[校對] 公眾論壇一 : 09年5月30日

市建局530日公眾論壇

第一段:

沒有特別疏漏記述。

1) 第四位與會者所說的有本身已進行復修,卻因為後來公佈為重建區而致使不能復修,劃為重建區業主不願復修,沒有劃為重建區業主則主動進行復修,甚至進行其他用途。Regenerate一個地方應用甚麼機制。要讓發展變得可持續應盡量讓業主自行進行樓宇復修,而政府可以作為鼓勵和支持的角色。

第二段:

1) 市區重建根本不能讓人們享受重建帶給居民的成果。

2) 地鋪租戶沒有其他選擇,最終只能選擇金錢賠償,而所得賠償有限,最後遇到重建後,同區新租鋪位不但間隔大不如前,生意也大跌七成。其經營的項目有很多,例如手作、鐘錶、鎖匙、工程、五金等。從前能夠休息、現在不能休息之餘更不夠錢交租和養家。即使業主,但因為無「鋪換鋪」的政策,只得金錢賠償,在大角咀單是重新租鋪裝修都已經用光賠償金。希望重建多顧及其將來生計有否改善,能否提供更多選擇。另外市建局沒有職員幫助選擇和租鋪,而他們新租鋪位是之前租金的三四倍,導致經營困難甚至結束營業。

有說公屋安置是德政,但卻有樓上的租客因重建遷出後因為支援不足,新搬進公屋不夠兩個月就在家中過身。原因是未能習慣之餘,更失去以往舊樓的鄰里網絡的支援。其實在重建區不用建豪宅或富貴樓,只需建一些樓宇可以顧及同區居民,尤其長者和新移民,可以住在原區,使社區網絡不致中斷和瓦解。

3) 重建後市建局只與大發展商合作,建大型商場,卻對小商戶趕盡殺絕,致使將來想租鋪自行做生意的人都失去創業可能。

另外所有估價只以市建為準,業主無法議價之餘,市建更霸道地只相信自己的測量師,接受較低的價值收購,最終導致市建局盈利達44億,明顯是賺小業主小商戶的金錢。

4) 認為應該整個區地進行社區更新,應四個R一齊進行,如觀塘區,她認為可以有些重建、有些保育、有些更新 (和原文超簡短的講法有點不同)

第二點是商戶和業主如何在重建中得享成果。例如觀塘區,假設在樓宇拆卸重建的過程中,其他區如何協調,讓業主或租戶可選澤第一期。(有點難明,似乎紀錄中也少提及過)

5) 有商戶投訴,市建局竟將一些樓宇興建完成時就已開業的地鋪 (乃路臣街,樓宇已有48年歷史) 評為非商樓宇,指該商戶所處之樓宇為住宅樓宇,只願意以住宅樓宇的補償賠給地鋪租戶。(紀錄完全沒提)

第三段:

  1. Long term value for the community and city, not just short term gain; not on economic gain, but more importantly on social gain; not site specific, but more area-base; more on region rehabilitation but not renewal; giving choice to people, rather than forced relocation which makes people can’t get their shops or flats in that area;

Not just focusing on physical fabric alone, but actually to regenerate the neighbourhood or social network, keeping them intact; redevelopment only comes as the last resort as well as when it is very necessary, not the first thing to be done; and should be done buildings by buildings, but not like blanket of so many hectares of rebuilding.

SWOT analysis; difference between URA and private developers

  1. Scope and scale of redevelopment: small and modest intervention (individual-building instead of blocks) helps keeping social network intact;
  1. The information provided by URA is totally not enough for the public to know more. It has never mentioned or answered questions like ‘the objectives of urban renewal (given a low population growth)’ or ‘what are the details of urban decays in our city and even what is urban decay’; URA should release these information to the public, can put it in a map, etc, in order to let the public see the renewal is working or not. Should published the 250 target / objectified areas in HK to let the public know.

Should answer clearly that, why URA is needed to intervene? Why the private sector is not working? Even the information of which district or area has been resolved by private sectors already. Why they have been done before the URA have done anything. What are the failures of government’s renewal strategies? What does it want to change?

He also thought that URA is bribing the public. They have taken away the responsibilities for the public to maintain their property.

Finally he stressed that more information should be provided to allow more proper feedback from the public in the future. Otherwise the upcoming consultations or public forums would be meaningless as the questions from the public will be the same. He added, ‘Don’t add silly open-ended questions!’

第四段:

1) 市建局上台時,首五年業務綱領寫明先處理土發違留下來的25個項目,但現在等了多年仍未有公佈,又不敢進行維修,生活狀況差劣之餘,也陷入了搬與不搬的進退兩難境地。

應做好樓宇評估,好的樓修葺得舒服,不能再維修的樓應該清拆。

另外,早在2001年已制訂出來的策略卻一直以來未被好好執行。現在即使再諮詢修改,制訂更新方案,然而若不切實執行,應然沒用。

其實《策略》並非無憲政地位 (官方檔案沒提這一點) ,市區重建條例第21條,清楚說明市建局在進行重建的時候,必須依照市區重建策略所訂明的原則進行市區重建。這是有法定權力的,市建局卻無人執行、監管、有街坊告狀也無人處理,且因財力不足往往於官司失利。

提到有<民間綠皮書> (h15製作) 作資訊參考並供街坊閱讀,報告也完全沒有提及。

2) 一南亞裔人士發言,不大清楚,但有提及一區已經歷25年但仍然改進重建方案。還有關於open space的界定問題,類似是認為對窮人不公。

3) (應該是潭小瑩) 為市建局不公佈重建項目護航,認為不公佈 (保密) 就是為了預防土發當年公佈25個重建項目所帶來的後果;另外也預防有人知道重建後炒賣該區 物業或將租客趕走。

不過點出了重點:就是凍結日出現的原因,她清清楚楚說明凍結日是為了預防有業主將租客迫遷。(很明 顯,凍結日同公佈重建是有連結關係,不容抵賴)

提到為何不可以(phase one)用來做rehousing (觀塘),解釋說因當地居民要求一次過收購,不要分階段,所以難以做phase one收購,第二階段買入。已有超過9成業主賣樓,並正在買樓。

第五段:

2) 說到賠償及安置問題,desmond認為重視的不應該是rehousing policy,而是housing policy。市區重建或更新不應該與房屋政策或社區規劃分割。(這點在URA文件上的其他有提及,但卻沒有這一個重要的statement)

3) (Though what he said is quite cynical, as he said, but that’s true) URA should have been scraped, because actually there are policies there already, housing policies and so on. Talking about points in that document is actually not an issue, because what they were talking of was ‘how we can make the city better’.. The discussion should start from the basic, otherwise it’s just wasting time and nothing will be done or going to be changed.

第六段:(截至10分鐘)

1) He thought that the support from the government for the people to upkeep their apartments, or the subsidization for the people to leave a badly-kept apartment should be a social welfare policy, and it is not a reason for urban renewal.

He also requested again the URA to show their principles for urban renewal, or for the definition of old buildings that needs to be renewed, coz 30 years should not be the principles.

2) 就香港的人口增長狀況,質疑不斷興建高樓大廈是否有此需要。更應為某些項目私人發展商比市建局做得更好。在h19的項目中曾有私人業主將舊唐樓修復,市建局卻要求將其清拆,根本沒有改善社區環境。

也重申重建和規劃不能分割。因為市建局所謂「自負盈虧」的經營模式讓低密度住宅變成高密度。應從需不需要這個機構作為基礎重新討論,因為市建局所有的討論都建立於「他們會繼續存在」這個基礎下展開的,其實是變相增加權力,讓重建規模增大。

3) 如果市建局改為協助並活化重建,然後由發展商發展,這樣接下來200多個項目的賠償根本不成問題,透明度也可以增加。(市建局雖有提及以上所說,但並非以一個整合的意見寫出,只見零散於報告角落,因此照錄)

廣告

One response to “[校對] 公眾論壇一 : 09年5月30日

  1. 引用通告: 《市區重建策略檢討》的假諮詢 « 市區重建策略檢討–草根觀點

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s