Bernard Chan should have fought for park idea
- The Executive Council convenor would have liked to preserve the whole Fanling golf course as a park for the public
- Instead he is going along with the half-baked plan to use part of the site for housing
Bernard Chan is a sensible man, but doesn’t always have the courage of his convictions. The convenor of the Executive Council, the government’s de facto cabinet, would have liked to preserve the whole of the Fanling golf course as a park for the public.
Excellent idea! Too bad he isn’t ready to fight for it. Instead he is going along with his government’s half-baked plan to bulldoze a substantial portion of the historic, scenic and heritage site for housing.
“I have supported taking back the course, but how to use it is another thing,” said Chan, adding it was “a pity” to destroy a “very beautiful” site.
The government’s plan is to take out enough land from the site to build at least 4,600 flats, though additional flats may be added by increasing its development density. Supposedly a compromise, it just about takes on the worst features of every opposing proposal.
Even the government admits the number of flats yielded won’t make a dent in housing supply. But the plan has already infuriated many of the club’s 2,600 members, who make up the city’s wealthy elites, without satisfying the populist demand for a total takeover of 172 hectares of public land.
According to the latest government budget, the estimated public housing production for the next five years will yield about 100,400 units; that for private residential homes to be about 93,000 units over the next three to four years. Officials could have easily found alternative sites for 4,600 units without affecting the housing targets for the next three to five years.
While club members might be upset at their loss of privilege, they could not object to having a park along with sports, especially golf, facilities for the public. All along, they have argued the exclusive club has helped promote the sport while preserving a natural heritage site.
A public park would have achieved both goals, perhaps even helping to attract more international golf tournaments with government money. Hong Kong people desperately need greeneries and open spaces to breathe and relax.
So why not? Apparently, it’s because the official Task Force on Land Supply had recommended it, and the government couldn’t “cherry-pick” its recommendations. That’s a first – the government doesn’t want to cherry-pick!
Chan could have earned the gratitude of many people if he fought for what he believed. But it doesn’t look like he will.
