Page 20 of 279
J
18
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN: —I apologize, Sir.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: -No offence is meant, Mr. Chairman, but I am simply drawing your attention to Standing Orders. Mr. Chairman, you have circulated, so very kindly to Members, Committee Paper (CW3/66), and in reference to Dr. LEE's question on page 7 of this paper, Government gives a breakdown of the costing. Mr. Chairman could you ask Government whether the principle is correct that it should consider car parks as of utility purpose instead of amenity purpose? After all, public utilities in Hong Kong make money and amenities such as car parks, recreation centres and the City Hall are not supposed to make money. They are amenities, and if the Government considers that public car parks are utilities and they are basing their costs in relation to utilities, then they are trying to fleece the public.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. CHEONG-LEEN, I must point out that you are not framing your remarks in the form of a question.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN: May I ask the question this way, Mr. Chairman? Is Government correct to establish its costing on car parks by basing its costs on land as if it were for a utility purpose?
The second supplementary question is this. Why did Government not consider it correct and proper to amortize the cost of the land on the same basis as it had decided to amortize the cost of building, which is spread over a period of 25 years at 6 per cent? In this instance, Mr. Chairman, Government has thought fit to establish two bases for amortization; for land on a 13-year renewable lease, which I consider is fleecing the public, and on the building, the amortization period is spread over 25 years at 6 per cent.
The third supplementary, Mr. Chairman. Does Government realize that based on their costings of $270 a month, per car park space, that you can get in the Housing Authority Low Cost Housing Estates in Choi Hung, for instance, three flats at $90 per flat, and each flat with an area of 220 square feet which can accommodate eight persons? In other words, for $270 you can get three flats for low cost housing for 24 persons. Now why on earth, Mr. Chairman, could you ask Government- why on earth did they want to set up a costing for just one small car park space at a rate of $270 per month? Surely there must be some- thing wrong with Government's costing, and perhaps on that basis they are estimating their cost for Star Ferry fares.
MR. BERNACCHI: If Mr. CHEONG-LEEN has finished his speech in the form of a supplementary question, I would like to ask a supplementary question myself. And that is: could arrangements be made for a cost control officer to be present at the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Whole Council when the question of parking fees is brought up, in accordance with my motion earlier this afternoon?
CHAIRMAN: I will endeavour to arrange that, Sir.
DR. BELL: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary question- again on the same lines as it was asked before, that if the Director of Public Works knows the answer could he answer it? It is really arising from this in a way. Is Government going to insist upon parking being correctly used-parking spaces built in multi-storey domestic blocks being correctly used in private buildings throughout the Colony? They were built quite some time ago but they have been incorrectly used, and this has caused this problem that we have in parking on the streets and in multi-storey car parks, where there isn't enough space. Is Government going to insist upon them being properly used in future?
CHAIRMAN: This is, I regret, Dr. BELL, an entirely new question.
(Laughter).
MR. SALES: Sir, isn't it the practice to be flexible as to Standing Orders when the female Members ask questions?
CHAIRMAN: I think, with respect, I have been very flexible so far. (Laughter).
MR. SALES: Sir, may I on behalf of the male Members of this Council congratulate you on your firmness. We lack the courage to be as firm as you. (Laughter).
DR. BELL: Mr. Chairman, in clarification, I don't think there is any firmness at all. I asked you if it were feasible for the question to be answered and you gave a perfectly correct answer; there was no necessity to be flexible. (Laughter).
(10) DR. R. H. S. LEE asked the following question: In view of the unfenced turfed traffic island between Castle Peak Road and Tai Po Road being badly trodden, has the Department considered fencing it and taking other measures to protect the grass and to improve its appearance as is the case with other protected traffic islands?
MR. A. de O. SALES, CHAIRMAN OF THE URBAN AMENITIES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows: The answer, Sir, to your question is "Yes". The Department has been in close touch with the Public Works Department...
Page 20
Page 21
279
Page 21 of