Imagine there is a cure for ageing; every person over 60 can take a magic pill to look and feel younger, prettier and stronger. There are no more old-looking people. However, some activists object, proposing that a special board be set up to determine who should be permitted to take these drugs. Each person would have to show why they should be allowed the treatment and how, by taking these drugs, they would not affect the overall balance of old-looking people in the community. Obviously, this would be bitterly opposed as a savage attack on the right to one's own life.
In a similar way, the Antiquities and Monuments Office is looking for new teeth to stop the owners of buildings making their land and premises younger, better and healthier. It wants a more active role in restricting vital work to old buildings that community activists might wish to preserve. For example, environmentalists want to restrict reconstruction of the old Central Police Station, which is up for redevelopment - and they are being listened to. The station could be knocked down to provide new places to work, live or shop. Instead, potential developers are being asked to preserve the old structure, increasing costs and decreasing the amount of usable space.
Hong Kong was once the city that always changed, but there is an anti-development movement taking root. The multibillion-dollar Zhuhai bridge was opposed because it could affect 20 dolphins, while environmentalists vehemently opposed any new harbour reclamation despite Hong Kong's desperate need for new land. We have also seen attempts to coerce restaurateurs with proposals banning smoking in their premises. Developer Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung is fighting to build a new hotel on Hong Kong Island, even though he had official planning approval to go ahead with a very similar structure. Although these cases might appear different, the commonality is that they represent a fundamental attack on the right to property, including the right to decide how it should be used. In each case, the property owner's right is being threatened. For example, green groups are opposing the redevelopment of Hunghom Peninsula, and their wishes are given equal weight, despite the fact they do not own the property.
The rational alternative to the heritage and other conservation policies is to remember that property rights are exactly that - rights. Just as one person has no right to place masking tape over the mouth of another just because they disagree with his or her views, non-owners have no right to expect the government to threaten force against the legitimate owner to stop him or her improving the property.
On a wider philosophical perspective, it is time for developers and owners to revisit and understand again the meaning of property rights. While it is impossible to convince many of the more radical environmentalists, it is important for owners and developers to understand these rights fully, in order to argue their case successfully.
They should not follow the example of the Hunghom Peninsula developers who have sought to appease green groups by inviting them to monitor the work; the groups are claiming a cheap victory by refusing to take part.