10 Disadvantages of Living in a Gated Community
Updated on February 17, 2019
ToughNickel.com
Paul Goodman
Living in a gated community has become increasingly popular in recent years, but the experience is not for everyone. Visitors passing through a guarded gate to gain access to your home can get tiresome after a while.
Although living in a gated community can work out well for many people, others are seduced by the dream only to find that the reality is a disappointment. That's why it's important to consider the downsides, as well as the positives, if you are thinking of moving to a secured or gated neighborhood.
This article lists the 10 main disadvantages of living in a gated community.
The 10 Main Negatives of Living in a Gated Community:
High Prices - due to maintenance of golf course, swimming pool, clubhouse, etc.
Inconvenient Locations - outlying areas mostly without public transport
Restrictive Rules - lots of rules to obey
Social Isolation - a sense of isolation due to limited interaction with the people
Security Issues - the perception of gated communities is safer unfortunately is not true
Guardhouse Frustrations - frustrating when you have to go through those gates every day
Gate Fees - extra monthly expenses that is unnecessary
Lack of Civic Power - majority of gated communities are privately owned
Lack of Diversity - social apartheid
Monitoring - a degree of privacy is lost.
I will explain each disadvantage in detail below.
1. High Prices
Both buying and rental prices tend to be higher for properties within gated communities, when compared with their non-gated equivalents. HOA fees can also be fairly extravagant, because you are paying for the maintenance of the gates and general security. Things like the roads are private, so you will pay towards their upkeep. If there are leisure facilities, such as golf courses, swimming pools, and tennis courts, you will likely end up paying for those too. In short, you should be prepared to be hit by all sorts of fees and expenses.
2. Inconvenient Locations
Most gated communities are built in outlying areas with limited amenities nearby. There generally isn't much public transport, so you will need to drive some distance in your own car to experience the attractions of downtown areas, such as restaurants, stores, parks, sports, concerts and other arts events. It also means that even routine chores like going to the store can become tiresome. Local medical, dental, and educational facilities may also be limited.
3. Restrictive Rules
There are lots of rules to obey. These might include: what color you paint your house, how high the grass in your lawn can grow, as well as the types of vehicle you can own and where you park them. Some people like the rules, they can help keep up the property prices, but if you prefer individuality and self expression to uniformity, or just have a more laid back approach, you may well struggle.
4. Social Isolation
Gated communities tend to operate like islands, interaction with the people in the surrounding areas tends to be limited. That's part of the point of them, of course, but it can lead to a sense of isolation. Some gated neighborhoods have a strong sense of community, which can more than make up for any negatives, but this can't be relied upon. Residents who don't have family and old friends nearby can find it difficult.
5. Security Issues
The general perception of gated communities is that they are far safer and more secure than non-gated neighborhoods, but the truth is more complex. Putting up a surrounding wall or fence doesn't necessarily prevent crime. If the gate isn't protected by a security guard and instead relies on a keypad operated automatic system, that can be problematic too - security codes can easily become compromised when people are giving them out to pizza delivery and other random visitors.
6. Gatehouse Frustrations
It may seem appealing to have gates and guards to restrict access, for sure they might deter unwelcome visitors, but it can be frustrating when you have to go through those gates every day. You may have to wait in a line just to get in or out, plus every time you have a family member or friend visit, you have to inform the guard just so that they can gain entrance. It can become tiresome after a time.
If you have a lot of visitors, such as family and friends, it can be frustrating for them to have to go through gate security every time. You may also have to wait in a line sometimes when you enter of leave the community.
7. Limited Services and Gate Fees
A lot of gated communities will limit the time contractors can come work at your home. Some will even make commercial services ordered by the residents pay a gate fee (I've seen them as high as twenty or thirty dollars), these fees inevitably get passed on to the home owner.
8. Lack of Civic Power
The vast majority of gated communities are privately owned. That typically means that the developer make all the rules and the residents have very little civic power.
9. Lack of Diversity
It's not just the housing that tends to be uniform. The people who live in American gated communities tend to be wealthy and white. In many communities the majority are also politically conservative. Retirement communities also have restrictions on ages. If you like social variation, or you don't fit in with the majority, then gated communities may not be the right choice for you.
10. Monitoring
Having a guard at the gate has advantages in terms of reducing crime, but it can also be uncomfortable to know that all the visitors to your home are being vetted and recorded. A degree of privacy is lost.
HAVING gone through the GP022 document drawn up by the Federal Town and Country Planning Department under the Housing and Local Government Ministry and run through its guidelines, and taken a legislative look at what the local law and its Acts state, we now look at the social and emotional implications of guarded communities. One asks then, if this is a privilege or a necessity?
Are we buying safety or exclusivity? And how will this impact society down the road?
Western view
A dissertation was written by Keith Veal, a political science student at the University of Michigan, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In it, he cited his experience, having walked into a G&G residential area where the guard was no where to be found, and how he was rudely questioned and shown the way out, when his entry was discovered.
Hostile, sharp, accusatory and unpleasant words were uttered by the "security" personnel, almost instantly putting Veal in defence mode. Haven't many of us encountered similar experiences?
This sparked many questions, of which Veal decided to ask those living outside the boundaries of the G&G area, their views on gated communities.
On social and emotional implications, it really boils down to which side of the "gate" you're on inside or out.
Here are some facts Veal learnt:
» Gated communities – overall – do not have lower crime rates compared to similar communities without gates (Blakely and Snyder, 1997).
Gated communities do not tend to have higher resale values in the market when compared to similar housing. In some cases they even had a slight price disadvantage (Ibid).
Gated communities do not have higher levels of community or being "close-knit" (Low, 2001).
No doubt, G&G areas restrict access, limit interactions and divide communities. Veal also mentioned that if G&G areas focus on safety, then those on the outside become the "amorphous other … not limited to solely criminals and potential law-breakers …"
And when G&G areas are occupied by the "upper class," Veal considers those "gated-out" as "different from the upper class – socially, economically and politically."
Beginning of G&G
Preferring to remain anonymous, a reader (and "provider of security for 10s of housing estate committees in Klang Valley") emailed his views on how G&G first started.
He says: "Some 15 years ago, there was a need to form some sort of security scheme as crime, house break-ins and snatch theft was on the rise.
We called this scheme 'homeguards' which was basically patrolling without requiring any fencing or boom-gates.
The monthly fee was cheap. However, this did not deter the ruthless and crafty criminals … and the police could not do anything but say to the public: 'Itu biasa dah'."
He adds that this led to complaints that reached the ears of the many politicians who were further enraged when "bad reports" from the media put them in tight spots and the government was not much help.
"It was the local councillors and politicians that came up with the many suggestions and ideas to close up roads and place guards from private security companies in hotspot crime areas.
It all worked well until law suits followed (referring to the case where the fire engine could not get to a location in time, blaming the key to the locked boom gate was not accessible, and a person's life was lost)."
He also names a couple of housing areas where the developer's or property management company has put up notices claiming no liability if motorists get their vehicles damaged by the boom gates.
"Crime rates still rose in the subsequent years which led to the residents associations deciding to take matters into their own hands – hence (to keep costs low/affordable), foreign 'guards' were employed."
Citing many reports including the Berkeley Gardens case in Klang, go-downs in Banting and Sungai Buloh area and such, which led to the rakyat losing trust in our police force and the authorities, he states, "All this mooted the idea of proper security-guarded enclaves."
The reader also says that there are laws governing G&G housing estates where the developers have applied for this status (with one main entrance and exit, with a proper guardhouse and boom gates) which has been approved by the authorities.
"Maintenance fees are high and a joint management board is engaged to run the day-to-day activities. It is similar to an up-market condo, with all the rules and extras where one has to pay to keep the premises clean and orderly."
His point: "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 also should not have to worry and leave their homes and families to 'work out' the security and safety issues of their neighbourhood. The law must be followed through – police must carry out their responsibilities accordingly and law breakers must be punished."
He also condones whipping in public as punishment and asks for more CCTVs. "And G&G must be government-controlled."
Others' perspective
theSun considered the views of the rakyat where gated communities and social segregation is concerned. Says Y S Ying, a retiree who lives in a condominium: "I don't believe in gated communities.
Why does the work of the police, who are entrusted to restore peace and safety, need to be done by others, and the people have to pay for safety? Besides, even with G&G areas, there still are thefts, break-ins and such.
In addition, I know many residents who do not like to be asked so many personal questions and have to leave their personal details with guards, especially when at times they are in a hurry.
Friends also prefer not to visit due to this inconvenience." On it spurring social segregation, Sandra doesn't think it does. "Generally, there is a perceived notion that gated communities are better neighbourhoods with real estate that fetches better resale value."
Sharon Saw comments: "It is a sad reflection of society that we need gated communities to improve security. Personally, I do not like gated residential areas as it causes a lot of inconvenience when visiting people living in that area – you need to present your IC and wait for the registration process, etc.
Says Jenn Salim: "Gated communities serve no purpose unless the full and complete process of identification/registration is adhered to and monitored properly. On the residents, whether gated or not, it is one's attitude that causes segregation in the community."
One who wishes to be known as Anak Malaysia states: "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 look at each other differently."
Anak Malaysia reminisces the days of Rukun Tetangga where the rakyat were seen "bergotong-royong, tolong menolong 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."
Excerpts from
theSun daily
24 APR 2015 / 16:45 H.
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
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.
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.
ToughNickel.com
Paul Goodman
Living in a gated community has become increasingly popular in recent years, but the experience is not for everyone. Visitors passing through a guarded gate to gain access to your home can get tiresome after a while.
Although living in a gated community can work out well for many people, others are seduced by the dream only to find that the reality is a disappointment. That's why it's important to consider the downsides, as well as the positives, if you are thinking of moving to a secured or gated neighborhood.
This article lists the 10 main disadvantages of living in a gated community.
The 10 Main Negatives of Living in a Gated Community:
High Prices - due to maintenance of golf course, swimming pool, clubhouse, etc.
Inconvenient Locations - outlying areas mostly without public transport
Restrictive Rules - lots of rules to obey
Social Isolation - a sense of isolation due to limited interaction with the people
Security Issues - the perception of gated communities is safer unfortunately is not true
Guardhouse Frustrations - frustrating when you have to go through those gates every day
Gate Fees - extra monthly expenses that is unnecessary
Lack of Civic Power - majority of gated communities are privately owned
Lack of Diversity - social apartheid
Monitoring - a degree of privacy is lost.
I will explain each disadvantage in detail below.
1. High Prices
Both buying and rental prices tend to be higher for properties within gated communities, when compared with their non-gated equivalents. HOA fees can also be fairly extravagant, because you are paying for the maintenance of the gates and general security. Things like the roads are private, so you will pay towards their upkeep. If there are leisure facilities, such as golf courses, swimming pools, and tennis courts, you will likely end up paying for those too. In short, you should be prepared to be hit by all sorts of fees and expenses.
2. Inconvenient Locations
Most gated communities are built in outlying areas with limited amenities nearby. There generally isn't much public transport, so you will need to drive some distance in your own car to experience the attractions of downtown areas, such as restaurants, stores, parks, sports, concerts and other arts events. It also means that even routine chores like going to the store can become tiresome. Local medical, dental, and educational facilities may also be limited.
3. Restrictive Rules
There are lots of rules to obey. These might include: what color you paint your house, how high the grass in your lawn can grow, as well as the types of vehicle you can own and where you park them. Some people like the rules, they can help keep up the property prices, but if you prefer individuality and self expression to uniformity, or just have a more laid back approach, you may well struggle.
4. Social Isolation
Gated communities tend to operate like islands, interaction with the people in the surrounding areas tends to be limited. That's part of the point of them, of course, but it can lead to a sense of isolation. Some gated neighborhoods have a strong sense of community, which can more than make up for any negatives, but this can't be relied upon. Residents who don't have family and old friends nearby can find it difficult.
5. Security Issues
The general perception of gated communities is that they are far safer and more secure than non-gated neighborhoods, but the truth is more complex. Putting up a surrounding wall or fence doesn't necessarily prevent crime. If the gate isn't protected by a security guard and instead relies on a keypad operated automatic system, that can be problematic too - security codes can easily become compromised when people are giving them out to pizza delivery and other random visitors.
6. Gatehouse Frustrations
It may seem appealing to have gates and guards to restrict access, for sure they might deter unwelcome visitors, but it can be frustrating when you have to go through those gates every day. You may have to wait in a line just to get in or out, plus every time you have a family member or friend visit, you have to inform the guard just so that they can gain entrance. It can become tiresome after a time.
If you have a lot of visitors, such as family and friends, it can be frustrating for them to have to go through gate security every time. You may also have to wait in a line sometimes when you enter of leave the community.
7. Limited Services and Gate Fees
A lot of gated communities will limit the time contractors can come work at your home. Some will even make commercial services ordered by the residents pay a gate fee (I've seen them as high as twenty or thirty dollars), these fees inevitably get passed on to the home owner.
8. Lack of Civic Power
The vast majority of gated communities are privately owned. That typically means that the developer make all the rules and the residents have very little civic power.
9. Lack of Diversity
It's not just the housing that tends to be uniform. The people who live in American gated communities tend to be wealthy and white. In many communities the majority are also politically conservative. Retirement communities also have restrictions on ages. If you like social variation, or you don't fit in with the majority, then gated communities may not be the right choice for you.
10. Monitoring
Having a guard at the gate has advantages in terms of reducing crime, but it can also be uncomfortable to know that all the visitors to your home are being vetted and recorded. A degree of privacy is lost.
-----<<<>>>-----
Guarded and gated communities and townships
HAVING gone through the GP022 document drawn up by the Federal Town and Country Planning Department under the Housing and Local Government Ministry and run through its guidelines, and taken a legislative look at what the local law and its Acts state, we now look at the social and emotional implications of guarded communities. One asks then, if this is a privilege or a necessity?
Are we buying safety or exclusivity? And how will this impact society down the road?
Western view
A dissertation was written by Keith Veal, a political science student at the University of Michigan, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In it, he cited his experience, having walked into a G&G residential area where the guard was no where to be found, and how he was rudely questioned and shown the way out, when his entry was discovered.
Hostile, sharp, accusatory and unpleasant words were uttered by the "security" personnel, almost instantly putting Veal in defence mode. Haven't many of us encountered similar experiences?
This sparked many questions, of which Veal decided to ask those living outside the boundaries of the G&G area, their views on gated communities.
On social and emotional implications, it really boils down to which side of the "gate" you're on inside or out.
Here are some facts Veal learnt:
» Gated communities – overall – do not have lower crime rates compared to similar communities without gates (Blakely and Snyder, 1997).
Gated communities do not tend to have higher resale values in the market when compared to similar housing. In some cases they even had a slight price disadvantage (Ibid).
Gated communities do not have higher levels of community or being "close-knit" (Low, 2001).
No doubt, G&G areas restrict access, limit interactions and divide communities. Veal also mentioned that if G&G areas focus on safety, then those on the outside become the "amorphous other … not limited to solely criminals and potential law-breakers …"
And when G&G areas are occupied by the "upper class," Veal considers those "gated-out" as "different from the upper class – socially, economically and politically."
Beginning of G&G
Preferring to remain anonymous, a reader (and "provider of security for 10s of housing estate committees in Klang Valley") emailed his views on how G&G first started.
He says: "Some 15 years ago, there was a need to form some sort of security scheme as crime, house break-ins and snatch theft was on the rise.
We called this scheme 'homeguards' which was basically patrolling without requiring any fencing or boom-gates.
The monthly fee was cheap. However, this did not deter the ruthless and crafty criminals … and the police could not do anything but say to the public: 'Itu biasa dah'."
He adds that this led to complaints that reached the ears of the many politicians who were further enraged when "bad reports" from the media put them in tight spots and the government was not much help.
"It was the local councillors and politicians that came up with the many suggestions and ideas to close up roads and place guards from private security companies in hotspot crime areas.
It all worked well until law suits followed (referring to the case where the fire engine could not get to a location in time, blaming the key to the locked boom gate was not accessible, and a person's life was lost)."
He also names a couple of housing areas where the developer's or property management company has put up notices claiming no liability if motorists get their vehicles damaged by the boom gates.
"Crime rates still rose in the subsequent years which led to the residents associations deciding to take matters into their own hands – hence (to keep costs low/affordable), foreign 'guards' were employed."
Citing many reports including the Berkeley Gardens case in Klang, go-downs in Banting and Sungai Buloh area and such, which led to the rakyat losing trust in our police force and the authorities, he states, "All this mooted the idea of proper security-guarded enclaves."
The reader also says that there are laws governing G&G housing estates where the developers have applied for this status (with one main entrance and exit, with a proper guardhouse and boom gates) which has been approved by the authorities.
"Maintenance fees are high and a joint management board is engaged to run the day-to-day activities. It is similar to an up-market condo, with all the rules and extras where one has to pay to keep the premises clean and orderly."
His point: "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 also should not have to worry and leave their homes and families to 'work out' the security and safety issues of their neighbourhood. The law must be followed through – police must carry out their responsibilities accordingly and law breakers must be punished."
He also condones whipping in public as punishment and asks for more CCTVs. "And G&G must be government-controlled."
Others' perspective
theSun considered the views of the rakyat where gated communities and social segregation is concerned. Says Y S Ying, a retiree who lives in a condominium: "I don't believe in gated communities.
Why does the work of the police, who are entrusted to restore peace and safety, need to be done by others, and the people have to pay for safety? Besides, even with G&G areas, there still are thefts, break-ins and such.
In addition, I know many residents who do not like to be asked so many personal questions and have to leave their personal details with guards, especially when at times they are in a hurry.
Friends also prefer not to visit due to this inconvenience." On it spurring social segregation, Sandra doesn't think it does. "Generally, there is a perceived notion that gated communities are better neighbourhoods with real estate that fetches better resale value."
Sharon Saw comments: "It is a sad reflection of society that we need gated communities to improve security. Personally, I do not like gated residential areas as it causes a lot of inconvenience when visiting people living in that area – you need to present your IC and wait for the registration process, etc.
Says Jenn Salim: "Gated communities serve no purpose unless the full and complete process of identification/registration is adhered to and monitored properly. On the residents, whether gated or not, it is one's attitude that causes segregation in the community."
One who wishes to be known as Anak Malaysia states: "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 look at each other differently."
Anak Malaysia reminisces the days of Rukun Tetangga where the rakyat were seen "bergotong-royong, tolong menolong 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."
Excerpts from
theSun daily
24 APR 2015 / 16:45 H.
-----<<<>>>-----
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
-----<<<>>>-----
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.
-----<<<>>>-----
What is a Gated and Guarded Community?
In Malaysia, a gated and guarded community (‘GACOS’) or gated community housing scheme refers to a cluster of houses or buildings where its facilities and services including the infrastructure (roads, drains, etc.) within the premises are privately managed and owned.
Usually, the premises are surrounded by walls or fences on a perimeter with the entry of the premises controlled by certain security restrictions such as security guards, boom gates or barriers which normally includes 24 hours security, guard patrols, central monitoring systems and CCTVs.
The Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2007 has allowed a gated and guarded community to be statutorily created and regulated more effectively like other types of strata schemes.
On the other hand, a guarded community refers to a community via their Resident Association (RA) that (after obtaining the consensus from the local Authority and the relevant Officer in Command Police District, OCPD) has engaged private security patrolling public the roads in their housing area.
Under the law, it is not allowed to privately attempt to close, barricade or restrict the access of a public road, drain or space without the approval of the relevant Authority.
In recognition of a growing problem of security, various local authorities and state governments have issued guidelines for guarded communities. These guidelines do allow erection of guard houses and the employment of private security based on 85% consent by the residents in the area affected.
For example, in Selangor, the Selangor Housing and Property Board and the local authorities allow guard houses to be built on the following guidelines:
Applications made through RA only;
Consent by 85% of the residents;
Agreement must be made between RA and Local Authority;
Guard house without barrier are allowed and the location should not obstruct traffic (situated at road shoulder only);
The size of the guard house should not exceed 6ft x 8ft or other sizes that the Local Authority thinks fit and suitable;
The location and design of the guard house must be approved by the Local Authority;
A written consent from Local Authority and Land Administrator (LA) for the construction of guard house on reserved road/vacant land must first be obtained;
Appointed security guards must be registered with Ministry of Home Affairs or with other relevant agencies;
Not to prevent/obstruct passing vehicles from entering the guarded area; and
LA and other utility companies are free to conduct their maintenance work in the guarded area.
Source:
http://realpropertyinmalaysia.blogspot.com/
-----<<<>>>-----
Legality of Gated and Guarded Communities
It is unlawful to privately attempt to restrict or regulate public spaces without the approval of the relevant authority.
Any attempt to close, barricade or restrict the access of a public road, drain or space, there may be a contravention of Sections 46(1) of Street Drainage and Building Act 1974, Section 80 of the Road Transport Act 1987 and Section(s) 62 and 136 of the National Land Code 1965.
In addition, provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 may also be violated where guard houses are built in the public land or road shoulders. For example, Section 46(1) of the Street Drainage and Building Act 1974 provides that any person can be held liable if he:-
a. builds, erects, set up to maintain or permit to be built, erected or set up or maintained any wall,
fence, rail, or any accumulation of any substance, or other obstruction, in any public place;
b. without the prior written permission of the local authority, covers over or obstructs any open drain
or aqueduct along the side of any street;
There is no problem with private security patrolling public roads in a housing scheme under the employment of the residents’ associations. Nevertheless, the local authority and the police should be consulted first.
It has to be noted that erecting structures to restrict access to public roads or guardhouses is another matter and would violate the law unless the relevant authority gives its approval to do so.
In recognition of a growing problem of security, various local authorities and state governments have issued guidelines for guarded communities. These guidelines do allow erection of guard houses and the employment of private security based on the consent by the residents in the area affected.
For example, in Selangor, the Housing and Property Board and the local authorities allow guard houses to be built based on certain guidelines amongst which include:-
· Applications made through the Resident Association (RA) only;
· Consent by 85% of the residents;
· Agreement must be made between RA and local authority;
· Guard house without a barrier are allowed and the location should not obstruct traffic (situated at road shoulder only);
· A written consent from Local Authority and Land Administrator (LA) for the construction of guard
house on reserved road/vacant land must first be obtained;
· Appointed security guards must be registered with Ministry of Home Affairs or with other relevant agencies;
The authorities do sometimes “turn a blind eye” to allow some form of limited barriers so long as it is backed by an overwhelming support of the local residents and it does not deny access nor unduly obstruct traffic.
Planning Requirements
A developer may elect to proceed with subdivision of land under the National Land Code 1965, or subdivision of land into land parcels to be held under strata titles, under the Strata Titles Act 1985.
Even if a developer chooses to subdivide the land under the Strata Titles Act 1985, it does not necessary mean that the developer can develop a gated and guarded scheme.
Planning law requirements as well as the State Authority have set out strict guidelines for approving gated and guarded schemes. These guidelines also take into account socio-economic factors in determining whether to allow gated and guarded schemes.
Recent Amendment to the Law
The law governing development of land involving the construction of a building having two or more storey on alienated land held under one lot is governed by the Strata Titles Act 1985. This is probably the reason why a few property developers have adopted the Strata Title Act for their development of the gated community scheme.
The problem that would however arise is when the land development of the gated community scheme involves the construction of buildings that are not feasible to be sub-divided into parcels as provided in the Strata Title Act. For instances bungalow houses, semi-detached houses, double and single storey houses.
The recent amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1985 (with effect from April 12th , 2007) by the Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2007 now allows a gated and guarded communities to be statutorily created and regulated more effectively like other types of strata schemes.
As such, land parcels with buildings are no longer needed to be governed by the Strata Titles Act, in the same way as a high-rise building if a developer chooses to do so. This means that for the purposes of the Strata Titles Act 1985, land parcels with buildings can in certain circumstances be treated like a multi-storey building lying down on its side. There are several important qualifications though.
The effect of the Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2007, is that only buildings of not more than four storey may be erected on the land parcels intended to be subdivided and held under separate strata titles, or an accessory parcel.
Furthermore, any DMC entered into between the developer and a purchaser of a parcel in a gated and guarded community scheme agreement can be now easily enforced by the bylaws under the Strata Titles Act 1985.
The enforcement and management can now also be carried out under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, when the Management Corporation has not come into existence. This is a huge step forward from the past practice which was problematic to say the least.
Conclusion
The development of gated and guarded community schemes in Malaysia now seems to be part of the features of the housing industry. It is undoubtful that most of these schemes are of the high cost residential types that will be attractive to developers due to higher returns and the increasing demand from the market, especially in the urban areas like Kuala Lumpur, Shah Alam, Penang and Johore Bahru.
Finally, it must be understood and appreciated that all purchasers of houses in a gated and guarded community will have to pay considerably higher charges for the maintenance, sinking fund, security fees, electricity and water and other services because the cost of all facilities within the boundary of gated and guarded community will have to be borne by them in addition to the usual quit rent and assessment rates levied by the local authorities
References:
https://www.hg.org/
By: Jayadeep Hari & Jamil
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Stanley Gabriel
The author is the Head of the Conveyancing Department in Messrs Jayadeep Hari & Jamil. Having been in legal practice for over 12 years, he has vast experience in matters concerning real estate and probate. Copyright Jayadeep Hari & Jamil
-----<<<>>>-----
GUIDELINES FOR GATED COMMUNITY AND GUARDED NEIGHBOURHOOD
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, through the Town and Country Planning Department, has come up with a guideline for Gated Community and Guarded Neighborhood.
This guideline, approved by the Cabinet and the Majlis Negara bagi Kerajaan Tempatan on 28 July and 2 September 2010 respectively, will be tabled at individual State Planning Committee for adoption and implementation at the state level.
The table below is a summary of the differences between a Gated Community (GC) and Guarded Neighborhood (GN).
Gated Community (With Strata Title)
Definition:
A group of residents or community living within a gated and guarded residential area, be it high-rise property such as apartment, condominium or townhouses or landed property such as bungalows, terrace, link or semi-detached houses with strata titles.
Limited to urban areas.
Size of the scheme is between 1ha and 10ha, or 200-500 units.
Schemes larger than 10ha needs to be broken into smaller schemes.
Cannot build embankment that separates GC and non GC completely.
Social impact assessment must be done.
Allocate space for interaction in the environmental design.
Managed by a Management Corporation.
Prepare two entrance-exit points, one as main entrance and the other for emergency.
Perimeter fencing of height not more than 9 feet, with at least 50% visible.
Entrance equipped by CCTV and road humps.
Boom gate cannot be erected on public roads.
Guardhouse size of 1.8m x 2.4m is allowed to be built within the GC.
The houses cannot be more than 4 levels (18.5 meters) from basement.
Visitor’s parking must be allocated.
Provision of common facilities.
Guarded Neighbourhood (w/ Individual Title)
Definition:
A partially or fully controlled area in existing or new housing schemes with individual land titles. The schemes provide security with or without guardhouses. Cannot place physical obstacles on the roads and stop residents and the public from exiting and entering the areas.
Limited to urban areas, in particular, areas with high crime rate.
Local councils can control the number of units in a scheme to ensure proper control and effective management.
Not allowed in neighbourhood with public facilities, or part of public bus route.
Establishment of GN needs to be proposed by registered Residents Association and
supported by majority of the residents and submitted to local councils.
Perimeter fencing is not allowed.
Temporary physical obstacles, such as manual boom gate, cones, etc, can be considered
provided guards are stationed at the locations 24 hours.
Closing of backlanes and sidelines is prohibited.
Guardhouse size not bigger than 1.8m x 2.4m is allowed.
If permanent guardhouse is to be erected on road shoulders, a Temporary Occupation
License (TOL) must be obtained from the land office.
Guards need to registered with Home Ministry.
Source: The Starmetro,
Thursday 14th Oct 2010
-----<<<>>>-----
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
GATED and guarded community (‘GACOS’) housing schemes are getting more popular. In some areas, residents have even taken to restricting access to public roads, providing guard posts to try to reduce crime.
In other cases, developers see profit in selling exclusivity and security by GACOS and readily exhort the virtues of a gated and guarded community lifestyle in their glossy advertising.
Indeed there is currently no law regulating gated and guarded communities unless they are landed strata developments, as verified by prominent legal expert on strata title properties, Lee Kim Noor.
Justice Azmel Ma’amor ruled that the developer, Kumpulan Sierramas (M) Sdn Bhd, and its management corporation were liable for the special damages suffered by Datuk Soo Lai Sing due to the lack of security at the Sierramas Resort Homes in Sungai Buloh, contrary to the promises made in the brochure and the S&P agreement.
The judge handed down the ruling on Thursday after deliberating on submissions by counsel for the parties. Soo’s counsel, Olivia Ho, had argued that representations made in brochures and newsletters which materialised into agreed contractual terms in the S&P agreement and Deed of Mutual Covenants dated March 17, 1995, were of probative value and should be considered by the court.
Soo, 53, who was also awarded interest on the damages sum, filed his suit in July 2000.
In the suit, he said he bought the bungalow unit in 1995 as he was attracted to the unique concept which promised excellent security facilities for its residents.
He said he even agreed to pay, upon delivery of vacant possession, a service charge stated in the S&P agreement in return of facilities, which included maintenance of security.
Soo, 53, moved into his home in October 1999 and at 8am on March 10, 2000, his house was burgled.
He lost close to half a million ringgit after knife-wielding robbers escaped with cash S$100,000 (RM250,000) and RM5,000, a shotgun, four Rolex watches, jewellery and other items.
There was undisputed evidence that the robbers had gained access into the housing estate by cutting through the electronic perimeter fencing, which was supposedly armed with an alarm system and CCTV cameras, he said.
Soo added that he had attempted to fix some fences as additional security to secure the premises, but this was objected to by the defendants on the grounds that the additional height contravened the terms of the Deed.
He said that after the robbery, the robbers managed to escape detection by the defendants’ security control.
He claimed that the misstatement and negligence by the defendants had caused him to incur losses and damages.
In their defence, the developer and the management company, represented by Maidzuara Mohammed, said they had informed the residents via their in-house newsletter, Berita Sierramas, about the malfunctions in the security system.
They said that residents had been reminded, through a circular, to take precautions to safeguard their valuables.
They denied any contribution to the losses or damages suffered by Soo.
The Star Online
Nation
Saturday, 08 May 2004
12:00 AM MYT
By CHELSEA L.Y. NG
Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2004/05/08/datuk-awarded-rm487000-over-breakin-at-gated-community#3OlTgBdbezzOt73Z.99
They want an RA (Persatuan Penduduk) that’s fair, responsible & ethical in their conduct:
They 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.
They 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”.
They 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.
They 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 – they want an RA that will not stop/ or cause any inconveniences to any non-members from coming home.
They 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.
They want an RA that is responsible - by getting the required consent from the majority of the residents after proper communication and dialogues with them.
They 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.
They want an RA that encourages and fosters harmonious relationships with one another.
They do not want an RA (scheme) that is costly and causes social disunity in the neighbourhood. They would prefer a RT (Rukun Tetangga) which is free of charge /affordable.
And certainly they do not want the RA to change the land title to strata or private (they do not want to lose all the free services and maintenance work currently provided by the local council such as rubbish collection, maintenance of roads, drains, street lights, etc. )
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". (Local councils will not render its services to "private property" residences.)
All residential developments under "Individual" titles are under "public property" and therefore no Gated Community" (GC) scheme can be implemented legally.
All "Individual" title developments can only apply to implement a 'Guarded Neighbourhood' (GN) scheme via their RA obtaining the necessary approvals from the Local Council and the District OCPD, to hire private guards to patrol their residence provided there are no objections from any residents.
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).
For more info please log on to:
Local Council (MPKlang):
Town Planning Dept (JPBD Semenanjung Malaysia):
Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan:
http://jkt.kpkt.gov.my/jkt/resources/PDF/Perkhidmatan/Pekeliling/2010/Bil_1_Tahun_2010_Lampiran_1.pdf
Ministry of Home Affairs (Kementerian Dalam Negeri):
http://www.moha.gov.my/images/maklumat_perkhidmatan/pekeliling_agensi_persendirian/pekeliling_1.pdf
-----<<<>>>-----
LAW AND REALTY: GATED AND GUARDED COMMUNITIES
GATED and guarded community (‘GACOS’) housing schemes are getting more popular. In some areas, residents have even taken to restricting access to public roads, providing guard posts to try to reduce crime.
In other cases, developers see profit in selling exclusivity and security by GACOS and readily exhort the virtues of a gated and guarded community lifestyle in their glossy advertising.
Whatever the social impact of GACOS, this trend is on the rise and there is a growing market for it.
For our purposes, a reference to GACOS or gated communities means the particular development, its facilities and services including the infrastructure (roads, drains, etc) within the development are privately managed and owned. Usually some form of physical barrier surrounds the boundaries to the development.
Essentially, it is a “privatisation” of public spaces or spaces that would normally be managed by public authorities. By contrast, guarded communities refer to communities where residents employ private security to provide security services to an area which includes public spaces.
This often involves an attempt to restrict or regulate public spaces privately. This would include the erection of barriers on public roads, guardhouses, etc.
This often involves an attempt to restrict or regulate public spaces privately. This would include the erection of barriers on public roads, guardhouses, etc.
We will now examine the legality of these schemes:-
Guarded Communities
It is unlawful to privately attempt to restrict or regulate public spaces without the approval of the relevant authority.
In the case of an attempt to close, barricade or restrict the access of a public road, drain or space, there may be a contravention of Sections 46 (1) of Street Drainage and Building Act 1974, Section 80 of the Road Transport Act 1987 and Section(s) 62 and 136 of the National Land Code 1965.
In addition, provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 may also be violated where guard houses are built in the public land or road shoulders.
In the case of an attempt to close, barricade or restrict the access of a public road, drain or space, there may be a contravention of Sections 46 (1) of Street Drainage and Building Act 1974, Section 80 of the Road Transport Act 1987 and Section(s) 62 and 136 of the National Land Code 1965.
In addition, provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 may also be violated where guard houses are built in the public land or road shoulders.
For example, Section 46 (1) of the Street Drainage and Building Act 1974 provides that any person who:-
a. builds, erects, set up to maintain or permit to be built, erected or set up or maintained any wall, fence, rail, or any accumulation of any substance, or other obstruction, in any public place;
b. without the prior written permission of the local authority, covers over or obstructs any open drain or aqueduct along the side of any street;
shall be guilty of causing an obstruction and may be arrested without warrant by any police officer or any officer of the local authority authorised in writing in that behalf by local authority and taken before a Magistrate’s Court and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding RM500, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding RM1,000.
There is no problem with private security patrolling public roads in a housing scheme under the employment of the residents’ associations. Nevertheless, the local authority and the relevant OCPD should be consulted first. It has to be noted that erecting structures to restrict access to public roads or guardhouses is another matter and would violate the law unless the relevant authority gives its approval to do so.
In recognition of a growing problem of security, various local authorities and state governments have issued guidelines for guarded communities. These guidelines do allow erection of guard houses and the employment of private security based on 85% consent by the residents in the area affected. For example, in Selangor, the Selangor Housing and Property Board and the local authorities allow guard houses to be built on the following guidelines:-
i. Applications made through Resident Association (RA) only;
ii. Consent by 85% of the residents;
iii. Agreement must be made between RA and Local Authority;
iv. Guard house without barrier are allowed and the location should not obstruct traffic (situated at road shoulder only);
v. The size of the guard house should not exceed 6ft x 8ft or other sizes that the Local Authority thinks fit and suitable;
vi. The location and design of the guard house must be approved by the Local Authority;
vii. A written consent from Local Authority and Land Administrator (LA) for the construction of guard house on reserved road/vacant land must first be obtained;
viii. Appointed security guards must be registered with Ministry of Home Affairs or with other relevant agencies;
ix. Not to prevent/obstruct passing vehicles from entering the guarded area; and
x. LA and other utility companies are free to conduct their maintenance work in the guarded area.
The authorities do sometimes “turn a blind eye” to allow some form of limited barriers as long as they do not deny access nor unduly obstruct traffic and have the overwhelming support of local residents.
Gated Communities
The recent amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1985 (with effect from April 12, 2007) by the Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2007 now allows a GACOS to be statutorily created and regulated more effectively like other types of strata schemes.
As such, land parcels with buildings are now be governed by the Strata Titles Act, in the same way as a high-rise building, if a developer chooses to do so. This means that for the purposes of the Strata Titles Act 1985, land parcels with buildings can in certain circumstances be treated like a multi-storey building lying down on its side. There are several important qualifications though.
The effect of section 5(h) of the Strata Titles (Amendment) Act 2007, is that only buildings of not more than four storeys may be erected on the land parcels intended to be subdivided and held under separate strata titles, or an accessory parcel.
Furthermore, any Deed of Mutual Covenants entered into between the developer and a purchaser of a parcel in a GACOS scheme agreement can be now easily enforced as bylaws under the Strata Titles Act 1985.
The enforcement and management can now also be carried out under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, when the Management Corporation has not come into existence. This is a huge step forward from the past practice which was problematic to say the least.
Reference:
The Malaysian Bar
The Sun
by Derek Fernandez
Friday, 29 June 2007
The writer is a member of the Conveyancing Practice Committee, Bar Council, Malaysia www.malaysianbar.org.my
Note: This column is brought to you by the Malaysian Bar Council for your information only.
-----<<<>>>-----
LAW REGULATING GATED AND GUARDED COMMUNITIES
Indeed there is currently no law regulating gated and guarded communities unless they are landed strata developments, as verified by prominent legal expert on strata title properties, Lee Kim Noor.
When it comes to gated communities with landed strata titles, the collection of service charges is mandated by the Strata Management Act. When it comes to guarded neighbourhoods with individual titles however, there is no federal law.
There is a state government gazette in Selangor which approves and regulates gated and guarded developments, while the Ministry of Housing has released guidelines on what can be described as gated and guarded.
There is a state government gazette in Selangor which approves and regulates gated and guarded developments, while the Ministry of Housing has released guidelines on what can be described as gated and guarded.
“The bottom line is there is no law governing the collection of service charges for this type of project except by a contract between the developer and the first purchaser,” says Lee. “After sub sale, the enforcement will be a problem. Without money all the facilities would not be able to be maintained.”
According to the Peninsular Malaysia Town and Country Planning Department, a gated community focuses on a community which lives in landed properties with strata titles.
Guarded neighbourhoods are houses with individual land titles, where the “guarded” factor is not based on the provisions of any law or regulation but exists only on an ‘ad-hoc’ basis with the agreement of residents in a neighbourhood.
Officially, common services such as security and rubbish disposal would be handled by the police and the municipal authorities, since the roads within the development are still public road reserves, unless the residents’ association opts to implement a joint private contract.
Therefore, it would be misleading to market a development with individual titles as a gated community, or “gated and guarded”. It is especially misleading when a developer offers such security services for a certain amount of time only for this precedent not to be followed upon.
Of course, it seems that insult is added to injury when the developer still owns several units and refuses to pay for the shares of these units. The developer would imaginably suffer in the long run, however, as if the development suffers, the value of the developer’s units would also fall.
It would seem as if individually titled developments must be clear about their developments not being “gated and guarded” developments, as well as not promise private security services.
References:
http://www.starproperty.my/
Posted on January 15, 2018 | 12476 views | Topic : Home & Living, News & Articles, Property News.
-----<<<>>>-----
The Myth Of Gated Communities
MUCH has been said in the last few years about gated-and-guarded communities. The fear of rising crime rates has ensured this phenomenon will continue to be in everyone’s mind when purchasing a property to live in.
In recent years, crime incidences, such as snatch thefts and break-ins, have escalated to a level where the general man in the street is genuinely afraid for his safety and well-being. So the market is now demanding for properties within a gated-and-guarded community. And even it weren’t for such property, the developer must provide some form of assurance of safety to the occupants.
For older properties which do not have these facilities, residents have taken it upon themselves to organise some form of security within the estate they live in. The most popular and easiest method is to fence up the area, close some entrances and place a boom gate-and-guard house at the main entrance.
For newer developments and condominiums, the gated and guarded feature forms part of the development and has been planned and incorporated into the estate. This, of course, works better than the ad-hoc fencing and guard house. But is all this just a fallacy? Do they work?
I have seen many instances where all you have to do is drive up to the gate and wave at the guard. He then waves back at you as if he knows you and promptly proceeds to open the gate, allowing you easy access to the housing area.
Other times, security is stricter and the guard will actually stop you and enquire where you’re going. You may or may not be required to register yourself at the guard house and perhaps leave behind your driver’s licence or some other form of identification.
A friend of mine lives in an organised gated area in SS2, Petaling Jaya. One Sunday evening, at about 5pm, a car drove up to his house. Three men suddenly climbed over his front wall and broke into his home, brandishing parangs. They proceeded to tie him and his maid up and asked his wife to accompany them upstairs.
They ransacked the house of cash, jewellery, laptops and mobile phones. They then had the audacity to ask my friend for his car keys and promptly drove off in his Honda Civic. At the guard house, the guard waved at them and allowed both cars to leave the premises.
The questions that beg to be answered are these:
•With a born gate and guards at the gate, how did these strangers enter the estate unchecked?
•With guards patrolling the neighbourhood, how is it that no one saw the entire incident unfolding for nearly half an hour?
•How did both cars manage to exit the neighbourhood past the guards?
•Did the guards not notice a stranger at the wheel of the familiar Honda Civic?
So, are gated-and-guarded facilities really secure? Or do they just give the impression that they are? Although these guards are not trained or equipped to ensure zero crime, but could their mere presence contribute to a vast reduction in crimes?
I think anyone planning to organise their “taman” into a guarded enclave should take cognisance of the followings:
1. You get what you pay for. If you are unable to organise a large enough pool of people who contribute to service charges, you will not be able to hire guards of any calibre.
2. Your guards are the be-all and end- all of the service you are trying to provide. If there are no strict systems and processes put in place, then you can be sure that your guards will be there merely as window-dressing.
3. Enforcement is the key. If discipline and adherence to the systems and processes are not strictly enforced, everything will eventually fail.
4. Cooperation of each and everyone in the estate is vital. If a large number of people don’t contribute, the whole thing will eventually fail and collapse.
5. The amount collected from each household must be adequate for the service to be provided with any measure of success. If you are going to be constantly facing cash flow problems, the system will also fail.
6. Volunteers are important. The community must volunteer to man the system and enforce the process. This is vital to the success of any community living. The more the dedication shown by the community itself, the easier it will be to make the whole thing work.
Happy hunting and may the force be with you.
The writer is a real estate practitioner who is passionate about the property industry and tries to manage the labyrinth of the market honestly while consistently maintaining a high standard of ethics in his practice.
Reference:
https://www.nst.com.my/
By SIVA SHANKER -
January 25, 2018 @ 1:37pm
-----<<<>>>-----
Gated & Guarded, And Lulled Into False Sense Of Safety
LIVING in a gated-and-guarded community may not ensure the safety and security of your property and belongings as residents of USJ Heights in Subang Jaya discovered in the last two years.
The community has state-of-the-art facilities including a QR code registration for visitors, cameras at strategic locations, electric and perimeter fencing as well as round-the-clock security surveillance.
Despite all these safety measures, residents here have been victims of an organised crime syndicate that has left them baffled.
This year alone, six houses were broken into in a span of five months; only two houses escaped this spate of burglaries. Two of the houses were hit on the same night. Similarly, in early 2016, three houses were also broken into on the same night.
Living in fear, the residents spoke to StarMetro on condition of anonymity, hoping to warn others who live in the gated-and-guarded neighbourhood.
Two of the latest victims said they were shocked that the presence of two foreign cars in their neighbourhood went unnoticed for more than an hour during the incident on July 29.
Upon discovering that their homes were ransacked, they questioned the security guards who revealed that two unknown continental cars passed through the residents lane at the entrance.
“We believe one car used a transponder while the second car tailgated the first. It is amazing how the security guards did not find anything amiss with their behaviour,” said a victim, known only as Lai.
He said he left his house that night at 8.30pm for an unplanned dinner and came back an hour later to find his doors ajar and lights on.
He alerted the security guards who came unarmed, using just a broomstick to confront the robbers. After a thorough check, they realised the robbers had fled. Lai then asked the guards to comb the area.
“When they were out looking for them, they spotted the two cars. However, after a quick chase, the guards said the cars rammed through the barricade at the entrance and made their getaway,” he said.
Lai said there was no way they could have known beforehand that his house would be empty as he did not have a set schedule.
In fact, he could see from his own CCTV footage that the thieves were rather nonchalant and even had time to do a few burpees on the lawn before making off with his goods.
The other victim, known only as Sheila, said she left her house at 7pm to pick up her maid from the KL International Airport and returned at 10.15pm after dinner.
The robbers looted all her jewellery, opened the safe and cut off her Astro decoder and CCTV camera recorder.
“I managed to obtain CCTV footage from my neighbours since my main cameras were not working. The thieves looked like Caucasians or Latin Americans. They were tall and looked very relaxed,” she said.
Sheila added that another footage caught them walking coolly back to a black BMW while drinking from a bottle of water.
The robbers were also seen attempting to break into four other houses, but ran off on realising that the houseowners were home.
They appeared fit and athletic as they jumped over fences and high walls with relative ease.
All this does not add up as there is only one entry and exit post in the neighbourhood.
One of the victims of the robberies in 2016 said the robbers managed to cart off a 50kg safe box from his home before jumping over his lawn fence and driving off. He said it was surprising that the guards did not detect an unknown car parked in the neighbourhood.
Residents are upset that most of their security features do not work, including the CCTV at the front gate, the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS) as well as their intercom that is connected to the guard post.
The security facilities and services were provided by the developer from the outset as part and parcel of the sale of the houses in USJ Heights. The houseowners are also disappointed that the security guards and the developer are lax about the entire issue.
Most of the victims have lodged police reports, but were shocked to hear the police describe the intruders as “locals”. They said some of the CCTV footage clearly showed the face of one of the burglars who did not have Asian features at all. “Moreover, the act of cutting off the Astro decoder did not make sense unless they knew that it was linked to the CCTV recorder,” said Sheila.
The residents only took over the maintenance of the security and the guards last year, and refused to accept the task of maintaining the equipment such as the CCTVs until they were fixed. He added that the developer must hand over the amenities “in working order” to the residents association. Besides, there is no legal document to state that the handover has been completed.
He also said this was a good reminder to all residents that they should know their rights as housebuyers to ensure the promised goods and services are kept in working order for their benefit. “We want people to know that living in a gated-and-guarded community is not foolproof,” he added.
Living in a gated-and-guarded community may not ensure the safety of your property as residents of USJ Heights discovered in the last two years. One of the houses that was ransacked in USJ Heights was turned upside down in just 20 minutes.
This year alone six houses in USJ Heights were broken into in a span of five months, with only two houses escaping the spate of burglaries.
METRO NEWS
By Priya Menon
Thursday, 6 Sep 2018
https://www.thestar.com.my
TAGS / KEYWORDS:
Central Region , Usj Heights , Selangor , Break Ins
Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/metro-news/2018/09/06/lulled-into-false-sense-of-safety-despite-paying-for-security-facilities-residents-in-usj-heights-ar/#9S7L8zC1VLOsRfzw.99
-----<<<>>>-----
Datuk awarded RM487,000 over break-in at gated community
KUALA LUMPUR: A businessman whose bungalow in a gated community here was broken into has been awarded RM486,988 after the High Court held that the terms laid down in its brochures and sale-and-purchase (S&P) agreement had been breached.
Justice Azmel Ma’amor ruled that the developer, Kumpulan Sierramas (M) Sdn Bhd, and its management corporation were liable for the special damages suffered by Datuk Soo Lai Sing due to the lack of security at the Sierramas Resort Homes in Sungai Buloh, contrary to the promises made in the brochure and the S&P agreement.
The judge handed down the ruling on Thursday after deliberating on submissions by counsel for the parties. Soo’s counsel, Olivia Ho, had argued that representations made in brochures and newsletters which materialised into agreed contractual terms in the S&P agreement and Deed of Mutual Covenants dated March 17, 1995, were of probative value and should be considered by the court.
Soo, 53, who was also awarded interest on the damages sum, filed his suit in July 2000.
In the suit, he said he bought the bungalow unit in 1995 as he was attracted to the unique concept which promised excellent security facilities for its residents.
He said he even agreed to pay, upon delivery of vacant possession, a service charge stated in the S&P agreement in return of facilities, which included maintenance of security.
Soo, 53, moved into his home in October 1999 and at 8am on March 10, 2000, his house was burgled.
He lost close to half a million ringgit after knife-wielding robbers escaped with cash S$100,000 (RM250,000) and RM5,000, a shotgun, four Rolex watches, jewellery and other items.
There was undisputed evidence that the robbers had gained access into the housing estate by cutting through the electronic perimeter fencing, which was supposedly armed with an alarm system and CCTV cameras, he said.
Soo added that he had attempted to fix some fences as additional security to secure the premises, but this was objected to by the defendants on the grounds that the additional height contravened the terms of the Deed.
He said that after the robbery, the robbers managed to escape detection by the defendants’ security control.
He claimed that the misstatement and negligence by the defendants had caused him to incur losses and damages.
In their defence, the developer and the management company, represented by Maidzuara Mohammed, said they had informed the residents via their in-house newsletter, Berita Sierramas, about the malfunctions in the security system.
They said that residents had been reminded, through a circular, to take precautions to safeguard their valuables.
They denied any contribution to the losses or damages suffered by Soo.
The Star Online
Nation
Saturday, 08 May 2004
12:00 AM MYT
By CHELSEA L.Y. NG
Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2004/05/08/datuk-awarded-rm487000-over-breakin-at-gated-community#3OlTgBdbezzOt73Z.99
-----<<<>>>-----
What are the traits of a responsible and ethical RA (What residents want):
They want an RA (Persatuan Penduduk) that’s fair, responsible & ethical in their conduct:
They 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.
They 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”.
They 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.
They 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 – they want an RA that will not stop/ or cause any inconveniences to any non-members from coming home.
They 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.
They want an RA that is responsible - by getting the required consent from the majority of the residents after proper communication and dialogues with them.
They 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.
They want an RA that encourages and fosters harmonious relationships with one another.
They do not want an RA (scheme) that is costly and causes social disunity in the neighbourhood. They would prefer a RT (Rukun Tetangga) which is free of charge /affordable.
And certainly they do not want the RA to change the land title to strata or private (they do not want to lose all the free services and maintenance work currently provided by the local council such as rubbish collection, maintenance of roads, drains, street lights, etc. )
-----<<<>>>-----
Know the differences between 'GATED COMMUNITY' (GC) ...and 'GUARDED NEIGHBOURHOOD' (GN) schemes in Malaysia?
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". (Local councils will not render its services to "private property" residences.)
All residential developments under "Individual" titles are under "public property" and therefore no Gated Community" (GC) scheme can be implemented legally.
All "Individual" title developments can only apply to implement a 'Guarded Neighbourhood' (GN) scheme via their RA obtaining the necessary approvals from the Local Council and the District OCPD, to hire private guards to patrol their residence provided there are no objections from any residents.
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).
-----<<<>>>-----
Useful Links
For more info please log on to:
Local Council (MPKlang):
Town Planning Dept (JPBD Semenanjung Malaysia):
Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan:
http://jkt.kpkt.gov.my/jkt/resources/PDF/Perkhidmatan/Pekeliling/2010/Bil_1_Tahun_2010_Lampiran_1.pdf
Ministry of Home Affairs (Kementerian Dalam Negeri):
http://www.moha.gov.my/images/maklumat_perkhidmatan/pekeliling_agensi_persendirian/pekeliling_1.pdf
-----<<<>>>-----
