Page 147 of 206
272
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Iments I have referred to, there is no need to go further. Those who want more should look to commercial housing to meet their demands.
That a policy of this kind is desirable is not likely to be denied. As His Excellency said, the ills of the housing situation offend alike our humanity, our civic pride and our political good sense, and it will manifestly benefit the community to get rid of them.
What, however, will adoption of such a policy mean in practice? Let us consider the various aspects.
First of all, we must decide what standard of housing we are to set our sights on. I think that it should be such as to meet a person's reasonable requirements as regards space, facilities and environment. He should have a reasonable amount of living space, a proper supply of the utilities, and adequate bath and toilet facilities. Every estate should have an efficient rubbish disposal system, adequate market and shop facilities and reasonable park and playground amenities and recreational facilities both for children and for adults. Furthermore, a satisfactory level of internal security should be maintained. This means that the police force should be brought into planning at an early stage, so that there will not only be adequate preparation as regards physical facilities, but also adequate manpower preparations—something which has hitherto been notably lacking. With satisfactory security arrangements and the provision of good recreation facilities, we can look forward, not only to these estates becoming safer and happier places to live in, but also to halting and reversing the present alarming tendency for children in these estates to be drawn into uncontrolled gambling rackets at an early age. Lastly, there should be satisfactory employment opportunities and access to medical and educational facilities, community centres and the like. In a word, we should plan for townships, not dormitories.
Further, this standard of housing should be maintained in respect of each household despite internal family changes. This means the introduction of a more efficient method of administration as regards giving growing families larger quarters. It is entirely unsatisfactory that a number of families in some estates, having been reduced to something like 9 square feet per person, should be unable to obtain better accommodation unless they are willing to be broken up as families or removed to estates lacking in facilities and job opportunities. Government housing should help to preserve, not help to disintegrate, family unity. I am not persuaded by anything that has as yet been written that it is not administratively feasible to cater to growing families and I cannot but feel that the problem has been examined in too facile a manner and not in sufficient depth.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
273
I also consider that a more realistic standpoint should be adopted in regard to young people. I consider that all children, however young, should be given at least as much space as adults. I have 2 young children and frankly, despite my size I think they need more living space than I do. I think we all know that children need room to move about in and, in any event, will grow up, and the time has come for this to be formally recognized.
The second question that arises is: who may get Government housing. His Excellency has already spoken of building accommodation in a reasonable environment for every inhabitant of Hong Kong. Does this mean that the taxpayer is expected indefinitely to subsidize even well-off tenants in Government housing? On this point it has been suggested in the Legislative Council that tenants should be ejected after a period of, say, ten years. I am strongly against this. Much of the value of Government housing lies in the security attached to it, and it would be absurd for this security to be destroyed.
(Mr. B. A. BERNACCHI arrived at this point.)
This does not mean that I do not see the force of the objections raised against well-off people being subsidized for an indefinite period by the taxpayer. However, I feel that the answer to the problem is not to strike at security of tenancy, but to adopt a unified and realistic policy on costs and rentals.
At present costs and rentals in Housing Authority, low-cost housing and resettlement estates are all calculated on different bases, using different land cost, interest and amortization figures. There may well have been historical reasons for this, but these reasons are not valid today.
When I say that this unified policy should be realistic, I mean that it should be based on the principle that every new housing estate tenant should, to begin with, pay rent calculated on the basis of meeting the costs of the day-to-day maintenance and management of existing estates and the costs of renewing these estates in the future when renewal becomes necessary—or, to put it in the simplest manner, the costs of maintenance and depreciation.
Let me say at once that rentals so calculated would not be high. Indeed, as far as Housing Authority estates are concerned, they would be slightly lower than the rents now in force. Therefore they would clearly be well within the means of the great majority of tenants. A small minority would no doubt say they were unable to afford them. I believe that these people should be asked to seek assistance from the Social Welfare Department. If that Department were to ascertain that they were worthy of Government assistance, it would
Page 148 of 206
274
Page
Page 147 of 206
272
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Iments I have referred to, there is no need to go further. Those who want more should look to commercial housing to meet their demands.
That a policy of this kind is desirable is not likely to be denied. As His Excellency said, the ills of the housing situation offend alike our humanity, our civic pride and our political good sense, and it will manifestly benefit the community to get rid of them.
What, however, will adoption of such a policy mean in practice? Let us consider the various aspects.
First of all, we must decide what standard of housing we are to set our sights on. I think that it should be such as to meet a person's reasonable requirements as regards space, facilities and environment. He should have a reasonable amount of living space, a proper supply of the utilities, and adequate bath and toilet facilities. Every estate should have an efficient rubbish disposal system, adequate market and shop facilities and reasonable park and playground amenities and recreational facilities both for children and for adults. Further- more, a satisfactory level of internal security should be maintained. This means that the police force should be brought into planning at an early stage, so that there will not only be adequate preparation as regards physical facilities, but also adequate manpower preparations- something which has hitherto been notably lacking. With satisfactory security arrangements and the provision of good recreation facilities, we can look forward, not only to these estates becoming safer and happier places to live in, but also to halting and reversing the present alarming tendency for children in these estates to be drawn into un- controlled gambling rackets at an early age. Lastly, there should be satisfactory employment opportunities and access to medical and educational facilities, community centres and the like. In a word, we should plan for townships, not dormitories.
Further, this standard of housing should be maintained in respect of each household despite internal family changes. This means the introduction of a more efficient method of administration as regards giving growing families larger quarters. It is entirely unsatisfactory that a number of families in some estates, having been reduced to something like 9 square feet per person, should be unable to obtain better accommodation unless they are willing to be broken up as families or removed to estates lacking in facilities and job oppor- tunities. Government housing should help to preserve, not help to disintegrate, family unity. I am not persuaded by anything that has as yet been written that it is not administratively feasible to cater to growing families and I cannot but feel that the problem has been examined in too facile a manner and not in sufficient depth.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
273
I also consider that a more realistic standpoint should be adopted in regard to young people. I consider that all children, however young, should be given at least as much space as adults. I have 2 young children and frankly, despite my size I think they need more living space than I do. I think we all know that children need room to move about in and, in any event, will grow up, and the time has come for this to be formally recognized.
The second question that arises is: who may get Government housing. His Excellency has already spoken of building accommoda- tion in a reasonable environment for every inhabitant of Hong Kong. Does this mean that the taxpayer is expected indefinitely to subsidize even well-off tenants in Government housing? On this point it has been suggested in the Legislative Council that tenants should be ejected after a period of, say, ten years. I am strongly against this. Much of the value of Government housing lies in the security attached to it, and it would be absurd for this security to be destroyed.
(Mr. B. A. BERNACCHI arrived at this point.)
This does not mean that I do not see the force of the objections raised against well-off people being subsidized for an indefinite period by the taxpayer. However, I feel that the answer to the problem is not to strike at security of tenancy, but to adopt a unified and realistic policy on costs and rentals.
At present costs and rentals in Housing Authority, low-cost housing and resettlement estates are all calculated on different bases, using different land cost, interest and amortization figures. There may well have been historical reasons for this, but these reasons are not valid today.
When I say that this unified policy should be realistic, I mean that it should be based on the principle that every new housing estate tenant should, to begin with, pay rent calculated on the basis of meet- ing the costs of the day-to-day maintenance and management of existing estates and the costs of renewing these estates in the future when renewal becomes necessary—or, to put it in the simplest manner, the costs of maintenance and depreciation.
Let me say at once that rentals so calculated would not be high. Indeed, as far as Housing Authority estates are concerned, they would be slightly lower than the rents now in force. Therefore they would clearly be well within the means of the great majority of tenants. A small minority would no doubt say they were unable to afford them. I believe that these people should be asked to seek assistance from the Social Welfare Department. If that Department were to as- certain that they were worthy of Government assistance, it would
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.