|
Muttley
|
 |
« Reply #120 on: December 02, 2008, 09:43:53 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Gimme a medal"
|
|
|
|
Zorro
|
|
« Reply #121 on: December 02, 2008, 11:03:55 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Muttley
|
|
« Reply #122 on: December 03, 2008, 07:23:48 AM » |
|
There will be none of that in Bermuda park.
No Skateboards allowed!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Gimme a medal"
|
|
|
|
kent
|
|
« Reply #123 on: December 03, 2008, 12:35:20 PM » |
|
hahaha... very talented bulldog! My favorite part is when he ran the skateboard against the curb and just continued on his way... just goes to show the resilience of a dog. There will be none of that in Bermuda park.
No Skateboards allowed!
No pets, no kids, no foreigners, no skateboards!!!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
OOOOOOH! I'm in "Hot Pursuit!"
|
|
|
|
Gooner
|
|
« Reply #124 on: December 03, 2008, 12:42:11 PM » |
|
hahaha... very talented bulldog! My favorite part is when he ran the skateboard against the curb and just continued on his way... just goes to show the resilience of a dog. There will be none of that in Bermuda park.
No Skateboards allowed!
No pets, no kids, no foreigners, no skateboards!!! No cycling, no eating, no drinking, no smoking, no walking on the grass, no touching the grass, no music, no sports ... in an Orange based Zone. Did we miss something ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prisms
|
|
« Reply #125 on: December 03, 2008, 12:48:27 PM » |
|
of all these 'no's what surprises me most is the board saying 'no walking on the grass'. A child would have a lot of fun running and rolling on the grass (mound). But that is denied in most of the so called parks in hk. As someone said before park for hk means a 15 ton slab of concrete.
I guess it is something to do with maintenance costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gooner
|
|
« Reply #126 on: December 14, 2008, 07:04:15 PM » |
|
Now they've removed all the exercise equipment in the Park too. This was a great morning meeting spot for most of Senior Citizens. So I guess we'll add NO EXERCISING to the list.
Thank you - you bunch of MO freaks
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan
|
|
« Reply #127 on: December 14, 2008, 08:47:42 PM » |
|
For your information, the latest on Bermuda Park is that Legco has agreed to give the park back to the government to run if the owners (i.e.DOC) agree. Since it will save a lot of money to have the government run it, of course we will agree. What the rules will then be about dogs and other activities remains to be seen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Icarus
|
|
« Reply #128 on: December 15, 2008, 10:27:20 AM » |
|
Well done!
DOC have saved us money and the "No win" debates are the Govt's problem. Good result.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zorro
|
|
« Reply #129 on: December 15, 2008, 11:03:13 AM » |
|
I agree with Icarus, seems the DOC are getting some results.
Anyone hear of the success that Jeff Lam has had over at Seaview Cres on his resolutions to get control of the tendering process for sub contractors, suppliers etc?
Well done DOC
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gooner
|
|
« Reply #130 on: December 17, 2008, 12:24:25 PM » |
|
Well Well Well ... now that the Bermuda Park has been handed over back to the Govt., it's the Govt. that lays down rules, regulations or whatever they want to do with the land, not the OC, the MO, the DOC or Ms.Sin !!!
Legco allegedly did not have to 'agree' to hand the Park back as this was an Orange based zone or whatever the term is. If CC was maintaining it in the past, great ! This happened around 2 years ago... CC was maintaining it and just stopped abruptly. Then for some reason started looking after it again. The Park was never CC's in the first place.
The D.O.C can play an active role in bettering our estate and the morons that run it - but there is a certain impression that quite a few people have been talking about - the D.O.C is starting to overplay their part in many areas and boss around for no apparent reason. This opinion is from an Owners perspective - not tenants.
If you ask for an explanation - you're not going to get one. Ask for a longer Q&A when the next meeting adjourns.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Icarus
|
|
« Reply #131 on: December 18, 2008, 03:27:43 PM » |
|
The DOC is democratically elected and genuinely seems to be trying to attack the issues that effect ALL the residents.
1. Reducing expenditure on Bermuda Park and MO wastage. Setting budgets and creating greater MO transparency.
2. Improving safety within the estate by forcing MO to replace dangerous floor tiles.
3. Monitoring long terms issues such as local development which could effect CC.
The whole point of an elected body is that they are given the power to act and do not have to seek a referendum on every single point which by nature will have conflicting viewpoints. Personally on the above issues I think they have done an exceptional job and I cannot see anybody objecting to the improvements and money they have saved so far.
The areas where criticism is voiced would seem to be concerning the never ending issue of pets. From what I have read they have no manifesto, hidden or otherwise to get rid of pets. The Bermuda Park issue is now out of their hands and the other issue about nuisance is not about extending the existing pet rules within the DMC but simply better enforcement.
The rules were written long before the DOC and all residents are obliged to comply with them. Irrespective of your viewpoint as to their merit, they are quite clear. Namely complaint by two residents of nuisance (barking, noise, fouling etc) and the management has the right to ban the offending party from keeping a pet. The current apathetic and non confrontational attitude of MO sees the victims of such nuisance aggrieved and feeling helpless whilst the offenders just mock the system.
We all know in reality no pet owner is going to have his pet removed without multiple warnings but such anti social behaviour cannot just be allowed to go unchecked. If you just remove the emotive animal factor, no one would condemn the rule if it applied to a neighbour holding loud parties or playing music at volume. The key is tactful & sensible application.
The point I believe the DOC is trying to make here is resolute enforcement of this rule to rid CC of persistent offenders and by continued application show a deterrent to others who turn a blind eye. This is not a witch hunt against pets or their owners but simply that errant minority who are also frequently condemned by their more responsible brethren. Responsible owners have nothing to fear.
In such early days the DOC have worked hard to achieve what is a substantial amount. You cannot please all the people all the time but what they have done so far has been in the best interests of the majority. They have certainly brought the MO to task and have stopped them from taking unilateral decisions without consultation.
BTW. I am not on DOC or any representative body and just like most of us on this forum, one of the voting masses.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 18, 2008, 03:29:22 PM by Icarus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Poppet
|
|
« Reply #132 on: December 18, 2008, 03:31:17 PM » |
|
well said Icarus a very balanced and fair posting
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
