Many so-called gated communities (GC) are in fact, not exclusively gated, as the common areas such as internal roads and vacant land within the residence do not belong to the residents.
Another con is that most if not all boards (RA committees) go bad as far as they and their friends are above the rules. It is very easy for the board (RA) president to skim money from the padded bill and countless other ways to steal.
Living in a gated community means signing up to a legal framework which allows the extraction of monies to help pay for maintenance of common-buildings, common services, such as rubbish collection, and other revenue costs such as paying staff to clean or secure the neighbourhood.
Now let us go into the details. There are only 2 types of schemes available - Gated Community (GC) scheme ... and Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) scheme. A "Gated & Guarded" (GnG) Community scheme is basically a "Gated Community" (GC) scheme.
All "Strata" title developments will have to implement a "Gated Community" (GC) scheme to manage all its shared facilities, security and common areas under the Strata Title Act 2007. (An example here would be "Eco Ardence", which is also classified as a "private property" residence).
Normally, only Strata title developments (that comes with clubhouse, swimming pool, carpark and other shared facilities) which are categorized under "private property" can apply for a Gated Community (GC) scheme.
However, in a "non-strata" title development ("Individual" title) property/ residence, if the RA wants to implement a "Gated Community" (GC) scheme, then it has to apply from the Land Office to change its land status to "Strata" title first.
The implications here will be serious and detrimental to all its residents - all maintenance works (such as garbage collections, drains, roads, landscape, streetlights, etc) will stop, and no longer come under the responsibility of the local council.
These facilities and services will then have to be privately funded and managed by the RA as if it is a "private property". (Eg: All Sime Darby Bandar Bukit Raja double-storey link houses are categorized as "Individual" title properties. They are also categorized as under "public property"). Therefore, no Gated Community" (GC) scheme can be implemented legally.
In actual fact, all "Individual" title developments (e.g. 2 storey Bandar Bukit Raja) can only apply to implement a 'Guarded Neighbourhood' (GN) scheme via their RA obtaining the necessary consent and approvals from the Local Council and the District OCPD, to hire private guards to patrol their residence.
We hope that upon reading and digesting the contents here, you would be better informed and would make the right decisions for all your neighbours. Right now the residents concerned have very little awareness or knowledge on this issue. Know your rights. We have to put a stop to this unscrupulous practice right now.
Anyway, we are beginning to see that there are more residents who are rising up against this sort of scheme. They are beginning to realize and aware that this is nothing more than a money-making scam in the name of "neighbourhood security". There are more residents who are against these than you know.
Even though clear guidelines have been published by the relevant authorities, residents have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous residents associations (RA) some believed to be linked to syndicates. Providing "security services" seems to be very lucrative and easy money for these gangs.
The implementation of such schemes have been highly questionable including the laws and legality of it, getting enough consent and approval from the authorities, the monthly fees, the hiring of qualified licensed guards, using card access system which is prohibited, and the barring of non-paying residents from entering (harassing, bullying and coercing the non-paying residents into paying).
Residents were being told to set up their own RA to implement Gated Community (GC) or Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) scheme even before checking with their local police district OCPD (PDRM) on whether their residence sits on a "high crime zone".
This looks like a classic case of unscrupulous people trying to take advantage of the situation or trying to profit from people's lack of information/knowledge.
For those residents who feel insecure without having a gated & guarded community here, it is better that they move to a more exclusive "GnG" neighbourhood like Eco Ardence. They would feel much safer and secured in such private properties.
And for those who think that the non-paying residents are like "parasites", then those who consented to these illegal schemes in the first place, are like "the biggest tumour any cancer has ever seen".
Anyway, despite the ongoing schemes around the neighbourhood, crooks were still able to penetrate into the residences and break into houses. Stopping cars at the guardhouse won't prevent any thief (burglers or robbers) ...from sneaking in on foot or climbing over the fence from multiple compromised locations!
Anyways, if you happened to be one of the unfortunate residents whose house being broken into and things stolen, the RA is not going to compensate you one sen even though you subscribe to their scheme. (In insurance, if you pay the premium you get to claim). Is this fraud or what?
To all home owners/residents of landed properties (Non-Strata title), do not be fooled by your RA into joining any of the above mentioned schemes blindly. They cannot force it upon you.
The Registrar of Societies (RoS) should and must audit the accounts of the RAs that take in cash payments every month as the amount paid by each household to their RA far exceed the "Assessment Fees" and "Quit Rent" payable to their local councils!
The implementation and the hiring of "security services" are also highly questionable. Most of the rules and regulations provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the hiring of security guards by the RA are NOT followed. Also they hardly comply to the guidelines and circulars as required by the State Housing Board. Know your rights! Say no to unscrupulous residents associations (RA) and non-certified GC schemes at non-strata developments.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) or Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) should also investigate if the "private security guards" are licensed and hired according to the laws and regulations (SYARAT-SYARAT LESEN DI BAWAH SEKSYEN 3 AKTA NO. 27/71 UNTUK MENGURUS AGENSI PERSENDIRIAN KAWALAN).
In view of the multiple problems, complaints and the blatant breaking of laws, guidelines and regulations by the respective residents associations, we want the RAs to stop operating illegally with immediate effect. Instead, we want our Polis DiRaja Malaysia (PDRM) back. It's time to leave these security matters back to our local police to do their jobs.
To all other home owners/residents of Bandar Bukit Raja, please DO NOT be fooled by your RA into joining the scheme as this entire development is NOT categorised as a "Gated and Guarded Community" by both the developer and the local council. Do not subscribe to illegal non-certified GC schemes!
Traits of a responsible and ethical RA
Fair, responsible & ethical in their conduct; do not bully residents; hire approved and licensed security guards from authorized firms amongst others.
We want an RA that will strictly follow all the guidelines, rules and regulations required by the local council MPKlang including those “syarat-syarat lesen dan akta” from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) in the hiring of security guards.
We do not want an RA that implements prohibited schemes (as announced by the local councils & government agencies), that do not follow the “The Rule of Law”.
We want an RA committee that is being elected by majority of the residents and not just by a handful of people with their own selfish agendas.
We want an RA that is fair to all – by not penalising any residents whether or not they are participating in their scheme. (An RA that will not force or put pressure on any residents – we want an RA that will not stop/ or cause any inconveniences to any non-members from coming home.
We do not want an RA that is manipulative and disrespectful of the rights of others.
We want an RA that will respect the rights of all residents here in accordance to the laws and guidelines set by the Malaysian government and authorities. Not just the paying ones.
We want an RA that is responsible - by getting the required consent from the majority of the residents after proper communication and dialogues with them.
We want an RA that is inclusive in their nature that will engage with the residents regularly - to notify, discuss and brief them on any problems/updates.
We want an RA that encourages and fosters harmonious relationships with one another.
We do not want an RA that causes social disunity in the neighbourhood.
********************
The pros and cons of gated living
Why do people really go for such a scheme, and what can be regarded the "best model?
British law lecturer Sarah Blandy of the University of Leeds in England knows all about gated communities (GC) and their impact on our social fabric.
Ask her for an introduction to it, and she'll most likely refer to her paper titled "National Study on Gated Communities" that considers their physical as well as legal attributes.
In it, she says that such a community must be one that:
Has a fence or wall around the residential area;
Restricts or controls the access for non-residents (via electronic means or with security staff);
Has private internal roads;
Subject residents to a common code of conduct; and
Can manage itself.
Blandy drew her working definition from a survey of a number of planning authorities in the United Kingdom and through interviews with key national players, including officers of residents' management companies, local authorities and the police, besides neighbours or those living outside a GC.
Her study reveals that in the UK, GCs are mainly small in size (containing less than 50 dwellings) and are mostly located in the suburbs of town and cities.
Deeper into her work, things get more interesting with some of her discoveries taking me by surprise. Among them, her finding that contrary to general belief, "the major motivation" for purchasers opting for a GC scheme in the UK is not security but status.
Other nuggets she uncovered that contrast with some popular theories is that in the UK
The GC market is "driven by developers seeking price premium", rather than by "purchasers demanding for safety"; and
There is no conclusive evidence that the enclosed nature of a GC or sell-management by residents actually fosters or encourages a "sense of community".
On balance, Blandy believes GCs do more harm than good, because:
They reduce public space and the permeability of a city:
Their physical security measures leads to "further social divisions";
Putting affluent households behind walls produces a negative impact on poorer neighbourhoods - in terms of urban sustainability, security and social integration.
While GC advocates maintain that such developments do in fact "contribute to improved community safety", academicians and policy makers maintain that they have "side-stepped conventional forms of governance, both in terms of planning control and in the provision of services".
"The likelihood of civic disengagement by GC residents is real and should not be summarily dismissed," they say, adding that if such disengagements remain unchecked, segregation can deepen, if not by race, then certainly by social class.
In the United States, some quarters also think GCs are potential threats to local fiscal autonomy because GC residents "have to pay additional charges for the privatised services rendered within their community". such as security, street maintenance as well as recreation and entertainment upkeep.
"Since their GC makes them pay for these same services that the government is obliged to provide, they feel they should be exempted - if not completely, then partially - from statutory charges," claim the detractors.
Further fuelling argument for payment exemption to the local authorities is a lack of clear policies on GCs in the US that is further compounded by the "general ambiguity of planners" towards them.
Coupled with the absence of local and national guidelines, this has led to an undesirable state of affairs, described as "policy vacuum" (Editor's note: In Malaysia, this has been addressed by recent amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1985).
On our shores, local GC developers too say that management corporations provide the same, if not better, kind of service as the local authorities for which the residents have to make additional payment.
However, they stopped short of suggesting that this means residents should be discharged of their obligation to pay their statutory charges.
Since January this year, I have been very fortunate in being able to inspect various GC schemes around our country together with a team of senior officials from the Office of the Director-General of Land and Mines.
One of this team's principal objectives is to determine the main characteristics of a GC and draw up the criteria for the "best model" scheme.
Accompanied by representatives from the Real Estate and Housing Developers' Association of Rehda, among the first projects we visited were Desa Park City and Sierramas Resort Homes in the Klang Valley.
While these two projects are different in many aspects, they are both impressive and pricey - certainly, they are beyond the reach of average Malaysian house buyers.
Desa Park City has visibly aged over time, but nevertheless, I was impressed by its many attractive features, especially its public park and commercial centre that permit unrestricted access (only the residential precincts are completely gated).
For Sierramas, the latter still appears refreshingly new. However, it is a large CF with public access virtually denied unless a visitor is invited or has a legitimate reason to be there.
After the Klang Valley, the next two places the ministry officials and I toured were Taman Tambun Indah in mainland Penang and Casa Grande on the island. The former is a massive GC comprising over 300 bungalow plots while the latter is pint-sized by comparison, with only 24 units.
Thereafter, we hopped over to Sentosa Island in Singapore to see how our southern neighbour is developing Sentosa Cove, a GC being built on reclaimed land.
On hand to give us a warm welcome was its chief executive officer Gurjit Singh, who gave us a comprehensive picture of how the development was conceived, planned and being executed.
Another scheme I saw was in Sabah, where I was taken on tour of several GCs in the state capital of Kota Kinabalu, including the famous Sutera Harbour.
Deep within this project is a gated enclave known as "The Residency". Though still in its infancy, its average size bungalow plots are being steadily snapped up by West Malaysians despite price tags of over RM1 million.
At this stage, it's still too early to spell out all the various components that can make up the best GC model. Many questions remain unanswered and many issues are still unresolved.
But, nevertheless, are we moving in the right direction insofar as gated living is concerned?
Salleh Buang is a senior advisor of a company specialising in competitive intelligence. He is also active in training and public speaking and can be reached at sallehbuang@hotmail.com
Source:
https://www.hba.org.my/main.htm
21/04/2007
NST- PROP Land Matters
by Salleh Buang
