'Not in my backyard' attitude complicates housing debate
Bernard Chan says selfish interests are complicating the debate
It seems incredible, but we use about 6.9 per cent of our land for residential purposes - just 2.3 per cent for urban private housing, 1.4 per cent for urban public homes, and 3.2 per cent for rural settlement including village housing. At the same time, there is widespread confusion about the rest. There seems to be plenty of land - but any proposal to use any of it for housing runs into some sort of problem, interest group or lobby.
Any proposal to use [land] for housing runs into some sort of problem, interest group or lobby
Housing is an issue of social and economic justice. We have people living in conditions that are a disgrace in a civilised society. We have lengthy waiting lists for those eligible for public and subsidised flats. And we need housing that younger, middle-class people can afford.
But suggest that agricultural land be used for housing - and although some landowners might be willing to sell - tenants who have chosen the farming lifestyle will be up in arms. It is interesting that many young radicals feel sorrier for the relatively small number of farmers than for the much larger number who will need homes.
New Territories land reserved for village development is especially sensitive, as you run the risk of upsetting indigenous residents. Suggest reclamation - traditionally a relatively easy and simple way to acquire flat land - and environmentalists will oppose you.
Suggest urban districts that can be redeveloped to make better use of the space, and the neighbours in nearby estates will complain. They might accept the need for higher-density housing and places for more people to live, but not in their backyard. Only 2.3 per cent of land is zoned industrial; suggest converting factory buildings, and existing tenants using them as back offices, artists' studios or for storage will ask where they are supposed to go.
Maybe I should take at least some blame myself. In my capacity as chairman of the Council for Sustainable Development, I was involved in recommending policies to reduce building density and features like the "wall effect". Such measures inevitably reduce the supply of homes.
Some commentators have proposed creative and radical solutions. columnist Jake van der Kamp has suggested turning Hong Kong Disneyland, the Science Park, Cyberport and some of Kwai Chung container terminal into housing, with this land accommodating 400,000 flats. I know some people think this idea is brilliant. But I wonder what commercial interests would think - let alone past policymakers - who pushed tourism, technology and logistics so hard.
"Nimbyism" (not-in-my-backyard-ism) is a major problem. It affects the supply of enough columbarium niches for the dead, and it forces the government to propose highly expensive reclaimed land for an incinerator. It is a form of selfishness, but it is understandable; no one wants to see their neighbourhood become more crowded.
Greed may sound less excusable, but we cannot avoid it. Whether you are a New Territories landowner or you own an old flat in a low-rise building downtown, you want to maximise your returns from your property. You will regard it as your right. As for the environment, I will be the first to say that I love our country parks and want to keep them.
At the very least, for an informed discussion, we need to sort out what land we have and what we can do with it.
