Opinion | Time to rethink urban renewal strategy to put the people before developers
Albert Cheng says resignation of key URA official could be a blessing if changes were to lead to a merger with Housing Authority to create a better set-up
The surprise resignation of Iris Tam Siu-ying last month as managing director of the Urban Renewal Authority has provided some serious food for thought for those in charge of the land and housing portfolio.
Highly regarded by her colleagues, Tam, however, has failed to satisfy her chairman, Victor So Hing-woh, that the authority's long-term financial health is secure. This set her on a collision course with So over how much the URA should rely on private developers who have no moral obligation to the tenants affected.
In an internal email dated March 31, Tam said: "URA must always put its social mission before profit considerations in selecting sites for redevelopment, helping owners rehabilitate their buildings, and contributing towards heritage preservation and revitalisation.
"As URA is trusted with the use of public money and the power to apply for land resumption, it is imperative that we are accountable to the public in how we handle acquisition, rehousing and clearance. I find it totally unacceptable to position URA as a developer or a land assembly agent to supply land for developers."
So, who took over from Barry Cheung Chun-yuen in June 2013, is eager to reform the URA, especially on the financial front. He has entered talks for closer collaboration with the Richfield Group, a developer notorious for aggressive tactics with residents in buying old buildings.
Last year, alarm bells rang when the URA recorded for the first time in five years a deficit of HK$2.3 billion. To address the problem, So has engaged McKinsey for a value-for-money study. It projected that the URA's fiscal reserves would plunge from HK$24.2 billion to HK$9 billion in five years.