Land supply? Follow the money.

Land supply? Follow the money

Three core issues are starting to crystallise as the consultation process about Hong Kong’s land supply moves along. And the options will definitely not be cheap. Let’s look at who is chasing the money.

Reclamation
The construction and engineering industries, together with the Government, are in favour of a plan to create a large new reclaimed island between Lantau and Hong Kong Island. Our Hong Kong Foundation has taken the lead in calling for an Enhanced East Lantau Metropolis of 2,200ha – double what the Government has proposed. The cost is estimated at $2,000/sq.ft., or about $500 bn.

The beneficiaries of the funds will be the contractors and engineers. And the Government will generate land premiums from the land sales. The proponents’ argument is that resolving the issues involved in developing the New Territories will take too long. Opponents are concerned that, besides the damage to the marine environment, the fact that so much money is tied up with this mega-project means there will be no resources left to clean up the New Territories. 

Brownfields
Unlikely partners – green groups and the landowners, including our home-grown developers and the Heung Yee Kuk – are favouring development of the New Territories. Green groups are keen to see a stop to the environmental rot of the brownfields, while the landowners want to cash in on their land banks. Green groups want land-resumption programmes, together with a strengthening of the Government’s resources and legal powers to ensure that brownfields don’t spread to other land, destroying habitats and agriculture.

Many of the landowners, however, want the right to develop their own land. Some are suggesting a compromise solution, with Public Private Partnership developments. The cost of land resumption to be paid to owners is lower than the cost of building the artificial island, but it will require more government manpower to negotiate with the many parties involved. Our “lazy” government prefers writing a tender for a reclamation project and then leaving it with the contractor.

Military land
Much of the 2,700 hectares of military land is currently underutilised. The naval base at Stonecutters is an essential facility and it would be impractical to move it. The air force facilities in Shek Kong are also essential, but they could perhaps be moved to Chep Lap Kok airport once the third runway is in place. The nearempty barracks and the firing range in Tuen Mun should be reviewed to see whether the land can be used for better public purposes.

Article 13 of the Garrison Law promulgated by the NPC in 1996 allows exactly for this negotiation to take place between the Hong Kong Government and the PLA. It also sets out how to deal with the associated costs and the compensation to be paid. Given the clamour for land, both parties have a serious responsibility to weigh military versus public uses for each site. Article 15 explains how such a discussion is to proceed. 

The above are the three big items. Other options are near-shore reclamations (these are generally supported, but there are local objections), the use of golf courses (there’s endless debate over privileges, but we do lack sports facilities) and moving the container port (or consolidating it with other ports in the Pearl River Delta).

(Article published in Southside Magazine - September 2018 issue)

土地發展 利益為先

隨着土地供應公開諮詢進入大直路階段，當中的核心問題亦逐漸浮現。眾所周知造地成本不菲，剩下的問題只是涉及的龐大利益會由誰涉足染指。

填海
建造業、工程界及政府都熱烈支持在大嶼山及香港島之間大規模填海，團結香港基金更領頭提出將東大嶼都會計劃擴大至2,200公頃，比政府提倡的數字足足超出一倍，而項目估價將高達5000億，平均尺價約為2000元。承建商、工程師將從項目得益，而政府亦將從新填的土地獲得龐大的賣地收益。他們支持填海選項的主要理據是解決新界土地權益問題花費時間甚長，但撇除對海洋生態的破壞，大規模填海亦將耗用大量政府資源，對解決新界土地問題的投放亦將相對減少。

棕地
除了環保團體，持有大量土地的發展商以至鄉議局都傾向支持發展新界地區。環團希望藉發展棕地結束其造成的環境破壞；而發展商則希望藉此將其持有的土地套現。環團希望在發展的同時，增加政府的資源的執法能力，以打擊破壞農地及生態；發展商則希望保留其發展土地的權利，因此有人提出公私營合作計劃。公私營合作對地主的賠償雖比填海的成本低，卻需要政府更多人力資源去與不同持份者協商，我們充滿惰性的政府會傾向「填海造地」，以一紙標書將問題煩惱都留給承建商。

軍事用地
至少在可預見的將來，香港有2700公頃的軍事用地將不被充分利用。當中如昂船洲海軍碼頭等基礎設施，遷移的可能性十分低。其他如軍事機場等的基礎設施，可考慮在機場第三條跑道落成後由石崗移至赤鱲角，至於其他接近空置的軍營以及位於屯門的射靶場，則可商確將用地騰出至應付更大的公眾需求。由內地於1996年提出的《駐軍法》第13條，就正正為協商解放軍軍事用地提供了法理基礎，亦為遷移所衍伸的費用及補償作明文解釋。考慮到社會對土地的殷切需求，中港兩地政府都應該認真考慮軍事設施與社會資源間的平衡。同一法律中第15條亦訂明了展開相關程序的流程。

以上三個主要選項外，其他選項還包括近岸填海（社會普遍支持但地區人士反對）、高爾夫球場（討論將無止境延續，而事實上我們的運動場地亦不充足）、遷移貨櫃碼頭（或與其他珠三角地區的碼頭合併）

最後讓我以郊野公園的近況作結。政府已經摩拳擦掌變更郊野公園邊界，他們並不打算正視郊野公園的特殊地位，反將郊野公園視為可隨意動用的土地儲備。亦有些人提出開發生態價值較低並毗鄰交通基建不多於2%的郊野公園用地；更有人指出開發郊野公園別無選擇，只能無奈接受，卻無視劃定現時的郊野公園邊界花費了近20年的持續努力。

政府已從云云郊野公園中選出兩塊用地，邀請了房委會研究其開發的可行性，與此同時正剔出另外十幅郊野公園用地作將來的進一步研究。環保團體拒絕參與評估這兩幅用地的生態、園境及文娛價值，原因非常簡單——程序錯誤。無錯，以上準則適用於衡量應否將一幅土地納入郊野公園保護範圍，但一旦土地被納入範圍，想將其抽出就要考慮更多因素：是否有絕對的公眾需要凌駕土地價值？有沒有其他替代方案？有沒有盡可能減少開發範圍？有沒有盡可能降低開發活動對周邊郊野公園的影響？有沒有對郊野公園用地的補償方案？環團非常重視以上行之有效的制度，亦會盡全力捍衛。與此同時，一旦去到無可避免要開發郊野公園的一步，相關動作亦要相當謹慎。