Consultation for Kai Tak must be reviewed
As the planning row over the Tamar site comes to an end, is another one over the future of the former Kai Tak airport site beckoning? That is the question in many people's minds after the government unveiled its development blueprint for the Kowloon site yesterday.
Whether by design or coincidence, it is interesting to note that the Kai Tak plan was released just ahead of a crucial vote in the Legislative Council on building a new government headquarters at Tamar. The community remains divided over the Tamar project, with many questioning the wisdom of putting a government compound on a prime waterfront site in the heart of the central business district. After a tortuous process of winning support from most legislators, the government is set to get the $5.2 billion it needs for the project. While there may still be fights over its design, nothing is likely to put a stop to the construction now.
Tamar is but a fraction of the 328-hectare Kai Tak site. But one does not have to be an alarmist or a subscriber to conspiracy theories to worry about a similar row bogging down the latter's development. Planning for the site began back in the early 1990s, well before the airport was relocated in 1998. Over the years, various concept plans and blueprints were published, the first in 1993 and then in 1998 and 2001. The latest planning cycle that culminated in the blueprint published yesterday began in 2004, after a court ruling on harbour reclamation prompted a review of previous plans. In the past two years, the Planning Department has published reports and conducted two rounds of public consultation.
The process of planning and consultation over the Kai Tak site is worth recapping, as it has largely followed established practice that also applied to the Central-Wan Chai reclamation, of which Tamar forms a part. And that is the problem.
Some will recall the publication of concept plans for further reclamation of the harbour in the 1980s, with colourful artist's impressions of how the new development would look. Public opinion was sought and the plans revised. But it was not until the first phase of the reclamation was well under way in the late 1990s that the community woke up to the horrors of what they had supposedly approved. They found that a big chunk of their beloved Victoria Harbour had been lost forever - a loss whose significance they did not quite appreciate when they had looked at the earlier designs. A public outcry followed, but officials said it was already too late. It took judicial challenges by activists to force the administration to scale back its plans.
If anything is to be learned from the saga, it is that something is wrong with the government's traditional way of consulting the public. The salient points and their implications may not have been properly highlighted, or they failed to get the attention they deserved from interested parties at the time. The opposition which later arose has frustrated officials, who feel their 'well-considered' plans have unreasonably been rejected by ill-informed busybodies. On the other hand, critics are aghast that officials should close their minds to alternative views from citizens trying to help make this city a better place.
There is a better way to secure the best plans for the future of the Kai Tak site, while also maintaining social harmony. It is imperative that the government reviews its consultation model for Kai Tak to enhance its ability to encompass public opinion. Hopefully, a study on civic engagement in public policy making commissioned by the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre - a think-tank close to Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen - will help shed light on the way forward.
Along with the West Kowloon reclamation, the Kai Tak site is the most valuable piece of land in Hong Kong. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to turn it into the best that Hong Kong can offer. Though government planners have redrawn their blueprints for the site a number of times, they should be prepared to revise them if better alternatives emerge.
