Extract from the "Daily Press" of 9th June 1897.
THE SALE OF THE MOUNT AUSTIN HOTEL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS.” SIR,-I was somewhat surprised to learn from your columns that at a private meeting on Saturday it was decided by those present to memorialise the Government on the sale of the Mount Austin Hotel to the Military authorities, with a view to ascertaining whether it be possible to buy back the building for the use of the civilian population. I say that I was surprised, because I should have thought the first step in this direction would have been to ascertain whether those interested are ready to plank down the necessary funds. Without first being assured on this head, I imagine the Government would not feel justified in taking any action whatever.
The sale of the Hotel is without doubt a serious blow to those residents who, benefiting by the misfortunes of the shareholders and debenture holders of the Mount Austin Hotel Company Limited, have been able to enjoy the winter below and the summer above, at prices unobtainable in good hotels in other parts of the world. The handful of boarders who have lived there all the year round have done so because they found it cheaper than taking a house of their own. These are the people who, like spoilt children, are scolding the Military authorities for having made a good bargain, and now that the reality of the sale is brought home to them are crying out at the injustice of the transaction and making statements which are quite unwarranted by the facts.
It has been asserted by some of those interested that the sale was effected suddenly and with undue secrecy. This is nonsense, and it is also incorrect. Is it likely that the owners of the property would go into the street and announce that they were in treaty with the War Office for the acquisition by the latter of the Hotel? Naturally, they remained discreetly silent about their own business, knowing that to talk about the matter would probably prejudice the bargain. It is not to be supposed that a firm having large dealings in landed property would not know whether it was their interest or not to sell the place to the War Department. They had had some little experience of the public in the matter. The Hotel had previously been offered for sale, once before to the Military Authorities and once to the Hongkong Hotel Company, at a price to the latter (including the furniture) considerably below the sum at length realised. If I am not mistaken, too, Mr. Humphreys had gone into the question of forming another limited liability concern to take over...
The fate of the two companies interested in Peak hotels no doubt helped to deter him from this experiment. The investing public have not yet forgotten how the shareholders and debenture holders in those concerns fared. They are likely, I think, to again subscribe capital to continue the provision of luxurious homes either for cheap boarders or for wealthy residents who wish to reside at the Peak during the hot months, largely at the expense of proprietors.
For this is what it comes to. If the Military Authorities were to consent to the prayer of the suggested memorial, they would not be prepared to do so without being provided with a fair quid pro quo. An equally large and commodious building erected, say, on Mount Cameron, would certainly not cost less than $100,000, probably $500,000, and the necessary roads and drains giving access to it would absorb another $100,000. Taking it, however, at the lower figure, $500,000 would have to be subscribed to run an establishment on philanthropic lines, for if business rates were demanded from boarders, the tariff would necessarily be prohibitive to a large proportion of them.
It is well known that large boarding houses (and the Mount Austin really fell under that category) rarely or never pay, the exceptions being when personally managed by some exceptionally thrifty and eagle-eyed proprietor. The hotels that pay well are those enjoying a large transient traffic, with a well-frequented bar, and a range of shops or offices on the ground floor yielding good rents. The Hotels at the Peak cannot have these advantages, and in order that they should be able to pay their way, they must be able to considerably augment their rates and keep no empty rooms. Even under those conditions, there would not be, as the phrase goes, "much money in it."
Since the time the hotels at the Peak were erected and the terrace called Mountain View was sold by auction at a loss on the cost of erection of $100,000, there have been many new arrivals in the colony. Some of these griffins may cherish the delusion that a fine property has been lost to investors. Let them rest assured that if there had been the faintest chance of the Mount Austin Hotel turning out a bonanza, neither Messrs. Humphreys & Son nor the Hongkong Hotel Co. would have missed the opportunity.
Yours faithfully,
INVESTOR.
Hongkong, 8th June, 1897.
221
SubSon
Extact from the "Daily Press of 9th June 1897.
THE SALE OF THE MOUNT AUSTIN
... a' %
HOTEL. **
TO THE EDITOR OF THE "DAILY PRESS.” SIR,-I was somewhat surprised to learn from your columns that at a private meeting on Saturday it was decided by those present to memorialise the Government on the sale of the Mount Austin Hotel to the Military authorities, with a view to ascertaining whether it be possible to buy back the building for the use of the civilian population. I say that I was surprised, because I should have thought the Brst step in this direction would have been to ascertain whether those interested are ready to plank down the necessary funds. Without first being assured on this head, I imagine the Government would not feel justified in taking any action whatever.
The sale of the Hotel is without doubt a serious blow to those residents who, benefitting by the misfortunes of the shareholders and de- benture holders of the Mount Austin Hotel Company Limited, have been able to enjoy the winter below. and the summer above, at prices unobtainable in good hotels in other parts of the world. The handful of boarders who have lived there all the year round have done so be. cause they found it cheaper than taking a honse of their own. These are the people who, like spoilt children, are scolding the Military author- ifies for having made a good bargain, and now that the reality of the sale is brought home to them are crying out at the injustice of the transaction and making statements which are quite unwarranted by the facts.
It has been asserted by some of those inter- ested that the sale was effected suddenly and with nadus secrecy. This is nonsense, and it is also incorrect. Is it likely that the owners of the property would go into the street and announce that they were in treaty with the War Office for the scquisition by the latter of the Hotel? Naturally they remained discreetly silent about their own business, knowing that to talk about the matter would probably pre- judice the bargain. It is not to be supposed that a firm having large dealings in landed property would not know whether it was their interest or not to sell the place to the War Department. They had had some little experience of the publio in the matter. The Hotel had previously been offered for sale, onee before to the Military Authorities and once to the Hongkong Hotel Company, at a price to the latter (including the farniture) considerably below the sun at length realised. If I am not mistaken, too, Mr. Humphreys had gone into the question of forming another limited liability
it to take
The fate the two companies interested in Peak hotels no- doubt helped to deter him from this experiment. The investing public have not yet forgotten how the shareholders and debenture holders in
concern
over,
of
those sonsarus farat. They eye and likely. 2 think, to again subsoribe capital to continue the provision of luxurious homes either for cheap boarders or for wealthy residents who wish to reside at the Peak during the hot months, largely at the expense of proprietors.
For this is what it comes to. If the Military Authorities were to consent to the prayer of the suggested memorial, they would not be prepared to do so without being provided with a fair guid pro quo. An equally large and commodious building erected, say, on Mount Cameron, would certainly not cost less than $100,000, probably $500,000, and the necessary roads and drains giving access to it would absorb another $100,000. Taking it, however, at the lower figure, $500,000 would have to be subscribed to ran an establishment on philanthropic lines, for if business rates were demanded from boarders, the tariff would necessarily be prohib. itive to a large proportion of them.
It is well known that large boarding houses (and the Mount Austin really fell under that category) rarely or never pay, the exceptions being when personally managed by some ex. ceptionally thrifty and argue-eyed proprietor. The hotels that pay well are those enjoying a large transient traffic, with a well frequented bar, and a range of shops or offices on ground floor yielding good rents. The Hotels at the Foak cannot have these advantages, and in order that they should be able to pay their way they must be able to considerably augment their rates and keep no empty rooms. Even under those conditions there would not be, as the phrase goes," much money in it."
Since the time the hotels at the Peak were erected and the terrace called Mountain View was sold by auction at a loss on the cost of erection of $100,000, there have been many now arrivals in the colony. Some of these griffins may cherish the delusion that a fine property has been lost to investors. Let them rest assured that if there had been the faintest chance of the Mount Austin Hotel turning out a bonanza neither Messrs. Humphreys & Son nor the Hongkong Hotel Co, would have missed the opportunity,
rear-faithfullymore
INVESTOR.
Hongkong, 8th June, 1897.
221
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.