per foot, even though the market value of the land
be
The
prior to resumption several times that figure. figure is arrived at by taking the annual value of the crop that the land would produce if it were used for purely agricultural purposes, and capitalising it, and the amount arrived at is considered sufficient compen-
sation on the ground that the owners are entitled to
and cannot use the land for agricultural purposes only, claim any compensation in respect of its potential or
prospective value as building land.
In reply to this the Governor hints that the moving spirits in this agitation are speculators who foresaw the land boom and bought with the object of making a good bit when the land was resumed, but who have been defeated by the Arbitration Boards; and he explains that where no conversion has taken place or
been applied for, or where it has been applied for solely in anticipation of resumption for development, the Government declines to pay more than "the very full
value of the land when devoted to the purpose for
which it is in fact used." Of course one has no
gympathy with the speculator who knows the risk he
but even in his case it is not alleged that he bought cheaply (see paragraph 10 of the memorial where
it is stated that some of these speculators had been
awarded only a fraction of what they actually paid for the lots), and it must be particularly galling for a
man to find that the Government makes a profit out of the business, while he, the holder of the land, gets nothing or is even out of pocket,
runs,
But there are others besides the speculators who
are concerned, for the Governor admits, in paragraph
unea jules 13 of his despatch that considerable mesesses exists
!
4
among the peasantry of the New Territories who fear
a general confiscation on the part of the Government.
Here I think the Governor has not supplied sufficient
information. He does not deny the 5 cents per foot
maximum award, (he ignores the statement altogether)
but merely says that not more than the very full
value of the land when devoted to its proper purpose
(agriculture) is given. This is not sufficient to
enable the Secretary of State to judge whether awards
generally are adequate. It must be admitted that
the value of agricultural land of equal fertility
varies according to locality: e.g. all other things
being equal, a purely agricultural area near to a
centre of population or to good means of communica-
tion will obviously be worth more than one more
remote: and it might well be that the maximum of
5 cents per foot (if this is indeed the maximum
awarded) would be quite inadequate. We can leave out
of consideration the speculator, but what about the
holder of agricultural land who has not applied for
conversion, does not wish to be transplanted else-
where, and who finds his land resumed by the Govern-
ment at a price less than he could have got for it
in the open market even as purely agricultural land ?
Arrangements may of course be made to meet such cases,
but the Governor does not say so.
The request in paragraph 19 of the memorial that
Government should resume only that part of the land
required for roads and make the roads, and grant the
holders the balance of the land with a licence to
build, need not be considered seriously on account
of ita extravagance.
am ong
It