Hong Kong's housing problem: Small sacrifices can make a big difference
Bernard Chan says sharing the pain has to be better than deadlock
In his policy address three weeks ago, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying outlined ambitious targets for increased housing supply. They included 20,000 public rental housing units a year for a decade, more than 6,000 subsidised units for sale (with more needed) and, significantly, 74,000 new private-sector units in the next three to four years.
However, there is a problem. Where will the land for all this - and additional - new construction come from? The target for public rental housing in particular relies on identifying sites that can be developed. And it is not simply about housing: Hong Kong will also need more land for commercial and other accommodation.
Critics say there is no shortage of land, pointing out that if you look at a map of Hong Kong, most of the space is not built up. Indeed, some of these people say they have found a solution to all our problems with land supply - solutions that are surprisingly quick and simple.
One is to convert golf courses into housing. Another is to reclaim big islands outside the harbour. A third is to use a percentage of land - not a very big one - currently designated as country parks. Others call for land reserved for village houses to be used for high-density development. Some suggest penalising owners who keep land unused or leave investment property unoccupied.
It's a wide range of solutions, and many of them look as if they could be effective in providing badly needed new living space. But although these ideas all seem very different, they all have one thing in common: they would provoke fierce resistance from vested interests.
I would go further and say that what they all have in common is that each one, by itself, is probably politically impossible. Environmentalists would bitterly oppose suggestions for using any green belt land or for reclaiming more land from the sea. Indigenous New Territories residents insist that their right to build village houses is an entitlement. Even golfers will defend their courses (though they are showing some flexibility in opening facilities up to the wider public).
In every case, the opponents would ask why they have to suffer, when others do not.
However, if everyone made a relatively small sacrifice, it could be different. For example, if golfers continued to allow wider public use of their courses, environmentalists might concede a bit of countryside or coastal waters of little special value as a natural habitat. And then, maybe, New Territories interests might accept freeing up some village land, and so on.
Some might say this sounds naive or idealistic - but my experience in getting different interests to come together suggests the opposite. Persuading everyone to share a bit of pain is pragmatic, because the only alternative is deadlock.
One time I had to get conflicting interests to agree on all-round concessions was in 2008-10 when the Council for Sustainable Development - which I chair - was working on new approaches to create a quality built environment. We covered a lot of subjects, but a lot of the debate was about building density and things such as requiring more space between residential blocks.
In the end, our proposals did not satisfy everyone. Some felt the proposals did not do enough. Others were concerned that too much regulation would waste precious space.
I read that academics were complaining that the chief executive's new housing plans would increase the "heat island" effect. An overconcentration of buildings raises temperatures and becomes an environmental and even a health hazard.
Do we have to choose between availability of housing and quality of life? There are definitely trade-offs. But there is an optimum outcome, in which we all, as a whole, win more than we lose. It just requires everyone to get over the "entitlement" attitude and sacrifice something.
