Page 178 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the four queries and six negative factors I have just mentioned. It is a serious mistake to follow the book and enforce the 1990 market rental policy and adjustment blindly and without flexibility.
I have not exaggerated in saying this. Take the fair market rent for the Java Road Market as assessed by R & V D as an example. The average acceptance rate of the proposed rent is 77%. If it is not blind enforcement and bureaucracy, what is it? In one case, the acceptance rate is 60% to 70%. There are 60 stalls in the Java Road Market and tenants were paying around $5,000 each. The fair market rent has been fixed at $15,000 and the Department has suggested to increase the rent to $9,000. In another case, the acceptance rate is 90% to 100%. There are 42 stalls, each paying $4,000. When the fair market rent has been assessed to be $6,000, the Department has agreed to fix the new rent at $6,000. As long as we adopt the 1990 market rental policy and adjustment pattern, the above cases will continue to occur. As this rental policy is already outdated, it should be reviewed.
I think that, as the provider of market services to the public, the Urban Council and the USD should not aim at making profit from market rent which will defeat our basic responsibility to serve the public. I feel that the market rental policy should be revised, and I would like to suggest several criteria for Members' consideration:
(1) When we lay down the market rental policy, we should bear in mind the need to provide accessible, spacious and comfortable retail points for the public to buy food, by-products and daily necessities;
(2) We should try to attract more traders to take up market stalls so that the public will have retail points for the supply of a wide choice of fresh food and other commodities at competitive prices;
(3) We should ensure that market traders under normal operation can compete with outsiders; and
(4) We should aim to improve the environment of the vicinity and step up street management. Itinerant hawkers should be stopped and illegal expansion on to pavements should be stopped too.
With these policy intentions in mind, I feel that we should not make reference to the assessment of fair market rent by the R & V D. The so-called discounted acceptance rate as laid down in 1990 is impractical too. I suggest that the Markets Sub-Committee of the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee should consider Category A consumer index when fixing market rental. At the same time, I think when we fix market rental, we should take into consideration practical circumstances and the individual features of markets because they affect actual operation. I think that we have to consider at least five factors:
(1) the geographical location of and existing facilities at the markets concerned;
(2) the competitors of the markets;
Page 178 of 498
170 of 498
174
of 498
Page 178 of 498
8 170 of 498
Page 178 of 498
174
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
the four queries and six negative factors I have just mentioned. It is a serious mistake to follow the book and enforce the 1990 market rental policy and adjustment blindly and without flexibility.
I have not exaggerated in saying this. Take the fair market rent for the Java Road Market as assessed by R & V D as an example. The average acceptance rate of the proposed rent is 77%. If it is not blind enforcement and bureaucracy, what is it? In one case, the acceptance rate is 60% to 70%. There are 60 stalls in the Java Road Market and tenants were paying around $5,000 cach. The fair market rent has been fixed at $15,000 and the Department has suggested to increase the rent to $9,000. In another case, the acceptance rate is 90% to 100%. There are 42 stalls, each paying $4,000. When the fair market rent has been assessed to be $6,000, the Department has agreed to fix the new rent at $6,000. As long as we adopt the 1990 market rental policy and adjustment pattern, the above cases will continue to occur. As this rental policy is already outdated, it should be reviewed.
I think that, as the provider of market services to the public, the Urban Council and the USD should not aim at making profit from market rent which will defeat our basic responsibility to serve the public. I feel that the market rental policy should be revised, and I would like to suggest several criteria for Members' consideration:
(1) When we lay down the market rental policy, we should bear in mind the need to provide accessible, spacious and comfortable retail points for the public to buy food by-products and daily necessities;
(2) We should try to attract more traders to take up market stalls so that the public will have retail points for the supply of a wide choice of fresh food and other commodities at competitive prices;
(3) We should ensure that market traders under normal operation can
compete with outsiders; and
(4) We should aim to improve the environment of the vicinity and step up street management. Itinerant hawkers should be stopped and illegal expansion on to pavements should be stopped too.
With these policy intentions in mind, I feel that we should not make reference to the assessment of fair market rent by the R & V D. The so-called discounted acceptance rate as laid down in 1990 is impractical too. I suggest that the Markets Sub-Committee of the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee should consider Category A consumer index when fixing market rental. At the same time, I think when we fix market rental, we should take into consideration practical circumstances and the individual features of markets because they affect actual operation. I think that we have to consider at least five factors:
(1) the geographical location of and existing facilities at the markets
concerned;
(2) the competitors of the markets;
of 498
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.