Advertisement

Letters to the Editor, June 3, 2014

I commend your editorial ("Boost funds for urban renewal", May 30) as the Urban Renewal Authority needs to adhere to its stipulated mission of handling dilapidation in urban areas.

Reading Time:5 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
0
Tang Wei migrated from the mainland. Photo: Sam Tsang

I commend your editorial ("Boost funds for urban renewal", May 30) as the Urban Renewal Authority needs to adhere to its stipulated mission of handling dilapidation in urban areas.

It appears that the URA is now adopting a different and profit-based agenda. The compensation for the senior executives of the URA is performance related, so this may be a reason why they are stepping away from small "public participation" schemes.

The URA is always keen to parcel sites, and then pass a large parcel to the major developers, who are extremely adept at making generous profits. There needs to be more transparency on the matter of pay and perks for the executives of Hong Kong's statutory boards.

I agree with Frank Lee's letter ("Owners get short shift from URA", May 28). The large bland projects that result from this pass-the-parcel method of development is ruining our city's character, life and cityscape.

There appears to be an unspoken rule in Hong Kong that the money paid by the major developers to get government land (that is, public land) must be reserved and then recycled into massive infrastructure (usually uneconomic) projects that will benefit the commercial interests of those same tycoons. It is therefore stored away by the Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, out of community sight and reach, in the Capital Works Reserve Fund.

It would be far better to use these funds for rejuvenating and redeveloping homes based on the original mission of "people first" and "public participation" urban renewal.

Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2x faster
1.25x
250 WPM
Slow
Average
Fast
1.25x