Town Planning and Poverty
People urge the Government to fight poverty. And the Administration responded by setting up committees and taking half hearted measures at the micro level to deliver humble relief to the grass root, e.g., traffic expenses subsidy for workers commute from the far end of New Territories. On the other hand, macro policy without social impact assessment creates poverty. That totally offsets the token measures taken by the same Administration.
And we question, if the Administration had a holistic approach for town planning, take effort to assess impact of the development for all owners and residents, we could have fought poverty better instead of creating a bigger problem.
Let us take the MTR extension line to the Western District of Hong Kong Island as an example. Kennedy Town is 3.8 kms from Central. It takes you about an hour to walk all the way from Smithfield to Chater Garden. If you take a bus at the peak hour in the morning, the journey takes 40 minutes. Ridiculous indeed. The extension line is of course very welcome by the residents. And District Councilors busy themselves with claiming credit of solving traffic congestion problem.
I, on one hand, applaud to the work plan, because rail traffic is fast, efficient and environmental friendly. But we have to proceed cautiously with the social impact brought about by this significant improvement in transportation.
In 2005, the Hongkong University published a study on the construction of extension line to the Southern and Western part of the Island. It forecasts that the rail line would enhance economic activities in both districts, when quantified, it means 45 billions. Half of it comes from the estates property market. When traffic is convenient, demand of residential units rises.
Who gain benefits from the market? Owners of old buildings who sell their flats to developers at re-development price will be happy with an expected small fortune. As reported on Mingpao today, 95 % of a ten-storey building on Caine Road was bought over by developer at an average price of 8 millions for a 600 sq ft apartment. The 9000 sq ft plot will return a total saleable floor area of 87,000 sq ft., approx. 3.3 times of the original. So it is a win-win deal for both parties. Similar transaction is going on in Kennedy Town.
But why are we worried about this if everybody is better off with re-development and land is more efficiently utilized? It is because some people will pay the price, whether in cash or in kind. They are tenants of the old building. They will foot a substantial portion of the bill.
According to the Census in 2000, there are 2,699 households in Kennedy Town live in private housing with a monthly rental below 3,999.- Most of the flats are in old buildings with 4 to 10 storey, i.e., of high re-development value. Rents were increased sharply in the past 8 months. First, the owner wants to get rid of the tenants so that they could sell their property fast to developers. Second, when supply falls short, price increases. Some households have to pay 2,000.- more for monthly rental after MTR announced the work plan. Those, who could afford, stay in the district. Or those who work locally with odd working hours, e.g., people in the food and beverage industry, stay. When the rental increase goes beyond the capacity of the tenants, they have to move to farther off areas for cheaper housing. And they have two choices to manage their household budget, first, ask for an increase in salaries to cover the bus fares, or cut expenses in cultural and educational activities; second, when the salaries doesn't pay for the traffic and meals expenses, they turn social securities recipients. There is a rippling effect that eventually brings the costs back to the community. Consumers will have to pay a higher price for the goods and services in the district, and taxpayers have to bear a bigger social securities bill.
So much for the working population. As for the retired elderly, when they move away from the sons and daughters still living in the district. They are cut off from family support. Whatever services required from the Social Welfare Department for these elderly are funded by the Treasury, and eventually come back to the taxpayers. And for the residents in Kennedy Town, they spend one extra hour on transportation right now, but they might have to work 2 hours extra to earn more money for the rental increase. Worse, they still have to spend the same amount of time of commuting because they have to move to Tuen Mun and spend one thousand extra on traffic expenses.
I will not oppose to the MTR extension line because of these social impacts, but I definitely want our government to do a better job to prevent the loss on the grass root by helping them to cope with market force in urban renewal, and therefore, have the best of rail transportation, urban renewal and affordable costs of living in the district. It is not only transportation policy and economic development brought forth by the extension, it is also housing policy, street economy and employment opportunities we have to study carefully.
The Administration should take no loss of time to build a public housing estate to accommodate the cheap labour force in the district, and to keep the elderly close to the younger family members to maintain the social network. There are lands available from Kennedy Town, e.g., the unoccupied police quarter, the long demolished Kung Mun Village and lands further down Mt. Davis. And we should consider to re-build the Western District Estate, which is almost 40 years old and plot ratio not fully utilized. Average subsidized housing unit costs 280K, that is approximately three years’ social securities payment for a family of three, not to mention the staff costs incurred in the delivery of services. It is costs effective and humane for the Administration to help the grass root with affordable housing. On the other hand, it helps to free more old buildings for urban renewal geared by the private sector.
Increase in figures and statistics of economic development is not good enough if it causes structural poverty and further disparity. We cannot ignore the aggravation for the underprivileged, for a social problem will be borne collectively by the community. Conservation and development are not natural enemies as the Chief Executive put one against the other. Let us take one step backward to widen the scope, and we will see the latent problems that could come with development and find an early solution to sustain the physical and social environment.
And we question, if the Administration had a holistic approach for town planning, take effort to assess impact of the development for all owners and residents, we could have fought poverty better instead of creating a bigger problem.
Let us take the MTR extension line to the Western District of Hong Kong Island as an example. Kennedy Town is 3.8 kms from Central. It takes you about an hour to walk all the way from Smithfield to Chater Garden. If you take a bus at the peak hour in the morning, the journey takes 40 minutes. Ridiculous indeed. The extension line is of course very welcome by the residents. And District Councilors busy themselves with claiming credit of solving traffic congestion problem.
I, on one hand, applaud to the work plan, because rail traffic is fast, efficient and environmental friendly. But we have to proceed cautiously with the social impact brought about by this significant improvement in transportation.
In 2005, the Hongkong University published a study on the construction of extension line to the Southern and Western part of the Island. It forecasts that the rail line would enhance economic activities in both districts, when quantified, it means 45 billions. Half of it comes from the estates property market. When traffic is convenient, demand of residential units rises.
Who gain benefits from the market? Owners of old buildings who sell their flats to developers at re-development price will be happy with an expected small fortune. As reported on Mingpao today, 95 % of a ten-storey building on Caine Road was bought over by developer at an average price of 8 millions for a 600 sq ft apartment. The 9000 sq ft plot will return a total saleable floor area of 87,000 sq ft., approx. 3.3 times of the original. So it is a win-win deal for both parties. Similar transaction is going on in Kennedy Town.
But why are we worried about this if everybody is better off with re-development and land is more efficiently utilized? It is because some people will pay the price, whether in cash or in kind. They are tenants of the old building. They will foot a substantial portion of the bill.
According to the Census in 2000, there are 2,699 households in Kennedy Town live in private housing with a monthly rental below 3,999.- Most of the flats are in old buildings with 4 to 10 storey, i.e., of high re-development value. Rents were increased sharply in the past 8 months. First, the owner wants to get rid of the tenants so that they could sell their property fast to developers. Second, when supply falls short, price increases. Some households have to pay 2,000.- more for monthly rental after MTR announced the work plan. Those, who could afford, stay in the district. Or those who work locally with odd working hours, e.g., people in the food and beverage industry, stay. When the rental increase goes beyond the capacity of the tenants, they have to move to farther off areas for cheaper housing. And they have two choices to manage their household budget, first, ask for an increase in salaries to cover the bus fares, or cut expenses in cultural and educational activities; second, when the salaries doesn't pay for the traffic and meals expenses, they turn social securities recipients. There is a rippling effect that eventually brings the costs back to the community. Consumers will have to pay a higher price for the goods and services in the district, and taxpayers have to bear a bigger social securities bill.
So much for the working population. As for the retired elderly, when they move away from the sons and daughters still living in the district. They are cut off from family support. Whatever services required from the Social Welfare Department for these elderly are funded by the Treasury, and eventually come back to the taxpayers. And for the residents in Kennedy Town, they spend one extra hour on transportation right now, but they might have to work 2 hours extra to earn more money for the rental increase. Worse, they still have to spend the same amount of time of commuting because they have to move to Tuen Mun and spend one thousand extra on traffic expenses.
I will not oppose to the MTR extension line because of these social impacts, but I definitely want our government to do a better job to prevent the loss on the grass root by helping them to cope with market force in urban renewal, and therefore, have the best of rail transportation, urban renewal and affordable costs of living in the district. It is not only transportation policy and economic development brought forth by the extension, it is also housing policy, street economy and employment opportunities we have to study carefully.
The Administration should take no loss of time to build a public housing estate to accommodate the cheap labour force in the district, and to keep the elderly close to the younger family members to maintain the social network. There are lands available from Kennedy Town, e.g., the unoccupied police quarter, the long demolished Kung Mun Village and lands further down Mt. Davis. And we should consider to re-build the Western District Estate, which is almost 40 years old and plot ratio not fully utilized. Average subsidized housing unit costs 280K, that is approximately three years’ social securities payment for a family of three, not to mention the staff costs incurred in the delivery of services. It is costs effective and humane for the Administration to help the grass root with affordable housing. On the other hand, it helps to free more old buildings for urban renewal geared by the private sector.
Increase in figures and statistics of economic development is not good enough if it causes structural poverty and further disparity. We cannot ignore the aggravation for the underprivileged, for a social problem will be borne collectively by the community. Conservation and development are not natural enemies as the Chief Executive put one against the other. Let us take one step backward to widen the scope, and we will see the latent problems that could come with development and find an early solution to sustain the physical and social environment.
posted by cyd at 5:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home