Page 94 of 194
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
As there is little need, Mr. Chairman, for me to wax eloquent on the subject but to seek your support, I conclude by formally moving the motion that stands in my name.
MR. K. A. WATSON: -Mr. Chairman, may I routinely beg to second this motion.
MR. A. de O. SALES: -Mr. Chairman, may I support Dr. LEE'S motion and hope that he will not misconstrue my reason for doing so, as he did the last time when I stood up to lend my hearty support to one of his routine motions, as he so aptly puts it. There is no sinister design when I ask whether in fact this is not perhaps the most expensive latrine in the world. (Laughter). I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps consideration should have been given to the use of this space for some other public purpose. I suggest too that there is already a public latrine nearby, and I presume that there must also be similar facilities in the Garden Road Multi-storey Car Park. Be that as it may, the public can always have recourse to our dear friend Hilton's Hotel which is nearby. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, as this is only a "routine motion", I would like to support it.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: -Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. SALES whether that is a routine statement on a routine motion?
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, may I answer that? I have always been under the impression that August is a close season for members of the Urban Services Department. This year's great number of questions have given the lie to that impression. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the open season when Official Members of this Council are fair game to Unofficials has not yet started. But, as this is in fact a "routine question" by Mr. CHEONG-LEEN, I trust that my reply has been both unusual and Machiavellian in concept.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-I may be forgiven then, Mr. Chairman, if I ask you to interpret it just to disappoint Mr. SALES. (Laughter).
MR. K. S. Lo:-Mr. Chairman, I have nothing against the motion, but since the Order relates directly to the public latrine in Beaconsfield House, I would like to question the desirability of having a public latrine in such a place.
As Members are aware, this new public latrine is situated right in the heart of the banking district with its doors opening out to Queen's Road, Central; one wonders whether it is in keeping with good taste to have such a private need in such a public place.
I am rather surprised that the Bank opposite and the Hotel adjacent to Beaconsfield House have not yet sent in their protest on this public latrine.
MR. SALES has pointed out how valuable this piece of property is. I am told that the ground floor shop space at the adjacent Hotel fetches $20 per sq. ft. per month. I have no idea how much space this new public latrine occupies, but assuming that it is in the vicinity of 550 sq. ft., then it is worth $11,000 in revenue per month. Again, assuming there are a hundred people making use of it per day, it would mean that for each convenience provided, it costs the taxpayers $3.66, representing a loss in revenue in return for a gross receipt of 10 cents.
I would strongly urge the Government to put this piece of property to a better use. If a public latrine in that locality is absolutely necessary, then I would suggest that it be removed to the backyard of Beaconsfield House facing the car park.
MR. BERNACCHI:-In reply to Mr. Lo, surely the public have indeed a need for a private place in a public and business centre.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken yet. (Laughter).
CHAIRMAN: --Mr. CHEONG-LEEN, this is the third time you have spoken. (Laughter).
MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN:-With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I was simply seeking clarification from Mr. SALES. I do wish to make a point on what Mr. Lo has said. About two or three months ago I spoke with the Secretary, Urban Council, concerning the extent to which the Beaconsfield latrine had been patronized by the public, and if my memory serves me correctly, he said that at that time there was not much patronage, but the Department was watching the situation closely and that the matter would come up for review in another few months. It means, of course, that if within another few months the latrine were to continue to be not so popular, then a recommendation would be made either to remove the latrine somewhere else or to pull it down. I personally feel that after spending all that money in building this first-class latrine next to a first-class hotel, we should not do away with it just like that. There is a possibility that the area will be built up. The Cricket Club might go. There will be more people. The population will increase and the latrine will become more popular. So let us wait another few months before we come to see what to do with the latrine.
MR. WATSON:-Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of clarification or explanation. Perhaps the reason for the small amount of use of this latrine is the fact that for many months now there has been a notice across both doors saying "Not In Use”. (Laughter).
170
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
171