Less talk, more action needed on land supply
Ialways believe in the principle of doing everything in moderation, even with the practice of exercising caution and preparedness. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being prepared for contingencies, just in case. But there is such a thing as going too far and being over-prepared; this could lead to unnecessary delay or ultimately procrastination, and hence opportunity lost.
This is what seems to be happening to the current government consultation that is working around-the-clock to identify a community-wide consensus on increasing land supply by at least 1,200 hectares in the not-too-distant future. To be honest, how many rounds of consultation do we need to figure out effective and viable ways to expand our land supply? There is such a thing as too much consultation and this current debacle is a prime example of that.
All options have already been put forward, explored, discussed and discussed again and again. Several preceding chief executives’ policy addresses had pronounced these land-increase proposals in the past. It seems to be a waste of time and effort to lay them out again in the current consultation exercise run by the Task Force on Land Supply, an expert committee tasked with helping Hong Kong prioritize land sources.
The latest consultation features 18 options but with no particular inclination not to mention preference as to which ones would be more desirable. On top of that, there has been little to no guidance for public discourse as to finding the best way forward.
For example, in the name of public participation, the task force recently took their consultation to the streets with a questionnaire to find out views. Some feedback from the public included: The print of the questionnaire is too small to be intelligible; there’s no clear explanation or sufficient background material for people to grasp some of the issues featured in the questionnaire and there’s no clear definition or explanation for technical terms such as brownfield sites and so forth.
All in all, the general consensus from this first road show was that the questionnaire was far too complicated to facilitate inclusion of public views and that it was not comprehensive enough. Considering how much time has already been put into this task force, it seems like an abhorrent oversight.
Meanwhile, this road-show took place at Sunshine City’s shopping mall in Ma On Shan but the event wasn’t given prominent publicity beforehand in order to draw public attendance, never mind attract maximum public participation in a questionnaire survey conducted onsite.
This five-month public consultation was rolled out a month ago to ask people to comment on 18 options drawn up to find land for housing. Most Hongkongers can no longer afford property prices, which have gone through the roof, sparking criticism that land supply is too limited, and more needs to be done to free up land and build more affordable flats.
Critics said some of the land-supply options are contentious, such as building on the fringes of country parks, reclaiming land outside our famed Victoria Harbour, and developing land now under private recreational leases, such as the Hong Kong Golf Club in Fanling.
Other land proposals include developing brownfield sites, caverns or underground spaces. There are also some conceptual ideas, such as relocating the Kwai Tsing Container Terminals, or building on top of them.
The task force might be well-intended with the objective of building consensus in society and drawing up a broad framework of recommendations on the overall land supply, but it’s a waste of another six to 12 months more. And the people are still suffering, crammed in shrinking living spaces.
We all agree there is no “one-size-fits-all” or single painless solution to this age-old problem of land shortage in Hong Kong but we must start somewhere, and need to start soon. Talking about how to do it is not the same as doing it. We need to roll up our sleeves and set the ball rolling.
As the saying goes, talk is cheap, doing things and getting tangible results is real. The longer we drag our feet in the disguise of carrying out consultation after consultation in order to include as many views as possible benefits no one but property owners and land holders. The house prices continue to rise unabated.
The solution is simple: We need to cut the red tape, by-pass all the needless bureaucracy and address the issue head-on.
They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result; this is the exact conundrum at hand. Rather than to-ing and fro-ing between solutions and possibilities, the consultants need to take decisive action and find more effective ways to include the public. After all, a government body exists to serve the wider community, so who better to consult than the public themselves?