TNAG-1575-FCO40-2148-Housing-in-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 8

(1)

(2)

value, which

are

The adoption of the two criteria for setting rent, i.e. affordability

affordability and estate. considered vague and

unscientific, and not as

reliable as a cost-related formula.

median rent-income ratio to new estates is too high. hardship for those households

The adoption of 15% median set the rent level of

This may create

whose actual income is below the median and yet It is claimed they

of their income more or

above Public Assistance Level.

may have to pay 25%

rent.

as

(3)

Tenants

recurrent

be should

responsible

for

capital

and

cost of

their

own

estates,

but not

These

future estates, thus they should not be asked to pay a surplus big enough to offset future capital outlay of the Authority.

altogether

groundless,

and deserve

However the

not are arguments careful consideration by the Housing Authority. median rent-income ratio already stood at 12.4% for households rehoused in 85/86 and the rejection rate

actual

levels.

indicates experience

general

has been 18. This

present acceptability of

I do not wish to get into the philosophical arguments a 15% rent-income ratio acceptable. raised. I personally find

the Public However I do accept households immediately above Assistance Level earning income at the lower end of the scale may encounter difficulty. I do therefore see some merit in setting

aside

of low-rent flats within a limited number

cater for this

to

especially when special group,

an estate redevelopment

reduces older low-rent flats.