ST accuses Seng Kang residents of displaying Nimby syndrome
[h=2]
ST accuses residents of displaying Nimby syndrome[/h]
January 9th, 2015 |
Author:
Editorial
On Monday (5 Jan), ST published an article associating the recent Sengkang columbarium saga with 7 other cases of residents opposing developments near their homes (‘
Unhappiness over Sengkang temple with columbarium: 7 other cases of residents opposing developments near their homes‘).
The article appeared on ST online website but did not seem to appear in its print version:
ST wrote, “There have been other cases of people not wanting certain types of amenities in their neighbourhood – or, as many know it, the not-in-my-backyard (Nimby) syndrome.”
In essence, ST is accusing Fernvale Lea residents of displaying the Nimby syndrome.
To bolster its arguments, ST quoted 7 other ‘Nimby’ cases:
1. October 2013 – International school in Pasir Ris
Issue: Building of international school near homes
A group of residents in Pasir Ris were against the idea of a 12-storey international school looming over their homes and causing traffic congestion. They also wanted to preserve the forested area that had to be cleared for the building.
2. February 2013 – Nursing home in Yew Tee
Issue: Some Yew Tee residents were against plans to build a nursing home in their neighbourhood. They raised concerns like noise pollution during construction, traffic congestion in the single-lane roads that serve the area, and the nursing home blocking their view.
3. May 2012 – Nursing home in Bishan East
Issue: Residents said their view would be blocked by the nursing home, and that air flow would be restricted by the building.
4. May 2012 – Tall condominiums in Upper Bukit Timah
Issue: Dairy Farm, Chestnut and Cashew estate residents were concerned about taller condominiums being built in the area blocking their green view of a secondary forest, and towering over their low-rise homes. They were also worried that the development may harm the plant and animal life, and increase surface runoff into a canal, which already fills when it rains. They were also upset that a planned road in the area would cut into a canal-side jogging trail popular with residents.
5. March 2012 – Studio apartments for elderly in Toh Yi
Issue: Residents in Toh Yi were unhappy with the idea of studio apartments for the elderly being built in their estate. Plans were for the apartments to be built where the area’s main recreational facilities – a basketball court, jogging track and community garden – were. Residents were concerned that these facilities would be taken away from them. Some also questioned if the site was suitable for building apartments for the elderly because of the slopes.
6. October 2008 – Workers’ dormitory in Serangoon Gardens
Issue: Serangoon Gardens residents were up in arms over plans to build a workers’ dormitory in their estate. They cited noise and pollution from buses ferrying workers, a possible increase in crime, traffic congestion, and lower market value for their properties in the upper-middle class neighbourhood as reasons for their unhappiness.
7. October 2007 – Funeral home in Sin Ming
Issue: A proposed building in Sin Ming for funeral parlours triggered protests among some of the area’s residents, who said there were already too many of them in the estate. They said that placing it near their residential blocks was not ideal, taking into account traditional superstitions which associate death and dying with bad luck. Some also feared a drop in the value of their properties. The site for the proposed building was an empty plot next to Bright Hill Temple, which is near Ai Tong School and residential areas, including HDB blocks and private condominiums.
Residents’ anger nothing to do with Nimby
The fact of the matter is, at the centre of arguments is that the residents are not happy with HDB giving dodgy information on its BTO flat brochures [
Link]. HDB did not state clearly on the brochure that the Chinese temple comes with a columbarium:
Only at the bottom of page 4 of the brochure, one can find this:
In the highlighted part of the disclaimer, HDB says:
The proposed facilities, their locations and surrounding land-use shown in the maps and plans are indicative only and subject to change or review. These facilities may include other ancillary uses allowed under URA’s prevailing Development Control guidelines. (emphasis added)
Again, there is no further description of the “ancillary uses” in the brochure.
To find out more about
“ancillary uses allowed under URA’s prevailing Development Control guidelines“, one will have to personally visit URA to get the information. Alternatively, he can also try searching through URA’s website for the guidelines.
TRE found a document containing URA’s guidelines after some time:
www.ura.gov.sg/circulars/text/dchbnr/placeofworship-dchbnr.pdf, which did say ancillary uses include providing a columbarium service:
However, it’s not known if everyone can be net savvy enough to find the URA’s guidelines on Internet.
Why go about in an obscure manner to disclose the information? Why not just simply label “Site reserved for Chinese temple cum columbarium” on the said map location? That way, information is clearer and buyers are truly buying their flats with their eyes opened.
