I wrote about the carpark crunch issue in my EC two months ago. This issue appears to be growing and it was brought up as one of the highlights in our Annual General Meeting, held last weekend.
There are 671 units in this EC. Every unit will be allocated with one parking lot. If all the parking lots are taken up by these 671 units, there will be only 20+ lots left available for second car owners. And this figure also includes the mandatory handicapped parking lots and visitor lots.
Of course, not all the residents have cars. If they don’t, their lots will be opened to the second car owners. The growing number of units owing more than one car has been cited as the main reason for the carpark crunch. To solve this issue, the management’s proposal is to impose a $100 fee/month for second car owners.
A lively debate began at the annual general meeting…
Some residents felt that this will not solve the problem. “If I own the car, whether it’s $50 or $100, I will still pay because I need it,” one of the resident commented. I fully agree with him. Even if we park at nearby HDB multi-storey carpark, we still have to pay and we’re just pushing the problem to the other side of the estate.
Some of the second car owners felt that $100 is too much to pay. They voiced their objections. One of the residents proposed that the fee should be lowered from $100 to $30, and I heard many resounding ‘yes’ after his statement.
If you were to ask me, I would say that I’m willing to pay the $100 provided that they can guarantee a parking lot for me. If it’s still first-come-first-serve basis, balloting or whatsoever, then I don’t see the point of paying for that $100.
Personally, I feel that $100 is not a big sum. If all the second car owners are willing to pay, which I strongly believe they will, then we’re still faced with the same problem. The number of parking lots is still a constant, but the number of cars is increasing.
The debate turned ugly when one of the residents (being a first car owner) complained that he has difficulty finding a parking lot when he returns home late at night. And he blamed the second car owners for taking up so many lots in the carpark.
Everyone has strong opposing views with valid points. It made me questions a lot over what the solutions for problem like this should be. Even HDB and URA carparks are increasing their night parking fees to resolve their shortages.
At the end of the debate, the management held a voting session to determine whether they can implement the $100/month parking fee for the second carpark lot. They need more than 75% of votes in order to proceed with the implementation.
Well, the figure turned out to be only 65%! This means that we’re going back to our old system, whereby second carpark lots are given on first-come-first-serve basis. The allocations are made every three months after the management assessed the number of first car owners.
The excess parking lots will be given to second car owners on first-come-first-serve basis. They will have to queue at the management office on the day of the allocation. The residents here are not stupid too. They will send their helpers to queue at the management office, as what they did for the past two quarters.
Luckily, we have a helper too! 🙂