英语论文网

香港城市建设论文写作参考
City model of urban renewal, not renovation, is bad

As more and more expensive 'masterpieces' are erected all over our city as a result of theclearance of old districts, Hong Kong people now have a better idea of what urban renewal is allabout.

It boils down to taking over the property rights of small home owners, integrating land lots tomake bigger sites so as to sell to big developers to make big profits. The resultant new andexpensive properties are not to be enjoyed by the original residents or ordinary Hong Kongcitizens.
Most of the affected home owners are low- to middle-income groups spending their lifetimeincome to secure properties as their own home, some for long-term personal investment, butwhen it comes to resumption by the Urban Renewal Authority, these people are given noalternative but to accept anything offered by the URA. Those who try to defend their propertyrights and reject the URA's offers are labelled by the authority as being greedy and just wantinghigher compensation.

Such labelling could be an attempt to divert public attention from the real issue of owners' rightto their properties. We all know that our private property rights are protected by the Basic Law.Only under extraordinary circumstances and for the sake of public interest could the authoritycompulsorily resume peoples' private properties.

The URA's argument for its Staunton Street redevelopment project is that it is being done in thepublic interest. But, when the facts were put before the Town Planning Board, it was clear thatthe URA's proposed demolition of renovated tong laus [Chinese tenements] and theconstruction of another high-rise tower next to an existing wall of buildings were not in theinterests of the public. The URA's plan was so apparently unsound that the board requested it toconsider the refurbishment alternative proposed by the owners. The URA responded bythreatening to sue the board.
The URA's argument that those buildings are beyond repair was groundless. As well as ownersin Staunton Street, an owner in Wing Lee Street has renovated his entire building and the resultlooks great. These owners have proved that the buildings can be renovated to a high standardand the URA's claim of dilapidation is baseless. By refusing to acknowledge the real issue ofproperty rights and the viability of renovation, the URA is driving itself into a corner. Membersof the community are questioning why the URA insists on doing this project when it is clear thatthere are better alternatives and, strangely enough, when it estimates huge financial loss here.Can our resources be used in better ways, such as assisting more owners to renovate theirbuildings?

One of the URA's arguments is that any change of policy will set a bad precedent. It is rathersarcastic for the authority to say this when what it is currently doing (demolishing soundproperties and destroying our environment with bad planning) are exactly the bad precedentsour government should avoid. The government and the URA s