storey carpark.
I don't know how similar my experience got to do with this Seaview saga... I just hope that when I do go private, I don't have to face such issues of having to look all around for parking or even have to park far far away from my unit cos all the preferred lots are taken up by 2nd or 3rd car owners.
I also want to make clear that I am not against multiple car owners but I feel, priority should always be given to all first car owners and even if there are enough lots to go around, the management committee should assign lots near lobby, covered parking and favorable lots only for first car owners. :)
Just wanna voice my thoughts after reading all 7 pages of this saga (very interesting indeed) :)
When I was staying at this hdb in redhill close, the open carpark ($65) some 30 metres from my doorstep was full, I have no choice but to pay for the multi storey carpark ($90) some 200 metres away.
After almost 6 months, of moving into this place, I was informed by tanjong Pagar town council there were now available lots at the open carpark. The letter stated that these lots will be given to first car owners of nearby household and it's on first come first serve basis upon renewal each month.
I later found out that:
1. many hawkers at redhill food centre were booted out from the open carpark and they have no choice but to pay $90 for the multi storey carpark directly next to the food centre.
2. some residents (some are hawkers themselves) of redhill close whom have relatives who work for them part time at the food centre or work nearby had applied for half priced season parking at the open carpark, also got booted out to the multi storey carpark.
I don't know how similar my experience got to do with this Seaview saga... I just hope that when I do go private, I don't have to face such issues of having to look all around for parking or even have to park far far away from my unit cos all the preferred lots are taken up by 2nd or 3rd car owners.
I also want to make clear that I am not against multiple car owners but I feel, priority should always be given to all first car owners and even if there are enough lots to go around, the management committee should assign lots near lobby, covered parking and favorable lots only for first car owners. :)
In condo, most parking lots are near lobby.. Either your lobby or my lobby.:D
Vincentacy
07-12-10, 15:51
In condo, most parking lots are near lobby.. Either your lobby or my lobby.:D
And your neighbor next door has four cars and parks all four cars in your lobby area? You are okay parking your car at my lobby? If you are okay! I am okay too :)
proud owner
08-12-10, 01:27
And your neighbor next door has four cars and parks all four cars in your lobby area? You are okay parking your car at my lobby? If you are okay! I am okay too :)
i have seen this happened ..
couple has 2 cars ..hubby came home early ...choped the best lot .. next to lobby, sheltered
wife came home, took the second best lot..but not sheltered
next morning hubby left early to play golf .. drove his car out of the lot .... then went to drive wife's car .. to occupy the BEST lot ..then he drove off ..
why ?
they monopolised the 2 best lots in terms of distance to lobby
and why move the wife's car ?
cos not sheltered, by the time went out at noon ..the sun wold have heated her car...
so u tell me .. fair or not ?
i have seen this happened ..
couple has 2 cars ..hubby came home early ...choped the best lot .. next to lobby, sheltered
wife came home, took the second best lot..but not sheltered
next morning hubby left early to play golf .. drove his car out of the lot .... then went to drive wife's car .. to occupy the BEST lot ..then he drove off ..
why ?
they monopolised the 2 best lots in terms of distance to lobby
and why move the wife's car ?
cos not sheltered, by the time went out at noon ..the sun wold have heated her car...
so u tell me .. fair or not ?
Wah very free...
kingkong1984
08-12-10, 05:14
Subject of scratching, paint splashing and tyre deflation. Why hoard? First come first serve mah. Might as well buy a opc car and park there most of the time to piss everyone off.
Why not sheltered? Lousy condo or lousy design? Anyway, it just tells us that the condo overall is lousy. Time to change? :cheers1:
In the estates I had and have lived in, there are always much more car park lots than number of units available in the estate. Because I love those single block tall block with underground basement carpark, I never have all these problem. I believe all those problems mentioned by other forumers here occur in condos with many short fat blocks of buildings because they cannot build tall and residents when no space near their lift lobby to park have to park very very far away and then walk back to their lift lobby or those with multi-storey car park!
i have seen this happened ..
couple has 2 cars ..hubby came home early ...choped the best lot .. next to lobby, sheltered
wife came home, took the second best lot..but not sheltered
next morning hubby left early to play golf .. drove his car out of the lot .... then went to drive wife's car .. to occupy the BEST lot ..then he drove off ..
why ?
they monopolised the 2 best lots in terms of distance to lobby
and why move the wife's car ?
cos not sheltered, by the time went out at noon ..the sun wold have heated her car...
so u tell me .. fair or not ?
In two years time, this will be a common problem to most of the new projects, reason being, limited lots are given, majority one to one.
Some even no allowance for visitors
i'm happy parking further away - less squeezy and can open door wide-wide. just a little walk, treat as exercise.
proud owner
08-12-10, 22:25
Why not sheltered? Lousy condo or lousy design? Anyway, it just tells us that the condo overall is lousy. Time to change? :cheers1:
In the estates I had and have lived in, there are always much more car park lots than number of units available in the estate. Because I love those single block tall block with underground basement carpark, I never have all these problem. I believe all those problems mentioned by other forumers here occur in condos with many short fat blocks of buildings because they cannot build tall and residents when no space near their lift lobby to park have to park very very far away and then walk back to their lift lobby or those with multi-storey car park!
its the design .... 80 pct of the lots are shelfter but those closer to lobby werent .. can see sky ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.