(1)
(2)
value, which
are
The adoption of the two criteria for setting rent, i.e. affordability
affordability and estate. considered vague and
unscientific, and not as
reliable as a cost-related formula.
median rent-income ratio to new estates is too high. hardship for those households
The adoption of 15% median set the rent level of
This may create
whose actual income is below the median and yet It is claimed they
of their income more or
above Public Assistance Level.
may have to pay 25%
rent.
as
(3)
Tenants
recurrent
be should
responsible
for
capital
and
cost of
their
own
estates,
but not
These
future estates, thus they should not be asked to pay a surplus big enough to offset future capital outlay of the Authority.
altogether
groundless,
and deserve
However the
not are arguments careful consideration by the Housing Authority. median rent-income ratio already stood at 12.4% for households rehoused in 85/86 and the rejection rate
actual
levels.
indicates experience
general
has been 18. This
present acceptability of
I do not wish to get into the philosophical arguments a 15% rent-income ratio acceptable. raised. I personally find
the Public However I do accept households immediately above Assistance Level earning income at the lower end of the scale may encounter difficulty. I do therefore see some merit in setting
aside
of low-rent flats within a limited number
cater for this
to
especially when special group,
an estate redevelopment
reduces older low-rent flats.