NE NT plan: When will the debate end?
Updated: 2013-07-11 06:05
By Raymond So(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
To meet Hong Kong's ever growing housing needs, the traditional approach is to set up new towns in the New Territories through adequate land supply. The government, in announcing the North East New Territories New Development Area study last week, says diverse views expressed by the public during previous rounds of public consultations are addressed. For example, the ratio of public to private housing has been increased, and the needs for agriculture and compensation packages have been taken into consideration. Although many of the issues have been taken into account, it seems the public still does not have a strong voice in it. Indeed, the development plan aims to house some 170,000 people, which can be seen by many as one solution to our housing woes.
Nevertheless, it's impossible to have unanimous consensus on the new development project. Shortly after details of the study were revealed, there have been suggestions for the project to be halted, the reason being it calls for the relocation of villages, and the development will upset the livelihood of people living there. Perhaps, the trickiest part of all is the future of the Fanling golf course. Under the development plan, the golf course is to be left untouched. According to many people, the size of the golf course is more or less the same as the development's total land area. If the government were to grab the land from the golf course, then the new development can proceed on the site of the golf course instead.
If we examine the reasons raised by opposition political parties, we can tell that those who are against the plan do not want to completely drop the project. Developments in the past few months have shown that Hong Kong desperately needs land to provide public housing for the needy. Even the opposition cannot deny this. Therefore, instead of demanding to scrap the project completely, some people now suggest there are alternatives to it. Hence, it can be said that the development plan is viewed as necessary. The only question is: How to do it?
Reclaiming the Fanling golf course site has been cited by many people as the best alternative. According to these advocates, the Fanling golf course does not have any value as far as environmental protection is concerned. The most appealing reason, perhaps, is the status of the golf course - it's patronized regularly by some 2,000 of the city's elite. But, the project concerns the lives of a much greater number of residents, mainly the grassroots. Hence, it makes a very appealing story that the government continues to favor the rich and famous by keeping the golf course intact.
On the other hand, it may be true that the Fanling golf course remains something of a luxury for the wealthy and if the government fails to do away with it, it will be seen by some people as a sign of inequality. But, the North East New Territories development plan has already taken many aspects into consideration. If the entire project were to be halted at this stage, it would take another 15 years for a fresh development study to come up. Using the golf course site for the project is not a bad idea, but this needs to go through the same consultation processes, as well as numerous studies, for instance, on the environmental impact. In short, even though reclaiming the golf course has its merits, such a suggestion will imply requiring another 15 years or more of study for a new development plan to emerge. Clearly, this would be a waste of resources and bad news for solving the city's housing problems.
Hence, my view is that we should not give up the government's original plan, which should proceed as it's in the best interests of our society. However, the future of the golf course has to be made clear as its lease is due for renewal in 2020. We can do a study on the feasibility of using the golf course in the mean time. If the results from that study suggest that the land on the golf course should be used for another phase of the new development, the government should state that it should reclaim the golf course only for development purposes.
The author is Dean of the School of Business at Hang Seng Management College.
(HK Edition 07/11/2013 page9)