860
decided Was
is one which I respectfully submit is the one which should guide this Connoil in its deber. minations. I would respectfully urge you to accept it. This is not an idea which I have just evolved. It was considered by the Government in 1903. It was fully discused then and it
that from the point of view of safety of the buildings it would not be wise to adopt the scheme of pulling down every third house for a portion of its height. It was determined then that the only proper scheme if we could afford it was resumption en bloc, but that as often occurs here was prevented by lack of money. We could not do what we ought properly to do and then this suggestion was made by which we would attempt to do improperly that which if done at all should bs done properly. The general public cannot afford it and the reasons which existed in 1903 which induced the Government not to proceed with the scheme exist to-day and the Government ought not to adopt the alternative suggestion
now.
ад
has been pointed out by the honourable member who represents the Chamber of Commerce the primary object of the scheme is to introduce sani- tary improvement but it will not make a sanitary improvement if in pulling down every third house you create a sink between the remaining houses. As the honourable member has pointed out the result of this soheme would be to make a well between adjacent houses. In these houses it is proposed to insert windowS Out of these windows I venture to prophecy if the Bill is passed as it stands there will be projected all sorts of rabbish upon the build ing below. Sir, that is not sanitary improve ment. Sir, it was only yesterday that I attended a meeting for the purpose of discussing this Bill with others. By chance one of us looked out of the window. There was, Sir, a courtyard. and in it a building with a flat roof, that was covered more or less with refuse thrown from windows of adjacent houses. This was not in the Chinese quarter but in Queen's Road Central. Therefore it seems that you will not altogether effect your object of sanitary reform by demo- lishing every third house. I do not think it can be regarded as a sanitary improvement. Then if you have a flat roof you will find it is bound to leak. I don't know whether the Director of Public Works can give me instance of a flat roof that does not leak. On the other hand if you put up a pitch roof you are bound to have gutters between the adjacent houses becoming blooked. Now we come to the structural objection taken by Mr. Ram, that is that the result of this scheme will be to weaken the adjacent buildings. You must remember that the houses were built in a row and were never meant to stand alone. They all lean one against another. If you pull down every third house you will make that which was a party wall into an external wall and of course a party wall will not fulfil the purpose of an external wall, the result will be that in many cases you have to build up external walls. You weaken every third house. That is the primary objection. Then you come to the question raised by the honourable member who represents the Chamber of Commerce that this proposal entails a charge upon property. From the point of view of owners of property it will not be an improvement, and from the point of view of the Bill, if it passes, it will be an improvement. That improvement is to be charge upon those who in the words of this section have had in the opinion of the Governor in Council their properties benefited by such works, I pause for a moment to say that that is rather nothing to indicate what you mean by the owners of adjacent houses, whether those immediately adjacent or what? The knowledge of the uncertainty which this arrangement creates, the feeling of uneasiness which it will cause among owners of property and investors is also serious objection. They will never know when at the will of the Governor in Council, moved by the Medical Oloer of Health, a charge will not be made upon their property. This feeling of unrest will exist in the minds of those who have money to invest in mortgages and in house property. In this case I hope that the Govern- ment will not oppose this amendment because I take it that those who passed the resolution
vague.
There ig
ย
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
recommending the present legislation included several who have since seen reason to change their opinion, with the possible exception of the Director of Public Works. Mr. Ram was always against it, I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment on three grounds.❘ The first is that the proposed scheme will be non- effective, will not affect any sanitary improve- | ment; the second is the great cost that it will entail, and the third is the liability to destroy the confidence of investors in property.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-8ir, Your Excellency has referred, as I gathered, to this particular section as the outcome of my resolution, but I desire to disclaim having been the originator of any such clause as that now before the Council. My suggestion was that if such a scheme as this were carried out-which I think from an ideal point of view must be admitted is a good scheme-the Government should bear a con- siderable part of the cost, and that a loan should be raised for that purpose. There is no doubt that considerable expense would be past, as has been pointed out by the mover and seconder of the amendment,upon the owners of the adjoining houses in order to make their property structur ally safe. The party wall will be weakened, especially if lateral windows are inserted in that wall, and I desire to say that this scheme as now drawn up is not a scheme such as I suggested. It does not include the financial provision which I proposed in the Council last year.
The DIRECTOR of PUBLIC WORKS-The remarks which have fallen from Sir Henry Berkeley are such as to give the impression that I vetoed this proposition when it came before the Council in 1903, by stating that the scheme would not be a safe one to adopt. I would state, Sir, that I made no such state ment before the Council. The opposition to the scheme, came from a different quarter. I think, Sir, it is not necessary for me to follow the arguments brought against the scheme, but I quite recognise that in some cases it would be necessary to carry out some works to strengthen the walls if this scheme were carried out. Generally speaking, there would be many houses which would require noleuoh additional strengthening.
(June 8, 1908. provements under this motion. It seemed to the Government so extremely favourable. I think. Sir that hon. members ought to further conside, the section. I don't believe they realise that all the compensation falls on the Government and that only the cost of the minor works falls on the property owners. I don't believe they have calculated the enormous improvement to the to the increased number of property due inhabitants that the remaining houses will oarry. I don't believe they have looked round the colony to see whether any ventura oma person has had the braveness to build such improved houses. If they considered the im- provement they might alter their views.
Hon. Mr. STEWART-If it were such a favourable scheme isa't it strange that none of the property owners have tried it on their own initiative ? (Sir Henry Berkeley-Hear, bear).
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-You are only providing the opportunity now by this Bill.
Hon. Mr. STEWART-Ïf it were so favourable they should not need to wait.
They would do it themselves.
HIS EXCELLENCY-Very often the various houses in a block are not under the same ownership. Where three houses belong to three differen towners the Government must intervene.
Hon. Mr. STEWART-If the property was made more valuable you would imagine that people would do it for themselves.
His EXCELLENCY-Very possibly they will now that Govern ment offers to bear the whole
compensation for the demotished house.
Hon. Mr, ST✩WART—It brings an element of uncertainty into the title.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-Let me correct you. Until the amendment of section 46 of the Principal Ordinance becomes law the property owner has no inducement tɔ pull down every third house. As the law stands a floor without subicles does not gain any advantage over a floor with cubicles Section 11 is inserted in order to induce people to adopt this scheme. Hitherto property
have had no inducement.
Hon. Dr. Ho KAI-This will assist the The Government never promised to
owners.
owners
Hon. Mr. STEWART-Dɔ you not see any point in this argument as to the element of un- certainty ? Is there no force in it?
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-At the present moment you are liable to have your property resumed.
Hoo, Mr. STEWART-In that case you know where you are.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY— Under this scheme on due cause being shown you are liable to have a rotten property improved at the publio expense and handed back to you a good property.
Hon. Mr. SraWART-Supposing there is a doubt as to the stability of the party walls?
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-You must give credit to the Director of Public Works not to build a wall or leave a house so that the first typhoon will blow it down,
Hon. Mr. STEWART-Many houses have fallen down.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-The hon, mem- bers who have supported the amendment have entirely left out of calculation the improve-assist before. ment to the remaining houses. The provision made in this Bill for allowing rooms that do not contain cubicles to be occupied in the proportion of one adult to every 30 square feet of floor space and 300 cubic fest of air space means that a far larger number of people can be accommodated in the improved houses. Calculations have been made and it can be shown that two houses will contain under this provision more people than in the old ones. It is not clear whether hon. members who have criticised this section have read it they would have realised that aright or the Government propose to baar by far the larger proportion of the cost, and that the entire cost of the resumption and demolition of the third house will fall upon the Government, It is only the cost of the works in rendering the remaining bouses habitable, propping the walls and inserting windows, that will fall upon the owners. Sir, the Government pay the compensation and the owner obtains a vast im- provement in his property, a small expense. A lurid picture has been drawn of the nuisance of flat roofs between the houses, but I would ask whether hon. members have seen some of the specimens of the houses which exist in the Colony? The Cubicle Committee, under my personal guidance, visited such houses and were very much impressed by them. The Government, Sir, thought that property owners, when they read that they had only to bear a very minor part of the cost of the works, instead of being charged with the cost of the resumption of every third house, would have been so anxious to obtain the benefits of this section that the section was amended by substituting the words "Medical Officer of Health" for "the Sanitary Board." The Board has an unofficial majority and that majority--I won't say it represents the property owners-has a very large element in sympathy with property owners. Sir, I frankly confess that I, for one, thought that if the initiative of the scheme was left to the Sanitary Board the Government would be deluged with applications for carrying out im-
The COLONIAL SECRET BY -None, Sir, that have been built by the Public Works Depart- ment. Many have been blown down, but these were not built by the Director of Public Works.
Hoa, Sir HENRY BORKELEY-How does the Colonial Secretary account for the unanimous objection shown by property owners to the clause P
The COLONIAL SECRETARY—My answer is that property owners have not understood it.
Hoo. Sir HENRY BERKELEY-Speaking from-
The COLONIAL SecretarY-I had the big- gest property owner in the Colony in my office the other day. He had just come from a meeting where they had discussed this olsuse, yet he was ignorant of the fact, which I have bee i trying to make clear that the Government, and not are going to bear the coat the owners, of the resumption and compensation. He spoke against the clause but he showed he did All I ask is that hon. not understand it. members should sleep over this clause.
Hon. Sir Henry BerkaLEY-You mean postpone consideration until next meeting ?
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-Yes.