TNAG-1510-FCO40-2068-Hong-Kong-roads-and-traffic-legislation-1986 — Page 35

-4-

When we first saw the Government Gazette, we wrote to your

office on 9th July, 1984 listing our grounds of objection. Later we

received a letter from your office on 22nd August, 1984 mentioning

that a meeting was held on 22nd August, `1984 and the footbridge facility

as shown in the plan had been amended. On 21st January, 1985 we again wrote

in with our grounds of objection. However, we got your further letter

dated 25th January, 1985 stating that the footbridge plan would be

amended and our property might perhaps not be affected. Later we again

received your letter dated 12th September, 1985 repeating the change of the

plan and declaring that all our objections and claims would become null

and void. Giving such empty and wishful - thinking reply is an irreponsible

attitude totally ignoring the rights of citizens.

The meeting held on the 3rd instant in conjunction with the

Highways Division, the Lands Department, the District Office and the

traffic section of the Transport Department was to discuss the construction

of a footbridge at Percival Street. We felt equally disappointed at the

meeting. Since apart from making some explanations and suggesting us to

write to the Goverment again to express our views, no conclusion was

made at the meeting. In a bid to deny our objections and rights of

compensation, the representative of the Lands Department, in particular,

still maintained that the construction of a footbridge there would have

good effects on our property and business. It is just using lame

arguments. As we all know, the Government has got professional survey

and evaluation department. It will never fail to assess if the construction

of the footbridge will be favourable or unfavourable to our property and

business.

?

15..