NIMBYism and gentrification are eroding Hong Kong’s development. Francis Neoton Cheung, convenor of Doctoral Exchange, offers a cure.
(Article originally published on April 11, 2016 in Chinese – 《城市發展的兩大病毒——“鄰避”與“士紳”》. English translation by Alex Fok.)
Our city is ailing.
A city is the carrier of all activities of its urban population. So if its development in bad condition, its people will suffer as well. Hong Kong has been infected by two viruses in recent years which seem to be spreading more rapidly now – one is from the Government, the other from the general public.
‘NIMBYism (Not In My BackYard)’ is a common phenomenon in the Hong Kong population. Our citizens tend to hold such attitude towards plans to building certain social facilities in their own ‘backyards’. These facilities include mental hospitals, halfway houses, shelters for homeless persons, military sites, incinerators, power plants, columbariums, funeral parlours, desalination plants and so on. The reasons are simple – these facilities will inevitably have some impacts on their living environment or the value of their properties. That’s why it is never easy, be it for the Government or private enterprises, to apply for rezoning for such facilities. Worse still, some politicians in LegCo and District Councils often join the game by speaking on behalf of these people to win their votes. This hinders urban development, economics and social activities.
The other virus is ‘gentrification’. This phenomenon is obvious in some urban renewal projects and when the Housing Authority decided to split its shopping malls and carparks business to Link Real Estate Investment Trust. While the former case led to lower-income families living in the renewed areas being replaced by wealthier ones thanks to increased land prices and rents, the latter case has been seen as a clear example of ‘gentrification’ of shopping malls in public housing estates.
The intention of urban renewal should be to optimize land use in a district to improve living standards of that area. Wider roads, more community facilities, for example, can compensate for the district’s ‘planning deficit’. The original community, business and social network should be retained as much as possible instead of shooting for maximisation of renewed space. Unfortunately, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) just can’t get away with the “no deficit” curse.
Meanwhile, criticisms have never stopped against the ‘LINK’ idea as a shortsighted government solution in search for new income source soon after 2003. The result is public flat residents having to buy pricier daily essentials while some tailors, plumbers and even craftsmen were forced out of the market.
Looking closer, the reason of the proliferation of these two viruses lies in shortcomings of the Government’s mechanism in urban development. Firstly, the URA should not be profit-driven, and should accord higher priority on social impact assessment when considering projects’ feasibility and financial matters. Revitalisation or addition of important social facilities should be listed as requisite items. The Government should not let the URA Board decide the positioning and financial planning of urban renewal projects, but is advised to set up a ‘Steering Committee on Urban Development (the steering committee)’ co-chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary to examine each and every item, ensuring that other social benefits are given considerations while providing policy and financial support where justified. The role of the URA should be repositioned as a project manager that is responsible for recommending the most suitable proposals for the projects. By doing so, individual gains can be maximised without compromising social benefits.
The aforementioned steering committee can also refine the deficiencies seen in the Town Planning Board (TPB). There is no way for our part-time TPB members to really look into the tonnes of complicated, time-consuming cases with overwhelming documents and meetings. They have little choice but to rely on documents and recommendations provided by the Planning Department, which acts as the TPB’s secretariat, and seldom decides against their Planning Department advisors.
That being said, the Planning Department is also facing its own difficulties as it is difficult for the department to challenge or turn down unreasonable suggestions given by other governmental bodies of the same rank. With a view to break the Silo Effect, it is advised that the Director of Planning can seek guidance from the steering committee where necessary. This can help reconcile opinions from different departments, review their comments, examine applications’ social and economic value and lead cross-departmental efforts in the process. The Planning Department can thus be relieved from having to balance all opinions among its counterparts.
Similarly, when NIMBYism prevents some plausible social projects from taking place, applicants could also request the steering committee carry out a review and provide policy support through certain mechanism.
It is hoped that, through such structural ‘medicines’, the viruses of our city can be humbled.
http://harbourtimes.com/2016/04/25/nimby-gentrificationie-two-urban-viruses/
