'Not in my backyard' attitude complicates housing debate
Bernard Chan says selfish interests are complicating the debate
It seems incredible, but we use about 6.9 per cent of our land for residential purposes - just 2.3 per cent for urban private housing, 1.4 per cent for urban public homes, and 3.2 per cent for rural settlement including village housing. At the same time, there is widespread confusion about the rest. There seems to be plenty of land - but any proposal to use any of it for housing runs into some sort of problem, interest group or lobby.
Any proposal to use [land] for housing runs into some sort of problem, interest group or lobby
Housing is an issue of social and economic justice. We have people living in conditions that are a disgrace in a civilised society. We have lengthy waiting lists for those eligible for public and subsidised flats. And we need housing that younger, middle-class people can afford.
But suggest that agricultural land be used for housing - and although some landowners might be willing to sell - tenants who have chosen the farming lifestyle will be up in arms. It is interesting that many young radicals feel sorrier for the relatively small number of farmers than for the much larger number who will need homes.
New Territories land reserved for village development is especially sensitive, as you run the risk of upsetting indigenous residents. Suggest reclamation - traditionally a relatively easy and simple way to acquire flat land - and environmentalists will oppose you.
Suggest urban districts that can be redeveloped to make better use of the space, and the neighbours in nearby estates will complain. They might accept the need for higher-density housing and places for more people to live, but not in their backyard. Only 2.3 per cent of land is zoned industrial; suggest converting factory buildings, and existing tenants using them as back offices, artists' studios or for storage will ask where they are supposed to go.