Developer must set priorities under new floor area rules

I refer to your editorial ('Developers need to shake off role of villain', January 20). While the interview you refer to was conducted in the best spirit and in an ongoing determination by the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong (REDA) to increase transparency and flow of information, several of the points you make are taken out of context.

Your editorial implies that REDA is threatening that, if the new rules on gross floor area are imposed, the developers would stop building amenities, such as clubhouses and swimming pools, thus shifting the onus onto public service providers, such as the Leisure and Cultural Services Department.

What in fact we said was that, under the new rules governing GFA as drafted by the Buildings Department, developers would be forced to prioritise what they build in order to get the most value from the building for both themselves and the tenants, and that amenities, such as swimming pools or larger balconies, may not be a priority in some development plans. This would therefore put greater pressure on public amenities as people sought leisure activities that may not be available in their buildings. Obviously, this is not in the best interests of the community. But it has no link whatsoever to transparency or accountability as you suggest.

It is simply a matter of reality and sound business.

In an often repeated misstatement, you also suggest that developers get the GFA concessions for free and then sell them on to the public at full market value.

This common misrepresentation overlooks the way in which the land sale auction system works in Hong Kong. These auctions are highly competitive and everyone knows that the high bid wins.