My Take | Subsidise the URA so it can fulfil its social role

The Urban Renewal Authority has often been accused of being in bed with big developers. It is not an unfair characterisation.

Time after time, URA-sponsored redevelopment projects disproportionately enrich developers while displacing many longtime residents. Oftentimes, they also fail to preserve a neighbourhood's valuable traditional character, most notably in the case of Lee Tung Street or Wedding Card Street, in Wan Chai.

Yet, the people who run the URA are not bad or corrupt people. Its managing director, Iris Tam Siu-ying, who has resigned, is an honourable person.

"There are fundamental differences between the chairman and me in the understanding of URA's philosophy, mission and direction," she wrote in an email to staff explaining her resignation. "I feel I can no longer lead URA to uphold its social mission ... I find it totally unacceptable to position URA as a developer or a land assembly agent to supply land for developers."

There you have it from the horse's mouth: the URA has been functioning as a de facto agent for developers. But the root of the problem lies in the fundamental conflict between its social mission and its need to be financially self-sufficient.

To achieve financial stability, the URA has to go for redevelopment projects that have good profit potential. To fulfil its social mandate, it needs to improve the living environment and help owners of rundown flats in old buildings with far less redevelopment potential. In late 2013, it did a good job helping owners of old tenements in To Kwa Wan to sell and redevelop their blocks after the government ordered their demolition because they were considered too dangerous to continue occupation.