Today, a little idle, and also said that the recent forum for some of the events, only a personal point of view, if there is hope that the understanding between offended and wrong when it is nonsense to it. <> Lake of the developers run , Lake Villa, left, a bunch of debt and a group of creditors, the Huang-Lao the second largest acquisition of a number of creditor claims, and claims of recourse to the court. The court will auction the property of some Lake, used to pay debt. In this context, whether the property be auctioned Lake of public property caused by the heat everyone conferences and debates. <> LI students believe that the property really belongs to the Lake of the common property, and some users think that evidence should be presented more fully. So controversy began, no one can convince. party said: This has always been my thing, the other party that you have to produce evidence to the two tangled case of the beginning, some Shen Bu live gas, there have been some Jizao and rude. <> I think on the one hand say that the property may belong to Lake of the common property, is indeed well-founded need. I In ; post where my view has been told that to figure out these problems wishful thinking. so that's reason: the court can not make unfounded judgments. This is something we should still believe that the ability of courts and judges of intelligence. <> for a point of view, that property may be your home property, but some people got bills to your home the money, it is necessary to repay. people tell on the court, the court can only things out of your home sale for his debts. you do not agree to have no recourse but to consider themselves bad luck, why there is such a family ~ ~ <> Some users will be handing out the Executive Secretary Bernard Yeung was only Lake Villa homes are on the auction of the property owners there about the , the lack of evidence and the possibility of operation, no need to ask other users agree and go along. <> and then say the least, if the situation does exist, how should we go , fitness center and all by their common property of the auction! think of themselves as ordinary session of Sham owners, just call and complain on the forum about it ... ... <> does not know that he himself caused to do to send some talk nonsense, do not affect the district's image here, talk nonsense ... .. the big users like wayward urchin a little jealous customs destroy the world, abhorrence of evil, and energetic, and could not understand what is not to face, but also regardless of their own the image of the face, ran out from time to time the subject of ridicule about ~ ~ other users scholar is like a stubborn old man, a little pedantic (no derogatory meaning Siha), is the naughty fun of a few large sputtered a little bit ~ ~ Then, we ~ ~ start name calling irrational how some of the issues I have raised you out of good intentions but that for me, you against me or against the interests of all the owners of Green Lake, you must not ordinary owners ~ ~ <> I think that their way of thinking have great differences, as different versions of the software is completely incompatible, we are not talking about the same issue. The former is the statement for the latter approach and by the consequences of this approach is not something human; on The latter is considered to be made on the negative things, what purpose, and must have attempted ~ ~ Well, tell Road is unknown, are contradictions among the people is no need to exaggeration, so much hostility to add color and gunpowder, ~ ~ we all a little bored mind settle it, to make more self-criticism, reflection and review, calm and rational analysis of the problem and propose practical recommendations and views, so as to truly reasoning and win everyone's identity. < >
[1 F] <> Re: view
gzt945 talk about my friends: <> read your post, but also to talk about my views on this, our post certainly only represent personal point of view. The following, if any make you unhappy place, please also Haihan, after all, we are seriously discussing the issue.
one, discussion. talk about those Department to conduct a rebuttal, and you still did not give me a further answer. As this issue relates to the vital interests of each owner, so absolutely necessary in-depth discussion. <> your point of view (individual is born ugly once the net a) include points: <> First, what are the owners of common property for the basis or evidence, do you think the planning red line and other mapping diagram. Do you think the court can not make unfounded judgments. <> My view on this issue is: <> First, we can see a variety of planning, reported that construction plans, but due to time management not standardized, it is possible that these drawings can not describe the problem (of course, to describe the problem better), but evidence is also facing difficulties. Actually, this is not difficult to judge based on common sense: <> - Where are the owners of the total property, must be no real estate warrants (excluding those who here has nothing to do with the ownership of various factors, such as technology did not standards, procedures not being completed, etc.). If you disagree with it very well do this as long as the scope of enumerated any one of the residential property owners there is a warrant for the property, you can refute my argument. <> - our swimming pool accessory as a club with the auction, but the club's planning red line simply did not include swimming pool, this is a solid documented. developers appropriated for use between the clubs it when the real estate certificates, but even that is not possible to pool designated subsidiary of the club material. It's like Lake Villa planning red line, the ownership of all buildings outside the red line is absolutely nothing to do with the Lake Villa, the reason is obvious. <> - Also, we can from this property used to determine the nature of the auxiliary, that it is available to private dedicated or shared use of owners available to the community (please note here the difference between the use and provision of services, such as ownership of the shops are used by people, providing services to owners, and swimming pool are essentially different)? Sports Centre and swimming pool, built from the community has not changed after use, this can also be proved as a good assistant. <> - Also, you say property may be the property of your home, but some people got bills to your home the money, it is necessary to repay. people tell on the court, the court can only things out of your home sale for his debts. you do not agree nor means nothing with, and why there is such a family ~~developers (although he may also be the owners), and between each of the owners, and not the incidental property, property rights are the exclusive part of each independent, developers and owners do not exist any also body center and swimming pool as a common property of all owners, is absolutely not a separate disposition, movement, and all owners must be all the exclusive property disposition, movement, which in the expressly requirements. put it plainly some, even if 99.99% of the owners have agreed to pool selling, we can not separate the ownership transfer of the pool, they can only sell their house at the same time, together with the 99.99% interest in this together transfer, and that 0.01% of the owners do not agree to sell the pool still has its own pool of 0.01% of the associated rights. That is why the owners of the common property of the state not the reason for real estate certificates. <> for above views, you can ask any professional person, to seek their views, if I speak any inappropriate, You can try to refute. <> Second, I think, fitness center and swimming pool is the High Court auction, therefore, entirely appropriate to provide this is the developer of its proprietary property of the individual rather than the basis of the joint property owners, rather than the opposite. Of course, owners can also find their own, but is expected to encounter many difficulties So I am willing to come forward to put into action deep respect owners. <> Third, I totally agree that known, I also have personal experience, even the students once the net ugly himself cited a number of related data. I have said, in the present case, for specific cases should not be, we can not unconditionally to the court equated the law, the Court's decision is equivalent to the truth. the first dozen times in the industry, the Commission has been handing out written materials and evidence submitted, the auction by the owners of property that can not be the reason, but the High Court it is a decision, this corrupt, disregard for human life phenomenon in China is not uncommon, right? If we say things we do not know the rest of the actual situation is difficult to draw a conclusion, but all that may happen in our very eyes, as long as rudimentary knowledge of the law, should not be difficult to determine. <> ; you say When faced with huge resistance to the temptation of money, Bernard Yeung is a prime example of it.
II, can discuss, reason through the facts and explain my connection is far-fetched, based on hearsay evidence or even fabricated, I can also argue, according to Li. But the actual situation, you should see clearly, regards to her mother, beast, and it is normal to discuss the problem? as you say, if another perspective, some of you are such and such, you will feel? <> Second, if you do not understand some situations, So be forgiven, in fact, who is the first industry, the Commission dealt only with Bernard Yeung. Even if judging from common sense, Lake Villa, the whole case was ruled in 2002, the implementation (with handing out the award as evidence), this is Bernard Yeung served only during the Executive Secretary. You can think of a famous real estate in Guangzhou at that time, involving a number of state-owned enterprises and banks, involving only the compensation awarded to the builders as much as 1.7 parts million yuan, has provoked much discussion by the news media known cases of the city, with Bernard Yeung, as the Executive Secretary was nothing to do? <> Third, as you say, if the situation does exist, how should we do it question, I think, on the one hand, we should first of these things have a basic understanding of the fitness center and swimming pool are the common property of the owners is illegal to forcibly took away the Provincial High Court, if in this no consensus on the point not to mention other; other hand, we should ask to the responsible departments (for example, is now the Central Discipline Inspection Commission) to reflect this situation, the fight to figure out the real situation, and then think of ways on this basis. <> ; here Incidentally, I wonder if you carefully read the Who can assert, Bernard Yeung was only Perhaps, in the case the Green Lake owners Xingshen). <> Fourth, you say call and complain on forums about it ... ... action expressed admiration for the owners of rights, and you and the students also said that once the net with my ugly like the You have not had a star on the slightest blame, but not to their own exacting standards that you can not do and all the owners. However, you are here with an obvious why the use of such ridicule, censure means that the tone? how much emphasis we should Some , likened to the ; First, you think they just ; code of conduct problems, you owners, users posting in the forum, do not say citizens have the right to speak of such big, or do their own legitimate rights and interests being infringed upon, even the appeal, disclosure, shouting to be blamed? If really behavior, at least allow more of the owners know the truth, the owners have more action possible. I have to share common water problem posting a response by the owners to obtain some practical results, this is proof of (am I telling, I believe you will not be said to be in confession and brag about) the image of community, I am puzzled that it had became public Bernard Yeung, for the Lake Villa is big in terms of completely ;, , for which I beg to differ. <> - I am ever vulgar bad language, not insulted each other personality. your own on the forums, I get the impression that the words of others, has proven to be sensitive, although each has its own standards can not be forced, but at least to themselves people of the same opinion at odds with those who want to standardize on, the same scale. So, to your standard, that the use of dog ;? In my opinion, the Health Net ugly once regardless of the commitment to my ears still ringing in our commitment to be self-destructive, this is irrational; use which words, is the curse. but I did not curse, how to <> - How do you think these people thought to myself ; - think about it, are there any common owners would like the students that once the ugly net, stand in that position, to that kind of attitude, made such a post? for the infamous is the Huang-Lao the second messenger point of view, can be understood; but once the net for health ugly, I learned from the perspective of ordinary owners, but in any case can not understand - not because he was against me, but he was opposed to the owners of their own as a ordinary in and their own legitimate rights and interests of owners as ordinary, work against the legitimate interests! <> Third, you want us to Once in my net and raw commitment to each other after the ugly is already the security incident. However, I did a case against Bernard Yeung post, post did not touch the net once the ugly word or two students, but somehow, he resurface and intensified, and even to today as the ratio of my beast from the curse Avenue is only one step away. <> The ;, is caused by him. I have to defend their dignity, and in order to let everyone see what's inside, will be back and refutations, there was no impropriety.
the last to tell you that, for number of major issues, you and my opinion is not consistent with the students once the net is basically the same ugly, it is obvious, and it is normal. While you are just on the forum and I have been arguing on the way to speak, but soon subsided. I thought, even though you and I disagree, but the discussion between us is still within the normal range, and I think you really are concerned about the district affairs, and therefore do not have anything you hold a respect for the contemptuous, and in language that do be gentle, this is you should see. <> The net once in my ugly dispute with the students things that you in spite of the good intentions, but in the specific discussion, or avoid the facts, or the playing five Ten board, or the error in my buck, this attitude is obviously biased, and you really advocating the principles, standards have significant distance. As a general argument, that you are obviously frame I'm ready to work with you or other users to plot a range of issues discussed, including common property issues, the evidence provided the question of how rights issue and so, like I did sgyey User. Because I believe that clear things become clearer, truth become clearer, fair mind. <>
[2 F] <> Re: talk about my views
gzt945 User: <> I just wrote my self in addition to review of people outside do not see the review, to see your ID's forum, not because Young case, but could not understand some ID siege to discredit the abuses to suppress the new ID, so until the exit, so go too far, so can not help. <> The Yang case, I no mention of the beginning, and deliberately avoid discussion of any topic, but some things I have to discuss this strong pull silly things, it is ridiculous! <>
[3 F] <> Re: say my views <>
LI students, the first to be sure that your enthusiasm for community building, faith and perseverance, as well as you think possible to those of public property is expected to regain the good wishes. I would have spend time writing code. <> on the concept of understanding of public property, it seems that we very different, although you do very seriously answered the basis of the mode of thinking and there is a big difference does not agree with your views.
according to your point of view: But this subjective awareness. I respect your subjective judgments and can not change your judgments, as I also have their own subjective judgments. I think all the right to judge should be in evidence in the case, there is no evidence case to determine the existence of two more than the conclusion, I do not see evidence, I can not categorically identify the nature of property ownership.
you think that public property is not for real estate license, so your argument is valid. It is only your personal opinion . Similarly, the property did not apply for permits, and they can say no set up. I again refer to my post on public property the contents of a concept: to invest in construction), the need for clear property rights which are. effective right to information does need to access the entire district land resources bureau of large property building survey map, access to land on the planning red line map building without planning, and when the newspaper building the use of registration, which is the pool and what is the developer of all. In addition, there is a way to judge is the individual property owners in the pooled area on the card, including what the specific building. Property Law, other public places within the zoning, utilities and property services, houses, owned by the owners. 'can say is that we understand the concept of public property is different. I mean this you paid part of the state, does not mean you also have other properties, a total of some only have the right to use, but individuals do not enjoy property rights. and because can not determine the nature of this part of the ownership of the property (we do not just reasoning to determine evidence), the court may have the evidence in the case of take it auctioned off, this may have to share power, there is no , and such examples are numerous, a lot of controversy, recently read a report saying that the owners have suggested that in future when buying a house, you should indicate what the real estate certificate of public property can be shared.
for swimming pool are the owners of common property Optimists have a different point of view, if we insist to enlarge the dark side, it can only live in pessimism, anger and helplessness among the. positive, positive, optimistic and makes life more fun. This is just my opinion, no intention of trying convince. hope Yang trials to bring the issue to the Green Lake is also a good way out of the desire, I very much hope that this good will be able to reach and achieve, and suggested that if anyone in the department to reflect the situation when the principal can also provide effective evidence to help them work. but we can not be denied one case, and so on. I mean by Do not impose on others treatment? move is not worth your anger get angry hurt the body, refreshing hot weather drink plenty of water consumption, if necessary, under fire detoxification drink herbal tea, do not tell young people are generally informative. you're a very rare enthusiastic owners of residential construction, although many issues views are inconsistent, but you spent a lot of time and effort in it, and I think a lot of problems, it is dedication and perseverance, which I feel inferior. have time to code word it. <> <> [4 Floor] <> Re: talk about my views <> gzt945 2008-08-04 17:43:55 Posted at the focus of the Guangzhou Real Estate Network - On the housing of City - Lake Villa Forum
Once Health Net ugly students, you really mood, also will not never met the ID number to change my own habits and track, but will not be moved, if you want to move and certainly not for the reasons here. forum is after all just a virtual world, far enough to affect my real life.
other hand, whether with the noise here is related to whether the damage the external image of Green Lake, Green Lake is really a dispute in recent years property prices fall, those of us the new owner is the beneficiary of this struggle, we have surrounding the circumstances of high property prices, relatively good value for money to buy a house. because it is not brought their own living speculation. If I do not come to this forum, not Here's something to see, that does not affect my quality of life, maybe I would be more pleasant and happy. Of course, although these things have become more trouble reading, but also become more aware. <>
[ ,],[<> I very much agree that you personally said My You do not have a positive negative my opinion, you are the example, not only because of the procedures completed and any professional person, to inquire into any case of a district, as long as there are clear laws and regulations apply to all owners of real estate property for warrants, as long as the common property of the owners of the property warrants for examples, I instantly recognized his mistake. How? < ;> We can also do a theoretical inference, if the owners of common property really warrants for real estate, it would be difficult in the technical operations to solve the difficulties encountered: the ownership documents of people on how to fill a bar, I am afraid not enough places available, right? where the documents retained? whether each ownership should have a certificate of their rights, and the original or the same legal effect of the original copy or reproduction of documents? When an owner will proprietary part of the original transfer of property, and all documents need to re-replace it again? and so on. <> 2. my part of the distinction between exclusive and shared some of the evidence, it can prove that the red line red line outside the building and the building is not within the ownership relationship. <> In this regard, you also did not deny that my views on the positive . you and your ugly comments Health Net Dan refers to as the distinction between the planning red line is not within the exclusive part of the building and common parts of the evidence, and I am not talking about. <> High Court is to pool adjunct to be auctioned as clubs, in this case, we can plan with the red line for the club determine, the situation is no more than two: <> - If the swimming pool at the club's planning red line inside, then we must follow what you said, discrimination based on other documents belonging to community swimming pool is the common property of all owners, or belong to the common property of the owners, clubs, or clubs are the exclusive property of an owner. <> ; - If the pool is not in the planning of clubs within the red line, then the obvious, a swimming pool does not belong to clubs belonging to the community, even with the club all the property, its ownership is just one for the swimming pool area in accordance with their proportion has the exclusive the right part of the swimming pool. <> 3. my repudiate the views of my (ugly Health Net will once dismissed as what I said, Remedial auction, and not by the possession and use of owners in recent years the disposal of Green Lake; <> - High Court is the competent bodies, they should control their own information to the community, to Owners released; <> - High Court is a strong group, and Green Lake owners vulnerable groups; <> - if there should be provision of residential property owners, the High Court will place logical contradiction, auction because of its premise, is a recreation center and swimming pool of the original owners of the total non-property, then what reason to provide proof of ownership of non-ownership? <> Also, I mentioned the difficulties currently faced with evidence , referring to what you said However, many times and submitted to the High Court. <> If your Total real estate property can apply for warrants; Second, a single building in the planning red line drawings of buildings outside the red line can be owned by all of the buildings; third, handing the auction should be auctioned property is not available ownership of the evidence provided by the residential owners.
II,
No comments:
Post a Comment