Best May Limited, current owner of the Cheoc Van Hou Un clubhouse, posted a whole page statement in Chinese language newspaper Macao Daily yesterday declaring that it will not abide by any promises made by the developer of the plot – Companhia de Investimento Imobiliario Nissan.
In response to the statement posted by a third group of alleged owners of properties in Cheoc Van Hou Un earlier this month, Best May claimed that it had legitimately followed every procedure in applying for re-development of the clubhouse into a budget hotel.
‘We do not know the original developer of Cheoc Van Hou Un Companhia de Investimento Imobiliario Nissan and we have never had any contact with the developer, directly or indirectly,’ stated the firm, adding that the clubhouse was not obtained from the original developer.
The previous statement made by the group of owners was followed by the announcement of a proposal during the 5th meeting of the Urban Planning Committee last month claiming that the original developer had failed to keep the promise of providing leisure and recreational facilities at the clubhouse for residents.
Meanwhile, the group disclosed in the public letter that they had been paying taxes related to the complex every year to the management company, set up by the developer since 1995 for the allocation of the clubhouse complex’s land rental, while declaring that they have the right to the facilities of the complex.
Best May, however, claimed that they had also been paying taxes every year to the Financial Services Bureau and that they had never appointed a management company, while noting that the right to the facilities of the complex alleged by the group ‘could have constituted the violation of our private property rights.’
The firm further proposed the possibility that the amount paid by the owners could be the subscription of the services provided by an existing private clubhouse located on the other side of the residential area.
Budget hotel best choice
Given that the function of the clubhouse complex is only for commercial usage, the firm explained in the statement that it would have to seek other projects such as a food court, a karaoke, a [retail] outlet or a sauna if the proposal of building a budget hotel was turned down.
‘Businesses cannot survive by depending solely on nearby residents,’ the firm wrote. ‘Those other options of development [food court or karaoke] would definitely not be desired by nearby residents and it will be too late to repent if [alternative] decisions are made.’
The firm further proclaimed that developing a budget hotel would cause less impact, with the inclusion of venues for MICE, restaurants, convenience stores, gym and yacht docks in the hotel project would benefit residents.
Best May, moreover, pledged that the project would seriously consider the surrounding environment, claiming that the project will not alter the structure of the building.
The statement also includes the denouncement made by the firm that ‘a small group of people have long occupied public facilities for private use,’ complaining this is limiting the long-term development of the city.
Business Daily contacted lawyer Ho Kam Meng, representing the group of owners, who said the group had held a meeting yesterday although no information was revealed beyond the fact that they had contacted the original developer of the plot, adding that the group will meet the developer in later days.