We all did not not purchase a 'GnG' home in Bandar Bukit Raja from Sime Darby Properties and we certainly did not commit to a Gated & Guarded Scheme at the point of purchase. So why are the RAs here asking us to pay their monthly fees?
*Case Study 1 - Bandar Puteri RA Klang (BPRA):
*Case Study 2 - Bandar Botanic RA Klang (BBRA):
Please take a look at Bandar Botanic Residents Association's (BBRA) membership fees (as attached):
One-time registration fee of RM20
+ Yearly subscribtion fee of RM24 (or RM2 per month)
Also as indicated in their blog, only about 450 out of the 3,000 units of houses (or 15% of the residents) joined the questionable "RA security scheme".
Fortunately most of the residents in Bandar Botanic are not stupid and are not easily fooled by the RA into signing up for any dodgy security scheme. Even though the fee was only at RM2 per month, yet 85% of the 3000+ residents there did not participate.
So, as for comparison, ... what about the RAs in Bandar Bukit Raja? What do you think of them ... crooks or not?
So as for comparison... what about the RAs here in Bandar Bukit Raja? What do you think of them?
For your info ... these are the fees charged by the RAs here in Bandar Bukit Raja (Nafiri, Geta, Nahara, Cogan, Saron, and Nobat) as below:
Registration Fee of RM50
and Monthly fee of between (RM50 - RM100 per month per house)
( or a yearly fee of RM600 - RM1,200) per house
Multiply that by 300 houses for each phase = (RM15,000 - RM30,000 per month) or (RM180,000 - RM360,000 p.a.) The estimated net profit is between (RM10,000 - RM25,000) per month for each phase ... "no wonder die die also must do" !!
These houses in Bandar Bukit Raja here are not even certified GnG. The entire neighbourhood here is not under strata title and not private property. Therefore this GnG with proximity /card access cannot be implemented here legally.
Do you think that the RAs here are charging reasonable fees? Do you think that the RAs here are genuine or otherwise? Do you think that the gated scheme here is necessary?
There are no short-cuts here for any heavy vehicles to use and our roads are not damaged by them. There is no traffic congestion at anytime and there is no pollution here. Vehicles simply cannot pass through our roads here to get to somewhere else.
(Fyi, Sime Darby Property never told you that you are required to pay the monthly fees here... the perimeter fencing erected by SDP was for added privacy and security. That's all and not meant for anyone to operate a gated community scheme.) Actually the silent majority here do not want to pay but do so out of fear and do not want to be inconvenienced by the guards.
It's the same old story ... a small group of people with their selfish agenda took the opportunity to implement GnG scheme for themselves. One day they put up a barricade and stationed a security guard in your neighbourhood ... and then started collecting money from all the residents. They deliberately created inconvenience for the residence to coerce them to join the scheme. The RAs have to stop the bullying! [Even the residents of Saron 1 & Saron 2 which are categorized as "Rumah Mampu Milik - Pr1ma" were not spared from paying the monthly fees].
When are the residents here going to wake up?
It is a borrowed concept from the west (Heterogenetic) and seen as a Sanitised Space within a city with exclusivity (Voluntary Exclusion). It is also a form of Cultural Imitation and Replication, imitating the western lifestyle what they enjoyed overseas, which can also be seen as increased Materialism in our culture.
This can be termed as Self Ghettoisation of the Affluent. Social-psychology says it creates a False Sense of security and increases Paranoia about mingling with outsiders (False Consciousness of Marx).
Anthropologist Li Zhang cautions against increasing gated communities to the policy makers that it should not be misunderstood as rising affluence in a society but as a source of more Polarization which can lead to Social Conflict. It can also be seen as cleavage in civic engagement against the state or country.
Sociological analysis and data has shown that safety in gated communities may be more of an illusion than reality and that gated communities have no less crime than other similar non-gated neighbourhoods.
The implications of the proliferation of Gated Community schemes in the country is a negative one. The social impact study before the implementation of any GC scheme has never been done properly or is being disregarded. The importance of the study has been neglected and viewed as secondary to profit and other environment assessments.
One always reminisces the good old days of Rukun Tetangga where the rakyat were seen “bergotong-royong and tolong-menolong di antara satu sama lain”, in unity. Society has changed today … and if the government does not do what it is supposed to do, the rakyat will need to be self reliant and take things into their own hands. We can forget about 1Malaysia then.
GC Schemes Contribute To Polarisation, Fragmentation & Diminished Solidarity Within Society
Gated Communities (GC), which are fenced and gated residential neighbourhoods, represent a form of urbanism where public spaces are privatised.
Here, they represent a substantial part of the new housing market, especially in the recently urbanised areas. They have become a symbol of metropolitan fragmentation.
Local governments consider them as a valuable source of revenue because suburbanisation costs are paid by the private developers and the final homebuyer. This form of public-private partnership in the provision of urban infrastructure ultimately increases local segregation.
Gated Communities can contribute to spatial fragmentation not only in urban areas but suburban too, and reflect increased polarisation, fragmentation and diminished solidarity within society.
By excluding residents and people from the adjacent neighbourhoods, GC can contribute to social exclusion, inhibiting the construction of social networks that form the basis of social and economic activities. It will surely lead to some social impact and create a more prominent gap between the communities on both sides of the boom gate who will then look at each other more differently.
Very significant socio-economic dissimilarities are found to be associated with this kind of “enclosure”, thus defining very homogeneous territories especially on income and age criteria, stressing an exclusion that is structured at a municipal scale.
Social interaction takes a back seat and people have become obsessive with the perceived need for neighbourhood security. Everybody is jumping onto the bandwagon without giving much thought to this and that’s why the gated community concept is flourishing these days.
There are also quite a number of GC schemes that are plagued with unscrupulous RAs and syndicates taking advantage of the situation and reaping profits from unsuspecting residents.
As there are already developers here that have experimented with the concept of multiple gated communities within their non-strata development (such as Sime Darby Property in Bandar Bukit Raja), they are bringing this concept to the masses whereby terrace houses in each precinct have their own gated communities.
This was implemented without getting all the proper consents and approvals from the local authorities beforehand, and thus has created lots of other issues to the residents.
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.
Among the confusion of certified GnG (Gated & Guarded), GC (Gated Community) in strata properties and GN (Guarded Neighbourhood) in non-strata properties, the central feature of GCs is the social and legal frameworks which form the constitutional conditions under which residents subscribe to access and occupation of these developments, in combination with the physical feature which make them so conspicuous.
Legally speaking, outsiders who are not living there can still demand access into the residences under the provisions of various Acts and Laws such as under the Road Transport Act.
Security is a complex and costly matter. Communities who have invested heavily in their neighbourhood security such as RFID card based entries and exits are just to make you feel like you are in office, even though you are at home. (That was sarcasm by the way, in case you didn’t get it). Then there are Boom Barriers (or boom gates), just to give you the feel of the Toll plaza. (Again, sarcasm here.)
Data has suggested that gated communities’ rights and responsibilities are, by and large confined to legalities rather than extending to a commitment to enhance social networks either within the development or in the adjacent wider community exacerbating the effect of physical and social barriers between residents within and the wider communities.
Gated communities appear to provide an extreme example of more common attempts to insulate against perceived risks and unwanted encounters. The time-space trajectories of residents suggest a dynamic pattern of separation that goes beyond the place of residence.
Gated Community further extend contemporary segregatory tendencies, and that policy responses are required that will curtail the creation of such havens of social withdrawal. Many of us don’t even bother to get to know our neighbours, so what is the big deal living in a gated community?
Gated communities serve no purpose unless “100% prison or military-like” process of identification and registration is adhered to and monitored 24/7, and without prejudice and favour to any particular group of people.
It is a sad reflection of society that we think we need gated communities to improve security. Nobody likes gated residential areas as they cause a lot of inconveniences when visiting relatives and friends living in those areas, as you need to present your IC and wait for the registration process, etc.
It’s still okay to go through such registration process provided those are certified Gated and Guarded (GC) private strata properties, as you have no choice here.
However, as for those non-strata properties/residences that have implemented their own GC schemes via their RA, it is not acceptable at all, as these terrace houses (link-houses) are under individual titles and classified as public property, not private.
These non-strata gated communities by unscrupulous RAs have blatantly flouted all the local guidelines and laws - and they are the main problem now. They are the ones to be blamed for residents' bickering, unhappiness, and segregation.
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.
Many do not believe in gated communities. Why does the work of the police, who are entrusted to uphold security and safety, need to be done by others, and the people have to pay for them? Besides, even with GnG, there are still thefts, break-ins and other crimes happening.
Many people do not like to be asked so many personal questions and they do not like to leave their personal details with private security guards (some of which looks more like gangsters than guards), especially when at times they are in a hurry. Friends and relatives also prefer not to visit anymore, due to this troublesome inconvenience at the guardhouse.
GnG, all forms of Gated Communities (GC) and Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) must be government-controlled so that unscrupulous parties cannot take matters into their own hands and implement as they like. This is also to avoid them taking advantage of the situation in reaping in profits and burdening the rakyat.
The government needs to step in to make every district safe via the police force or some security arrangement. Citizens should not need to pay additional amounts for the security of their homes and families.
The people should not have to worry and leave their homes and families to “work out” the security and safety issues of their neighbourhood.
The laws must be followed through - police must carry out their responsibilities accordingly and law breakers must be punished.
Imprisoned by the Walls Built to Keep 'the Others' Out
The phenomenon of gated communities — the fastest-growing form of housing in the United States — continues unabated in California and across the nation. There are now more than 1 million homes behind such walls in the Greater Los Angeles area alone.
One-third of all houses built in the region are in secured-access developments. Across the U.S., there are 7 million households in fortified communities, according to the American Housing Survey of 2001, with the largest number located in the West.
This symbolism of wealth and security is so pervasive that there are now even faux gated communities, called "neighborhood entry identities," in Simi Valley that sport walls and guardhouses but no locked gates or guards.
Yet residents may be walling in more problems than they are keeping out.
Walled communities go way back in the history of human habitation. Ancient towns were surrounded by walls to protect inhabitants and their property. In the United States, gated residential developments first originated in upscale communities such as Llewellyn Park, N.J., in the 1850s, and in resorts like New York's Tuxedo Park, developed in 1886 as a hunting retreat and ringed by 24 miles of barbed wire.
It wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s, however, that middle-class Americans first sealed themselves inside in planned retirement communities like Leisure World in Seal Beach.
In the 1980s, real estate speculation was the driving force behind building gated communities around golf courses designed for exclusivity and prestige. By 2000, Southern California gated communities expanded to the suburbs and included a broad range of residents, not just the rich — although along with supposed cachet, those walls and gates also added to the price tag.
Unfortunately, this sought-after feature also helped to further divide our society. Of the 219 gated enclaves that Sorbonne geographer Renaud LeGoix identified in a study of Greater Los Angeles, a third were in middle-income white suburbs. But not only whites were isolating themselves: A fifth were in middle- and low-income Latino or Asian neighborhoods.
During ethnographic research from 1994 to 2002, gated community residents told me they were seeking safety and security along with a nice place to live. These desires were often expressed as a wish to live near people like themselves because of a fear of "others."
But in fact there is little evidence that gated communities are any safer, nor do they encourage a sense of community. Residents often acknowledged that they were experiencing a "false sense of security" because they still had to worry about the handymen, gardeners, domestics and even the private guards who entered every day.
The unintended consequences of gating are widespread. In addition to generating a sense of exclusion and social segregation, gating also contributes to an overall shortage of public space. And although proponents say the developments reduce the fiscal burden for their municipalities, if they fail — and some do — municipal costs can increase as local governments have to fund repairs.
Most people who move to gated communities are not aware of what they are giving up in their quest for safety and privacy. Growing up with an implicit fortress mentality, children may experience more, not less, fear of people outside the gates. The costs of maintaining one's home can escalate because of additional fees, such as maintaining privately owned roads and amenities while still paying taxes for unused public services.
Gated communities have homeowners associations with strict covenants, contracts and deed restrictions that regulate most aspects of their houses and environment. Many residents find these rules onerous, as was illustrated in an episode of "The X-Files" in which gated community homeowners who didn't toe the line were eaten by a monster.
One of the striking features of our world today is that many people feel increasingly insecure. To date, the main responses have been more policing, surveillance technology, privatized security forces and barricaded homes.
We must recognize that our fear is not simply about crime and "others" but is a reflection of the inherent insecurities of modern life. Perhaps then we can openly debate the effects of these gated communities — their social and psychological costs as well as their personal benefits.
Setha M. Low, a professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, is author of "Behind the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness inFortress America" (Routledge 2003).
Imprisoned by the Walls Built to Keep 'the Others' Out
Published on Friday, December 19, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times by Setha M. Low
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
GCs Do More Harm Than Good
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
BBR Is Not Suitable If You Are Looking For A Gated Community
For those residents who feel insecure without having a gated community (GC) scheme in their neighbourhood, it is better that they move to a Strata-titled and proper "Gated & Guarded" (GnG) residence like "Eco Ardence" or "Eco Park". There are many certified Gated Communities out there, but certainly not those double-storey link houses developed by Sime Darby Property in Bandar Bukit Raja.
They would feel much safer and secure in such "Strata title" properties which are also gazetted as Gated Community (GC) by the Local Authorities /Council.
Please do not try to implement a Gated Community (GC) scheme in a non GC neighbourhood here.
Please do not try to apply from the Land Office to change our current land title from "Individual" title to "Strata". Because this will mean that all maintenance works (such as rubbish collections, drains, maintenance of roads, landscape, streetlights, etc) will no longer be handled by the local council.
Please do not consent or try to form a Residents' Association (RA) to implement a Gated Community (GC) scheme in a non-gazetted GC neighbourhood here.
Please do not implement illegal automated card access system which is prohibited by all local councils in Selangor (unless you have 100% consent from the residents).
Please do not set up any illegal barriers to block any public roads or access to any public parks or children's playground.
Please do not consent or condone to such illegal schemes. You cannot implement a GC scheme legally in a Non-Strata titled neighbourhood.
Please do not leave the security of our neighbourhood to "private security guards" hired by the RA. Please do not erect any guard house without proper consent and permission from the local authorities.
We rather trust our local police (PDRM) than the "security services" hired and implemented by the RA. The security and safety of our neighbourhood lies beyond the capability of any RA.
And for those residents who think that 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".
Even though stringent guidelines have been published by the relevant authorities, residents have been bullied or taken advantage of by some unscrupulous residents associations (RAs), some believed to be linked to syndicates. Providing "security services" seems to be very lucrative and easy money for these gangs.
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.
Residents were being told to set up their own RA to implement Gated Community or Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) scheme even before checking with the local district police OCPD (PDRM) on whether their residence sits on an identified "high crime zone" or not.
The implementation of such schemes have been highly questionable including the laws and legality of it, guidelines, getting the 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).
So you see, we are not the problem here. It is just that you might have a problem moving to or living in a Non Gated Community (GC) neighbourhood now.
And then, through your RA, you are trying to apply from the Local Authorities to convert our non GC neighbourhood to a GC scheme neighbourhood. Now this is the problem!
*Case Study 1 - Bandar Puteri RA Klang (BPRA):
Perhaps the need for the scheme here is more reasonable. The RA here is also more genuine because of several factors:
1) The residence was facing roads being damaged by heavy vehicles passing through their neighborhood
2) Noise, pollution and dust as a result of the above
3) Peak hours traffic jams caused by vehicles taking a short-cut through the residence
4) For charging a more reasonable fee of RM50
5) Unobstructed access movements of non-participating residents (respect the rights of other residents)
6) Inclusive and fair in nature and no deprivations to any parties (do not create problems and inconvenience to others)
******************
Please take a look at Bandar Botanic Residents Association's (BBRA) membership fees (as attached):
One-time registration fee of RM20
+ Yearly subscribtion fee of RM24 (or RM2 per month)
*(the above info & pic are cropped from their blog for your ref...)
Fortunately most of the residents in Bandar Botanic are not stupid and are not easily fooled by the RA into signing up for any dodgy security scheme. Even though the fee was only at RM2 per month, yet 85% of the 3000+ residents there did not participate.
So, as for comparison, ... what about the RAs in Bandar Bukit Raja? What do you think of them ... crooks or not?
****************
*Case Study 3 - All Phases of Bdr Bukit Raja RAs (Jln Singgahsana & Jln Mahligai):
So as for comparison... what about the RAs here in Bandar Bukit Raja? What do you think of them?
For your info ... these are the fees charged by the RAs here in Bandar Bukit Raja (Nafiri, Geta, Nahara, Cogan, Saron, and Nobat) as below:
Registration Fee of RM50
and Monthly fee of between (RM50 - RM100 per month per house)
( or a yearly fee of RM600 - RM1,200) per house
Multiply that by 300 houses for each phase = (RM15,000 - RM30,000 per month) or (RM180,000 - RM360,000 p.a.) The estimated net profit is between (RM10,000 - RM25,000) per month for each phase ... "no wonder die die also must do" !!
These houses in Bandar Bukit Raja here are not even certified GnG. The entire neighbourhood here is not under strata title and not private property. Therefore this GnG with proximity /card access cannot be implemented here legally.
Do you think that the RAs here are charging reasonable fees? Do you think that the RAs here are genuine or otherwise? Do you think that the gated scheme here is necessary?
There are no short-cuts here for any heavy vehicles to use and our roads are not damaged by them. There is no traffic congestion at anytime and there is no pollution here. Vehicles simply cannot pass through our roads here to get to somewhere else.
(Fyi, Sime Darby Property never told you that you are required to pay the monthly fees here... the perimeter fencing erected by SDP was for added privacy and security. That's all and not meant for anyone to operate a gated community scheme.) Actually the silent majority here do not want to pay but do so out of fear and do not want to be inconvenienced by the guards.
It's the same old story ... a small group of people with their selfish agenda took the opportunity to implement GnG scheme for themselves. One day they put up a barricade and stationed a security guard in your neighbourhood ... and then started collecting money from all the residents. They deliberately created inconvenience for the residence to coerce them to join the scheme. The RAs have to stop the bullying! [Even the residents of Saron 1 & Saron 2 which are categorized as "Rumah Mampu Milik - Pr1ma" were not spared from paying the monthly fees].
When are the residents here going to wake up?
-----<<<*>>>-----
A New Form Of Social Apartheid
It is a borrowed concept from the west (Heterogenetic) and seen as a Sanitised Space within a city with exclusivity (Voluntary Exclusion). It is also a form of Cultural Imitation and Replication, imitating the western lifestyle what they enjoyed overseas, which can also be seen as increased Materialism in our culture.
This can be termed as Self Ghettoisation of the Affluent. Social-psychology says it creates a False Sense of security and increases Paranoia about mingling with outsiders (False Consciousness of Marx).
Anthropologist Li Zhang cautions against increasing gated communities to the policy makers that it should not be misunderstood as rising affluence in a society but as a source of more Polarization which can lead to Social Conflict. It can also be seen as cleavage in civic engagement against the state or country.
Sociological analysis and data has shown that safety in gated communities may be more of an illusion than reality and that gated communities have no less crime than other similar non-gated neighbourhoods.
The implications of the proliferation of Gated Community schemes in the country is a negative one. The social impact study before the implementation of any GC scheme has never been done properly or is being disregarded. The importance of the study has been neglected and viewed as secondary to profit and other environment assessments.
One always reminisces the good old days of Rukun Tetangga where the rakyat were seen “bergotong-royong and tolong-menolong di antara satu sama lain”, in unity. Society has changed today … and if the government does not do what it is supposed to do, the rakyat will need to be self reliant and take things into their own hands. We can forget about 1Malaysia then.
************************
GC Schemes Contribute To Polarisation, Fragmentation & Diminished Solidarity Within Society
Gated Communities (GC), which are fenced and gated residential neighbourhoods, represent a form of urbanism where public spaces are privatised.
Here, they represent a substantial part of the new housing market, especially in the recently urbanised areas. They have become a symbol of metropolitan fragmentation.
Local governments consider them as a valuable source of revenue because suburbanisation costs are paid by the private developers and the final homebuyer. This form of public-private partnership in the provision of urban infrastructure ultimately increases local segregation.
Gated Communities can contribute to spatial fragmentation not only in urban areas but suburban too, and reflect increased polarisation, fragmentation and diminished solidarity within society.
By excluding residents and people from the adjacent neighbourhoods, GC can contribute to social exclusion, inhibiting the construction of social networks that form the basis of social and economic activities. It will surely lead to some social impact and create a more prominent gap between the communities on both sides of the boom gate who will then look at each other more differently.
Very significant socio-economic dissimilarities are found to be associated with this kind of “enclosure”, thus defining very homogeneous territories especially on income and age criteria, stressing an exclusion that is structured at a municipal scale.
Social interaction takes a back seat and people have become obsessive with the perceived need for neighbourhood security. Everybody is jumping onto the bandwagon without giving much thought to this and that’s why the gated community concept is flourishing these days.
There are also quite a number of GC schemes that are plagued with unscrupulous RAs and syndicates taking advantage of the situation and reaping profits from unsuspecting residents.
As there are already developers here that have experimented with the concept of multiple gated communities within their non-strata development (such as Sime Darby Property in Bandar Bukit Raja), they are bringing this concept to the masses whereby terrace houses in each precinct have their own gated communities.
This was implemented without getting all the proper consents and approvals from the local authorities beforehand, and thus has created lots of other issues to the residents.
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.
Among the confusion of certified GnG (Gated & Guarded), GC (Gated Community) in strata properties and GN (Guarded Neighbourhood) in non-strata properties, the central feature of GCs is the social and legal frameworks which form the constitutional conditions under which residents subscribe to access and occupation of these developments, in combination with the physical feature which make them so conspicuous.
Legally speaking, outsiders who are not living there can still demand access into the residences under the provisions of various Acts and Laws such as under the Road Transport Act.
Security is a complex and costly matter. Communities who have invested heavily in their neighbourhood security such as RFID card based entries and exits are just to make you feel like you are in office, even though you are at home. (That was sarcasm by the way, in case you didn’t get it). Then there are Boom Barriers (or boom gates), just to give you the feel of the Toll plaza. (Again, sarcasm here.)
Data has suggested that gated communities’ rights and responsibilities are, by and large confined to legalities rather than extending to a commitment to enhance social networks either within the development or in the adjacent wider community exacerbating the effect of physical and social barriers between residents within and the wider communities.
Gated communities appear to provide an extreme example of more common attempts to insulate against perceived risks and unwanted encounters. The time-space trajectories of residents suggest a dynamic pattern of separation that goes beyond the place of residence.
Gated Community further extend contemporary segregatory tendencies, and that policy responses are required that will curtail the creation of such havens of social withdrawal. Many of us don’t even bother to get to know our neighbours, so what is the big deal living in a gated community?
Gated communities serve no purpose unless “100% prison or military-like” process of identification and registration is adhered to and monitored 24/7, and without prejudice and favour to any particular group of people.
It is a sad reflection of society that we think we need gated communities to improve security. Nobody likes gated residential areas as they cause a lot of inconveniences when visiting relatives and friends living in those areas, as you need to present your IC and wait for the registration process, etc.
It’s still okay to go through such registration process provided those are certified Gated and Guarded (GC) private strata properties, as you have no choice here.
However, as for those non-strata properties/residences that have implemented their own GC schemes via their RA, it is not acceptable at all, as these terrace houses (link-houses) are under individual titles and classified as public property, not private.
These non-strata gated communities by unscrupulous RAs have blatantly flouted all the local guidelines and laws - and they are the main problem now. They are the ones to be blamed for residents' bickering, unhappiness, and segregation.
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.
Many do not believe in gated communities. Why does the work of the police, who are entrusted to uphold security and safety, need to be done by others, and the people have to pay for them? Besides, even with GnG, there are still thefts, break-ins and other crimes happening.
Many people do not like to be asked so many personal questions and they do not like to leave their personal details with private security guards (some of which looks more like gangsters than guards), especially when at times they are in a hurry. Friends and relatives also prefer not to visit anymore, due to this troublesome inconvenience at the guardhouse.
GnG, all forms of Gated Communities (GC) and Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) must be government-controlled so that unscrupulous parties cannot take matters into their own hands and implement as they like. This is also to avoid them taking advantage of the situation in reaping in profits and burdening the rakyat.
The government needs to step in to make every district safe via the police force or some security arrangement. Citizens should not need to pay additional amounts for the security of their homes and families.
The people should not have to worry and leave their homes and families to “work out” the security and safety issues of their neighbourhood.
The laws must be followed through - police must carry out their responsibilities accordingly and law breakers must be punished.
************************
Imprisoned by the Walls Built to Keep 'the Others' Out
The phenomenon of gated communities — the fastest-growing form of housing in the United States — continues unabated in California and across the nation. There are now more than 1 million homes behind such walls in the Greater Los Angeles area alone.
One-third of all houses built in the region are in secured-access developments. Across the U.S., there are 7 million households in fortified communities, according to the American Housing Survey of 2001, with the largest number located in the West.
This symbolism of wealth and security is so pervasive that there are now even faux gated communities, called "neighborhood entry identities," in Simi Valley that sport walls and guardhouses but no locked gates or guards.
Yet residents may be walling in more problems than they are keeping out.
Walled communities go way back in the history of human habitation. Ancient towns were surrounded by walls to protect inhabitants and their property. In the United States, gated residential developments first originated in upscale communities such as Llewellyn Park, N.J., in the 1850s, and in resorts like New York's Tuxedo Park, developed in 1886 as a hunting retreat and ringed by 24 miles of barbed wire.
It wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s, however, that middle-class Americans first sealed themselves inside in planned retirement communities like Leisure World in Seal Beach.
In the 1980s, real estate speculation was the driving force behind building gated communities around golf courses designed for exclusivity and prestige. By 2000, Southern California gated communities expanded to the suburbs and included a broad range of residents, not just the rich — although along with supposed cachet, those walls and gates also added to the price tag.
Unfortunately, this sought-after feature also helped to further divide our society. Of the 219 gated enclaves that Sorbonne geographer Renaud LeGoix identified in a study of Greater Los Angeles, a third were in middle-income white suburbs. But not only whites were isolating themselves: A fifth were in middle- and low-income Latino or Asian neighborhoods.
During ethnographic research from 1994 to 2002, gated community residents told me they were seeking safety and security along with a nice place to live. These desires were often expressed as a wish to live near people like themselves because of a fear of "others."
But in fact there is little evidence that gated communities are any safer, nor do they encourage a sense of community. Residents often acknowledged that they were experiencing a "false sense of security" because they still had to worry about the handymen, gardeners, domestics and even the private guards who entered every day.
The unintended consequences of gating are widespread. In addition to generating a sense of exclusion and social segregation, gating also contributes to an overall shortage of public space. And although proponents say the developments reduce the fiscal burden for their municipalities, if they fail — and some do — municipal costs can increase as local governments have to fund repairs.
Most people who move to gated communities are not aware of what they are giving up in their quest for safety and privacy. Growing up with an implicit fortress mentality, children may experience more, not less, fear of people outside the gates. The costs of maintaining one's home can escalate because of additional fees, such as maintaining privately owned roads and amenities while still paying taxes for unused public services.
Gated communities have homeowners associations with strict covenants, contracts and deed restrictions that regulate most aspects of their houses and environment. Many residents find these rules onerous, as was illustrated in an episode of "The X-Files" in which gated community homeowners who didn't toe the line were eaten by a monster.
One of the striking features of our world today is that many people feel increasingly insecure. To date, the main responses have been more policing, surveillance technology, privatized security forces and barricaded homes.
We must recognize that our fear is not simply about crime and "others" but is a reflection of the inherent insecurities of modern life. Perhaps then we can openly debate the effects of these gated communities — their social and psychological costs as well as their personal benefits.
Setha M. Low, a professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, is author of "Behind the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness inFortress America" (Routledge 2003).
Imprisoned by the Walls Built to Keep 'the Others' Out
Published on Friday, December 19, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times by Setha M. Low
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
***********************
GCs Do More Harm Than Good
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
***********************
BBR Is Not Suitable If You Are Looking For A Gated Community
For those residents who feel insecure without having a gated community (GC) scheme in their neighbourhood, it is better that they move to a Strata-titled and proper "Gated & Guarded" (GnG) residence like "Eco Ardence" or "Eco Park". There are many certified Gated Communities out there, but certainly not those double-storey link houses developed by Sime Darby Property in Bandar Bukit Raja.
They would feel much safer and secure in such "Strata title" properties which are also gazetted as Gated Community (GC) by the Local Authorities /Council.
Please do not try to implement a Gated Community (GC) scheme in a non GC neighbourhood here.
Please do not try to apply from the Land Office to change our current land title from "Individual" title to "Strata". Because this will mean that all maintenance works (such as rubbish collections, drains, maintenance of roads, landscape, streetlights, etc) will no longer be handled by the local council.
Please do not consent or try to form a Residents' Association (RA) to implement a Gated Community (GC) scheme in a non-gazetted GC neighbourhood here.
Please do not implement illegal automated card access system which is prohibited by all local councils in Selangor (unless you have 100% consent from the residents).
Please do not set up any illegal barriers to block any public roads or access to any public parks or children's playground.
Please do not consent or condone to such illegal schemes. You cannot implement a GC scheme legally in a Non-Strata titled neighbourhood.
Please do not leave the security of our neighbourhood to "private security guards" hired by the RA. Please do not erect any guard house without proper consent and permission from the local authorities.
We rather trust our local police (PDRM) than the "security services" hired and implemented by the RA. The security and safety of our neighbourhood lies beyond the capability of any RA.
And for those residents who think that 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".
Even though stringent guidelines have been published by the relevant authorities, residents have been bullied or taken advantage of by some unscrupulous residents associations (RAs), some believed to be linked to syndicates. Providing "security services" seems to be very lucrative and easy money for these gangs.
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.
Residents were being told to set up their own RA to implement Gated Community or Guarded Neighbourhood (GN) scheme even before checking with the local district police OCPD (PDRM) on whether their residence sits on an identified "high crime zone" or not.
The implementation of such schemes have been highly questionable including the laws and legality of it, guidelines, getting the 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).
So you see, we are not the problem here. It is just that you might have a problem moving to or living in a Non Gated Community (GC) neighbourhood now.
And then, through your RA, you are trying to apply from the Local Authorities to convert our non GC neighbourhood to a GC scheme neighbourhood. Now this is the problem!
