shuttle bus for ph 3 & 4

[garyhk]

Simply vote against all 7 tenders, surely.

[garyhk]

Jeff, you did not reply to my suggestion that we abandon estate buses and simply use the No. 37 existing bus service.  I think this is a very elegant solution to the bus issue at CC.  The whole infrastructure of route and bus stops exists and NLB simply needs to increase the schedule to meet our needs.

What is wrong with this suggestion?  This suggestion works for all phases at CC and must be highly cost effective because it is entirely user pays and would massively reduce monthly management fees.  It would also stop this idling engine problem as well and bring peace to the inner roads of the estate too.

[Zorro]

Lets get rid of the bus and or make it user pays...

If it costs HK$10m per year that is HK$27,397.26 per day...

There are 5,300 units in CC so each apartment is paying HK$5.16 per day for the bus...

Why should I as a non Bus user give those who use the bus HK$5.16 per day...

Make the bus user pays... 

[Zorro]

I have read that a Robert Karlson is going to vote NO.

I will hand in my Proxy for this Robert Karlson to vote NO on my behalf.

Lets all put in proxy today by 8pm at the latest in the name of Robert Karlson

[giantsean]

Guys I would like to give Icarus our proxy (two actually if we can count two units - but I suspect it's 1 owner 1 vote regardless).  However I am stuck at work until after the deadline.  Is there any way to fax proxy instead?

[Zorro]

yes call the man office and get them to fax you to sign and fax back

[giantsean]

Argh too late... the jerks have closed up shop.  If one of you guys can fax me the form I can fax back to Icarus, if they accept this method.

Out of curiosity, do my wife and I both get our own vote if we are co-owners?

[JEFF LAM YUET]

Guys I would like to give Icarus our proxy (two actually if we can count two units - but I suspect it's 1 owner 1 vote regardless).  However I am stuck at work until after the deadline.  Is there any way to fax proxy instead?

you can write two proxies.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

Jeff, you did not reply to my suggestion that we abandon estate buses and simply use the No. 37 existing bus service.  I think this is a very elegant solution to the bus issue at CC.  The whole infrastructure of route and bus stops exists and NLB simply needs to increase the schedule to meet our needs.

What is wrong with this suggestion?  This suggestion works for all phases at CC and must be highly cost effective because it is entirely user pays and would massively reduce monthly management fees.  It would also stop this idling engine problem as well and bring peace to the inner roads of the estate too.

personally speaking, I don't mind to get rid of the buses and save some $$$ and wait for NLB, but as someone highly involved in our community, I also think a bit further that the bus is a value-adding icon to CC and our property value. I worry if CC has no bus then our owners' right in terms of their property value will be affacted. It is similar to the ownership and management right of the parks that currently discussing too. Also I worry about the eldgerly people if they don't have shuttle bus for now before NLB providing services, as NLB will only consider providing service with profit, and according to our usage it is hard to achieve so, unless, until all vacant lands are sold and more apartments are built with double population.

I hope my friends here understand my concern, and I do respect everyone's view too.  I will keep working for all owners and I hereby thx for your kind understanding.

[Icarus]

This is a matter that should be decided by the owners as to whether there should be a free bus, subsidised bus or user pays scheme and all the variations in between and NOT being dictated by the management. The EGM is just the starting point for a better researched project I hope.

There are many valid arguments for various schemes as Jeff has given just a couple. Everybody should be free to balance ALL the arguments and chose as their conscience sees fit. This is about democracy for those that pay not dictatorship by those who are paid or have vested interests.

The majority should decide.

[garyhk]

Any owner would support what Icarus has to say; it is logical, it is reasonable, it is sensible.

Jeff, are the elderly people here in CC more special than elderly people who live in other estates without estate buses who manage very well to use public buses?  I would agree with you totally if the cost of these buses was marginal, but these buses are a huge drain on CC resources and this along with poor management means something needs to be done.  If there is a bus service, whether it is a mini bus, scheduled route or estate bus this means the estate is served for transportation - it all amounts to the same effect and I can't imagine the already low estate values would be impacted one way or the other. 

We need to keep focused on the main issue which is management of costs and value for money and stopping the owners being ripped off by an incredibly inefficient management function which serves the shareholders of an outside corporation and not the interests of owners. 

[JEFF LAM YUET]

This is a matter that should be decided by the owners as to whether there should be a free bus, subsidised bus or user pays scheme and all the variations in between and NOT being dictated by the management. The EGM is just the starting point for a better researched project I hope.

There are many valid arguments for various schemes as Jeff has given just a couple. Everybody should be free to balance ALL the arguments and chose as their conscience sees fit. This is about democracy for those that pay not dictatorship by those who are paid or have vested interests.

The majority should decide.

Mate, I agree with you.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

Any owner would support what Icarus has to say; it is logical, it is reasonable, it is sensible.

Jeff, are the elderly people here in CC more special than elderly people who live in other estates without estate buses who manage very well to use public buses?  I would agree with you totally if the cost of these buses was marginal, but these buses are a huge drain on CC resources and this along with poor management means something needs to be done.  If there is a bus service, whether it is a mini bus, scheduled route or estate bus this means the estate is served for transportation - it all amounts to the same effect and I can't imagine the already low estate values would be impacted one way or the other. 

We need to keep focused on the main issue which is management of costs and value for money and stopping the owners being ripped off by an incredibly inefficient management function which serves the shareholders of an outside corporation and not the interests of owners. 

yes, I understand your concern too. To move forward, we need to have a strong resident group to always speak up for owners, also we need to support the good OCs and kick the bad OCs out of estate management, so we both owners and OCs can have an united voice/force to deal with estate issues, and to give pressure to MO, so they will listen and follow our needs. I hereby strongly seek your help in supporting the current phase 1 and 3 OCs. Thanks.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

I will record a video now then post online to discuss our clubhouse and bus issues. thx.

[garyhk]

A video of what?

A video of the meeting would be VERY helpful for those owners who can't get there.