Page 99 of 117
182
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
As regards charges, if I may express a personal view, I do feel that no new facts have yet been presented by the mover or seconder of this motion which should be regarded as a sufficient basis for a re-examination of the actual scale of charges. It is, however, a matter for the Committee and I am sure we can leave it in their capable hands. I am sure they will pay the fullest attention to the facts which Mr. Bernacchi has brought out.
There is one other way of looking at it, and this was the subject of requests for information made to me independently by two members by telephone yesterday; this is the question of the cost of the park and the economics of this scheme. As a result of these requests we have had some quick calculations made. I should first say, before reporting their result, that I think they show mainly that this kind of approach is not very helpful in this context. We first approached it rather as we would approach a resettlement costing calculation, with which most members are by now familiar. The price of the land, of course, is a difficult factor, but we applied a figure which is well below half the estimated market price, as we would in the case of resettlement buildings. Taking an interest rate of 5 per cent we were then in a difficulty in calculating the period of amortiza-tion, in that it appears to be difficult to find compound interest tables which extend for more than 100 years. The figure is believed to be in the region of 150 years but compound interest operates oddly over these very long periods, and it may well be more than that. Taking a rather more realistic point of view, and leaving the cost of land out of accounts altogether, and making reasonable assumptions as to usage and so forth, it appears that on the basis of the present charges the building will pay for itself in a little under 20 years—something between 19 and 20. If members are interested in the calculations supporting these figures they can be laid before the Select Committee concerned. Finally, I should emphasize the fact that the question immediately before Council is simply the reference of these matters back to the Select Committee, without prejudice to the outcome.
MR. BERNACCHI :—Mr. Chairman, I will say a very few more words. I think I agree with you that it does not serve a very useful purpose to attempt to amortize because of course you are dealing with a decision to build a car park on what is a very valuable piece of land in the heart of the central district. If of course one does leave out the land altogether then you do lay yourself open to criticism that the normal period for Government buildings is more usually taken at nearer 40 years than 20 years and on that basis you could at once cut all the charges by half. But I think myself that the practical approach is the question of the service to the public, and I think if you reduced rates it still would not be a continuing burden to the taxpayer in any way. In that respect perhaps we would all appreciate expressions of public view and may I comment in passing that one of the best places in Hong Kong where that does get expressed is in the correspondence columns of the newspapers. I must say that we all give consideration to expressions of view by the public and I hope that these discussions today, this debate today, may now serve the purpose of enabling representations to be made by members of the public to the Council, one way or another, in respect to the various matters that I have raised.
I am afraid I do not agree with you, Mr. Chairman, when you say that no facts have been brought up in support of a reduction. I do feel very strongly that $60 a month is a heavy burden to the man with a relatively small income. But again, that is a matter for the Select Committee and with these words I am happy to leave the matter to the Council.
The question was put.
The Motion was carried unanimously.
THE CHAIRMAN moved :
"That the Hawkers (Amendment) By-laws, 1958, be made under Section 2 of the Hawkers Ordinance (Chapter 157.)"
He said:
in my name.
Gentlemen, I rise to move the motion standing
As members will recall the purpose of the Hawkers (Amend-ment) (No. 3) By-laws, 1957, was to enable Council to amend the lists of streets prohibited to hawkers without the enactment of formal by-laws on each occasion. Unfortunately I am now advised by the Attorney-General that doubt exists whether the exercise of the powers which those By-laws purported to confer would not be in conflict with the provisions of Section 3 of the
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
183
Page 99 of 115
1.15
Page 99 of 117
182
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
As regards charges, if I may express a personal view, I do feel that no new facts have yet been presented by the mover or seconder of this motion which should be regarded as a sufficient basis for a re-examination of the actual scale of charges. It is, however, a matter for the Committee and I am sure we can leave it in their capable hands. I am sure they will pay the fullest attention to the facts which Mr. Bernacchi has brought out.
There is one other way of looking at it, and this was the subject of requests for information made to me independently by two members by telephone yesterday; this is the question of the cost of the park and the economics of this scheme. As a result of these requests we have had some quick calculations made. I should first say, before reporting their result, that I think they show mainly that this kind of approach is not very helpful in this context. We first approached it rather as we would approach a resettlement costing calculation, with which most members are by now familiar. The price of the land, of course, is a difficult factor, but we applied a figure which is well below half the estimated market price, as we would in the case of resettlement buildings. Taking an interest rate of 5 per cent we were then in a difficulty in calculating the period of amortiza- tion, in that it appears to be difficult to find compound interest tables which extend for more than 100 years. The figure is believed to be in the region of 150 years but compound interest operates oddly over these very long periods, and it may well be more than that. Taking a rather more realistic point of view, and leaving the cost of land out of accounts altogether, and making reasonable assumptions as to usage and so forth, it appears that on the basis of the present charges the building will pay for itself in a little under 20 years something between 19 and 20. If members are interested in the calculations support- ing these figures they can be laid before the Select Committee concerned. Finally, I should emphasize the fact that the question immediately before Council is simply the reference of these matters back to the Select Committee, without prejudice to the
outcome.
MR. BERNACCHI :—Mr. Chairman, I will say a very few more words. I think I agree with you that it does not serve a very useful purpose to attempt to amortize because of course you are dealing with a decision to build a car park on what is a very valuable piece of land in the heart of the central district. If of
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
183
course one does leave out the land altogether then you do lay yourself open to criticism that the normal period for Government buildings is more usually taken at nearer 40 years than 20 years and on that basis you could at once cut all the charges by half. But I think myself that the practical approach is the question of the service to the public, and I think if you reduced rates it still would not be a continuing burden to the taxpayer in any way. In that respect perhaps we would all appreciate expressions of public view and may I comment in passing that one of the best places in Hong Kong where that does get expressed is in the correspondence columns of the newspapers. I must say that we all give consideration to expressions of view by the public and I hope that these discussions today, this debate today, may now serve the purpose of enabling representations to be made by mem- bers of the public to the Council, one way or another, in respect to the various matters that I have raised.
I am afraid I do not agree with you, Mr. Chairman, when you say that no facts have been brought up in support of a reduction. I do feel very strongly that $60 a month is a heavy burden to the man with a relatively small income. But again, that is a matter for the Select Committee and with these words I am happy to leave the matter to the Council.
The question was put.
The Motion was carried unanimously.
THE CHAIRMAN moved :
"That the Hawkers (Amendment) By-laws, 1958, be made under Section 2 of the Hawkers Ordinance (Chapter 157.)"
He said:
in my name.
Gentlemen, I rise to move the motion standing
As members will recall the purpose of the Hawkers (Amend- ment) (No. 3) By-laws, 1957, was to enable Council to amend the lists of streets prohibited to hawkers without the enactment of formal by-laws on each occasion. Unfortunately I am now advised by the Attorney-General that doubt exists whether the exercise of the powers which those By-laws purported to confer would not be in conflict with the provisions of Section 3 of the
Page 99 of 115
J
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.