Community Report - Report fr Jeff Lam Yuet

[Poppet]

when did they do a survey? i was never asked if you don't ask all owners (not renters who are not paying management fees) then how can you get a majority?

you should reduce them because they are way too frequent for a free service and we can save money which i thought was what you where fighting to do

[charles]

you wouldn't be living in tower 15/16? If it's the survey results I've seen there was no mentioning of responses from those towers, users from 9&10 were not interested (surprise surprise!!) and 11&12 had a few pro-route3.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

the hard-working phase 3 OC did the survey months ago, and also did study on bus information, including frequency and capacity. Since the DOC is not functional due to MTR fans there, each phase's OC must work alone to help owners, and that's why we need to have good and hard-working guys to run the OCs so next time you will be well-consulted too, and the DOC will back to functional hopefully.

According to phase 3 survey results, about 40-50% owners agreed user pay plan, about 90% tower 9 & 10 residents objected route 3, about 75% objected the old plan in tower 11 & 12 too. In the EGM, 98.5% of all phases' owners objected the old plan with crazy price.

I understand during the off-peak hours, all buses are not fully-loaded, but during the peak hours, all phase 123 buses are quite full, that's why we propose to have rounded bus for phase 1 & 4 during off-peak. Again, I think as phase 123 bus are promised when we buy the flats, and we can afford it now and it is fully loaded during peak hours and the off-peak hours we use rounded route to better use the capacity and soon phase 4 will also have its bus, so I think it is reasonable to keep other things remain unchanged. Thanks.

[charles]

according to phase 3 survey results, about 40-50% owners agreed user pay plan, about 90% tower 9 & 10 residents objected route 3, about 75% objected the old plan in tower 11 & 12 too. In the EGM, 98.5% of all phases' owners objected the old plan with crazy price.

 

[garyhk]

Why don't we just scrap the bus services altogether and remove these costs from our management fees and get the whole service outsourced and provided by someone else.  Then it would be 100% User Pays. 

The bus company could increase the No. 37 schedule to support CC; then all of this 55% of Tower 9 think this and 40% of Tower 10 thinks this and x% of this that and the other tower thinks this and that.  It seems to be all such silly nonsense.

I think this proposal will solve all the bus related problems and this estate becomes a normal estate like so many others.

[charles]

that's fine, please deduct 1000$ from my rent 

[garyhk]

So, you think the bus service is extremely valuable or costly (depends how you view it really isn't it?).  This is most interesting.  I am sure that if the average management fee can be reduced by $1000 then your landlord would be happy to share the cost saving with you.

Sounds like a win:win to me.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

the current bus service costs $0.13 per ft from management fee, say if you ae renting a B/G about 1000 ft, that is $130 per month, and say if the owner refects 100% saving to the rent, that will be $130 saving.

[charles]

pardon me, $0.13 per square foot per month?? Talking about greedy ...

garyhk: family of 4 needs to take the bus (let's make it 4$) daily return. Agreed some days we won't, some days we might take it twice.

Instead of bombastic statements and CAPITALS, I will use a very simple formula:
(4 users * 4 dollars * 2 trips) * 30 days = 928 dollar per month

[prisms]

the current bus service costs $0.13 per ft from management fee, say if you ae renting a B/G about 1000 ft, that is $130 per month, and say if the owner refects 100% saving to the rent, that will be $130 saving.

Thank you Jeff for this post. We have been waiting for this calculation for long. I think this will give a new dimension to people's thinking. I still believe that putting a price to the bus ride will discourage people from coming to CC.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

I would like to restate my position here that I am open to both user pay and management fee-charged plan as long as the majority of residents agree cos when we do community services, we don't do for ourself but the residents.

User pay is certainly a very fair plan, and also can reduce some management fee by about 8%, or a small amount say $1 charged and the rest paid by management fee is fine too, in this case, I guess the management fee can be reduced by 3-5%. It is a good consideration especially when there was NO solution for the management fee-charged plan which MO and their fans created a $40+ million contract for us to "suffer". We now recreate a 20 million plan which gives more buses to phase 4 while phase 123 services remain unchanged.

I also consider the estate property value and image as well as the residents behaviour of having the buses ready-to-use for them without paying the fee directly, so I count a bit beyond the money matters alone on the contract price. In this case, a management fee-charged plan can keep things less complicated with less impact to the estate overall, so either plan is fine as long as we agree, but I really dislike people to use anything to divid residents and gain their personal support, cos there are people who pay attention to "gaps" to make troubles in the estate, so I tend to keep things unchanged for now.

Our next concern is should the MTR charge MR (their commission/net profit) on our bus services? Cos from what we study about the DMC that MO cannot charge anything not performing INSIDE the estate and 90% bus services is done OUTSIDE the estate. From our understanding, if we can successfully chase back this MR, CC will have another extra $3-4 million refund on top of what we did for the refund of pre-operating expense ($5m), MR refund on capital fund ($1m), refund of MTR's unpaid management fee as the big owner ($1.5m for sure, but we are chasing more). It gives more room for us to deal with.

Finally, I don't mind spending money as long as it is reasonable and the residents want the services, but I do mind if over spending money for non-sense reason, and also if we can improve tendering process and have real compeition, then we will have real quality improvement and real market price, then we will never have $40m but silly bus plan again. If we can save $10m here and $20m there by aving better tendering, I think we can save up good surplus and be able to afford many more value-adding services, or simply reduce the management fee like I did in SVC. I think this is what we really want to see one day, to achieve this, I need your support to me, and to the good phase 1 and 3 OCs, and we use our vote and action to replace some non-performing or even negative performing OCs too. Then we will have an united voice/force to fight for justice and better estate managment, THANK YOU ALL!!!

[Icarus]

Dear Jeff,
I think you'll find that the P3 poll showed a majority in favour of a user pays system. Obviously this is not a definitive referendum for the whole estate but as a statistical sample group it's worthy of note before we commit owners to a further contract of "not so free" buses.

I fear your point regarding the MO fee is tenuous to say the least and to think they will pay money back is unfortunately more wishful thinking than reality. You seem to know a lot of history on this issue so before I write directly to challenge the MO's legal authority on this matter, perhaps you could answer a few background questions for me?

1. When was the bus service started? (It's not listed as a "facility" within the DMC or sales documentation)
2. Upon whose authority?
3. Was the this a unilateral MO decision or was there consultation with DOC?
4. How much did the Octopus readers cost and who paid for them?
5. Was this purchase a unilateral MO decision or was it approved by DOC?
6. How much have owners paid in MO 10% rebate since the inception of the scheme?
7. Have alternative service providers (KMB etc) been approached to offer a public service given that we can prove a route revenue in excess of $10M p.a.?

My initial feelings are that the MO have exceeded their authority (ultra vires) by commissioning the service outside of the DMC without mandate of the DOC or owners. Considering their rebate it can be further argued that they have failed in their overall fiduciary duty and unilaterally created a revenue stream for themselves. Given the financial significance, such an expenditure should reasonably only be given following a full owner referendum.

If this is the case a simple injunction (by DOC or single owner) will stop the service until a democratic vote has been taken.

The MO & DOC must put this issue to an owners vote and not make their own assumptions as to owners wishes.

Keep up the good work!

[Zorro]

Icarus,

I like the idea of an injunction... are you going to apply for it? Do you want me to see if there are any Barristers in CC who would take the job on?

I think Jeff would make a wonderful client if someone will fund him as he seems to go on Ad nauseam about all sorts of issues and given proper funding I am sure a qualified Solicitor with a decent Barrister could deal with all and sundry that he has brouoght to this forums attention over the last few years...

But on a more serious note, it would be a fun day in court to see the MTR have to halt the Bus service, if indeed there has been ultra virus activities...

Anyway must fly... im off for a Beer... I wonder where Mutley has got to...

[Icarus]

I just want a properly conducted referendum not matters being forced upon us. If the majority go for buses paid for or otherwise I will go with it.

If it requires an injunction to make the MO do what is only right in the circumstances and the DOC have no stomach for confrontation, I will do it personally.

Jeff and his buddies have never been slow in taking legal action against MTR so they may pick up the baton. He's gone very quiet on the questions I asked?

Of course a simple poll would resolve the whole argument for both sides. How could MO resist such a simple solution unless they had an underlying vested financial interest?

Let's see how things develop. Meanwhile we continue to pay over $700,000 per month.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

hi mate, sorry for late reply due to current comm in Coastal Skyline. I will try to answer more questions within 24 hours. Thanks.