Setting a clear example
A private-sector group, including several people well known for flying helicopters, has proposed the construction of a downtown heliport next to Golden Bauhinia Square on the Wan Chai waterfront. It is a controversial idea because the landing area would be built over the harbour, and so could be considered a form of reclamation.
The thing I find most interesting is the working group's approach to presenting its proposal. Its members have clearly anticipated possible public and government objections, and have done serious research into issues like noise pollution and visual impact on the harbour. Most of all, they are putting the idea forward in a transparent manner.
Whatever happens with this proposal, government officials, environmental and other civic groups, and the public should be encouraged that the working group has taken this straightforward approach. From its publicity material, I get the impression the group is being quite open about the true environmental impact of its proposal. It is also clear the group wants the people to buy into the idea, and that it hopes public support will help persuade officials. There is certainly more transparency with this idea than we have seen in past infrastructure or property development proposals, and we should welcome it.
Too often, the public gets the impression that business groups simply don't care about community interests or use influence over government to get their way. In particular, they suspect that tycoons do deals with officials behind closed doors, before the plans are announced to the public and are hurriedly pushed through.
Personally, I don't believe the situation is that simple. I think the problem has more to do with changing public expectations over the years. People are demanding more accountability and more openness, and our planning and decision-making processes haven't kept up. But we should accept that there is a problem. Look at proposals to refurbish historic buildings or construct 'monster towers' that block views, and you can see why the public has negative perceptions of business interests and their relations with the government.
Is this heliport proposal a good one? There is no doubt that a conveniently located public heliport in Hong Kong could be very useful in the years ahead, as the Pearl River Delta's economy grows and smaller towns and cities in our region develop. A three-hour road journey can take just 30 minutes by air.
Should such a facility be built right next to the Convention and Exhibition Centre and on the harbourfront? That's a different question. The main alternative suggested is in Sheung Wan. Some people think that's too close to residential areas, which could definitely be a problem. The working group, favouring Wan Chai, claims Sheung Wan is too far from the central business district. Of course, the definition of the central business area is probably narrow and out of date. Anywhere within half an hour of Central's core would probably do.
So I am not saying this plan for a heliport in Wan Chai is necessarily a good one, or the right one. As helicopter enthusiasts, members of the working group probably have their own motives. Their publicity material is slick, and obviously casts their ideas in a positive light. And there are unanswered questions about the financial arrangements. My point is that whatever happens to this proposal, the working group deserves recognition for raising it in an open and accountable way, that treats the community with respect. I hope this is part of a trend.
Bernard Chan is a member of the Executive Council and a legislator representing the insurance functional constituency
