Raymond So says the analysis of public housing development on park fringes does not mean that building starts immediately
Last week the government commissioned the Hong Kong Housing Society to study the feasibility of building public housing in the peripheral areas of two country parks. To many people, country parks are “untouchable”, meaning that country parks cannot be used for other purposes. When the government’s plan was made known, naturally it received a lot of criticism. Many people argued that the move would cause damage to the environment and some critics claimed the move bypassed the Legislative Council. However, the real issue was not touched on: How Hong Kong should make good use of its land resources.
Hong Kong is said to lack land. Nevertheless, the absolute figures tell a different story: Hong Kong has developed just less than 30 percent of its land, with only 7 percent used for residential purposes; a much larger chunk of land — 40 percent — has been categorized as country parks. In other words, the 30 percent of developed land houses Hong Kong’s 7 million population and all infrastructure facilities. Simple mathematics tells us that if we can use just 1 percent of the undeveloped land, we can provide enough housing for 1 million people. From a planning point of view, it is logical to set our sights on the 70 percent of undeveloped land. But this does not suggest there are immediate plans to use the reserved land. Any change in land use will require substantial public consultation; there simply will not be any quick decision.
Hence, the government’s move to commission a feasibility study should not be seen as an immediate threat to our country parks. Rather, it is a long-term plan to look at the feasibility of alternative land use. The government merely asked the Housing Society to study the feasibility of building subsidized housing on the periphery of coun- The author is dean of the School of Continuing Education at Hong Kong Baptist University.
try parks. Indeed the government is not talking about tapping into country parks. Obviously, many people have overreacted. Some people said that even peripheral areas of country parks should not be considered for development. But country parks cover 40 percent of Hong Kong’s land area; so they border many non-park land parcels, which in turn border other land parcels. If peripheral areas are not allowed to be developed, we would never be able to develop any plot of land because park peripheries can be extended infinitely. In short, such arguments only appeal to sentiment.
Actually development of country parks is restricted because of the Country Park Ordinance. The ordinance bans the development of country parks unless there is absolute necessity. Given that there is seldom absolute necessity, country parks are actually well protected. Hence, we need not over-worry about the government misusing country parks.
Another objection to the feasibility study is that the government has bypassed LegCo by commissioning the Housing Society to do the job. From a technical point of view, the government did bypass LegCo. However, we also need to ask the question: Why has the government decided not to go for LegCo action? There have been too many filibusters at LegCo, which have delayed or derailed many government initiatives and policies. The feasibility study to be conducted by the Housing Society does not need to go through LegCo so it can be completed much more quickly. Moreover, we also need to under-
Given that the government merely commissioned a feasibility study, nothing has happened to our country parks at this moment. You may say the government’s way of handling the feasibility study is not perfect. Yet, I do not really see any big issue with it, especially when we realize that we are struggling to shorten the long queue of public housing applicants.
stand that even if the consultancy study favors building public housing on periphery of country parks, the government still needs to go back to LegCo for support to implement the proposal. Hence, the so-called bypass is indeed a technical one at the beginning. At the end of the day, LegCo support will still be needed if the government is to move on with the plan. From this point of view, the monitoring function of LegCo is still well maintained.
Given that the government merely commissioned a feasibility study, nothing has happened to our country parks at this moment. You may say the government’s way of handling the feasibility study is not perfect. Yet, I do not really see any big issue with it, especially when we realize that we are struggling to shorten the long queue of public housing applicants.