Bear the cost of rent, builder and MBPJ told

What say you on the issue below?

TO THE residents of the PJS1 Longhouse in Taman Petaling Utama, relocating to public housing scheme in Lembah Subang is tune they have heard before.

The residents said they had heard it too many times and had made their wishes clear from the beginning.

The plot of land on which the longhouse is sited has been earmarked for a school.

Sad state of affairs: The dilapidated buildings that are home to the longhouse residents.

The residents had bought units in Block E at a nearby low-cost apartment project, which is facing a court injunction. Another site, in Jalan PJS 1/52, has been proposed for a new block of apartments, Block F.

About 40 families are living in a longhouse with rusting zinc roof and plywood walls.

StarMetro met the residents recently to find out about their present status.

The residents have expressed their disappointment over the Selangor state government’s decision to relocate them to Lembah Subang.

They said shifting to Lembah Subang would be a huge burden.

According to the PJS1 Petaling Utama Residents Association vice-secretary M. Sugumaran, the residents had only one request — that they be allowed to rent accommodation nearby while waiting for their low-cost apartments to be completed, with the rental to be borne by the project developer and the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ).

Looking to a better future: A little boy looking out of the window of the fragile house that he calls home.

He said they did want to shift far from the area and were keen for their low-cost apartment project to begin.

“They want to shift, but not to Lembah Subang.

“The residents are willing to look, on their own, for houses to rent.

“The developer and the MBPJ must be responsible for the residents’ rent because we are paying interest on the loans we have taken.

“When the residents met the assemblyman after the last election, we were told this arrangement would only be for three years, until the low-cost block was ready,” he said.

He reiterated that they were not asking for anything except rent and were willing to make way for the school.

Sugumaran also said they had brought the matter up to the Deputy Prime Minister’s office.

According to B. Nirmal, 43, who works as a tea lady, relocating to Lembah Subang would mean a great deal of difference.

She said her children were studying in a nearby school.

“They have increased bus fares, so it would be pointless for me to travel all the way from there to work here.

“Even those who have shifted there have told us not to go.

“We want to shift, and we want our homes,” she said.

V. Thangatoreh, 57, said their lives revolved around the area and it was unfair to ask them to relocate to Lembah Subang.

With tears welling in his eyes, he said their only request had fallen on deaf ears.

“We are poor, but we want our children to have a better life.

“Why can’t the government heed our only request?” he said, adding that they had been living there for 14 years.

K. Maliga, 35, is a kidney patient and requires regular dialysis.

Presently, she undergoes treatment at the Sau Leng Lam Centre.

“The centre is only five minutes away.

“If we shift to Lembah Subang, I will have difficulty commuting here for my treatment because the bus service there is really bad,” she asked.

She also said they had no confidence in the promises made by the state government, which they felt had decided for the residents.

Meanwhile, Taman Medan assemblyman Haniza Talha said only some of the residents were not keen to shift to Lembah Subang.

She added that the residents would only have to pay the utility bills as the units there were provided free.

“We are also offering transport services to schools, provided by the MBPJ, to the families with children.

“We will look at this issue case-by-case because each has different needs, and we feel there are certain individuals who are not getting the right message across to the residents,” Haniza said.

She also said the low-cost project developer had perviously issued the offer letters to the residents but they were rejected.

The residents wanted some amendments made to the details, which the developer was still working on.