■政府決定局部收回粉嶺高爾夫球場32公頃用地作房屋用途。 資料圖片【原文】政府決定全盤接納土地供應專責小組提交報告建議的8個優先選項，包括局部收回粉嶺高爾夫球場32公頃用地作房屋用途，發展棕地及公私營合作發展新界農地，政府會一併開展研究及落實。成立土地小組的主要目的就是凝聚共識，找到開發土地的可行辦法。不可否認，土地專責小組提供的8個優先選項，各有難度，當局要制定優先次序，以先易後難的原則加以落實，更應集中力量推動解決土地問題的根本措施，落實東大嶼大型填海計劃。
土地供應專責小組經過收集不同意見進行歸納，提出8個選項，包括棕地、公私營合作發展農地，以及利用私人遊樂場用地作為短中期措施；長遠的土地來源則有近岸填海、東大嶼填海、發展岩洞、開拓新界新發展區及內河碼頭共5項。8個選項合共可提供約3,000公頃土地。
政府決定全面接納8個選項，無疑是尊重民意的決策，但不能低估這些選項在實際推行時的困難。例如在短中期選項中，收回粉嶺高球場部分土地，雖有較高民意支持，但是單單處理收回球場內的古樹、歷史建築物，恐怕要擾攘相當長時間。另外，同樣有較高民意支持的公私營合作發展新界私人農地，需要建立公開、公平、透明的機制，釋除社會對「官商勾結」的疑慮，亦並非易事。至於散落新界各處的760公頃棕地，涉及土地置換、產業重置等問題，亦容易引起司法覆核。可見這3個短期選項落實說易行難，若同一時間展開，政府須有迎難而上的決心和充足準備。
因此，政府應根據實際情況，以先易後難、先大後小為原則，決定開發土地的輕重緩急，既緩解土地供應不足的燃眉之急，又增加長遠土地儲備，滿足本港民生、發展所需。縱觀小組建議的3個短中期選項即使全部落實，亦只有320公頃土地，與政府評估的中短期土地需求815公頃仍有相當大的距離。
根據團結香港基金估算，香港未來30年需要的土地多達9,350公頃，以政府《香港2030＋》估計2030年前後可取得5,300公頃計，仍然欠4,000公頃土地。眼下大規模取得土地而不影響大量持份者的方法，填海應該是最可取之法。
填海向來是香港開發土地的主要途徑。過去香港填海土地面積總計約達7,000公頃，佔已發展土地面積的26%，但近10多年來本地填海工程近乎停頓，正正是造成目前土地供應嚴重短缺的主要原因。香港的土地問題糾結了錯綜複雜的利益，開發土地雖是發展經濟、改善民生的重要條件，但長期遭到重重阻力。填海的好處，是新增土地可以由政府完全支配，無須跟原有持份者作長時間的討價還價，涉及的利益糾紛和法律爭拗較少。因此，政府落實短中期的開發土地選項，亦要加快東大嶼填海計劃的前期研究，以便從根本上解決土地不足的困境。 （標題為編輯所加） （摘錄自香港《文匯報》社評21-2-2019）
“Proceed from the easy to the difficult” to tackle land shortage
【譯文】The government has decided to fully endorse the eight prioritised options on land supply recommended by the report of the Task Force on Land Supply. These options include developing brownfield sites, tapping into private agricultural land reserve in the New Territories and exploring alternative uses of sites under private recreational leases, including the development of the 32-hectare portion of the Fanling Golf Course. Research and implementation of all eight options will be conducted concurrently. The main purpose of the Task Force on Land Supply is to build consensus and find viable options in land creation, yet it is undeniable that each of the eight prioritised options recommended by the Task Force has different levels of technical difficulty. The authorities should proceed from the easy to the difficult, and at the same time gather resources for the long-term solution to land shortage, that is the development of the East Lantau Metropolis.
Having collected public views through various channels in a methodical manner, the Task Force tendered a series of recommendations to the government that comprises of three short- to medium-term options (namely "developing brownfield sites", "tapping into private agricultural land reserve in the New Territories" and "alternative uses of sites under private recreational leases") and five medium- to long-term options (namely "near-shore reclamation outside Victoria Harbour", "developing the East Lantau Metropolis", "developing caverns and underground space", "more new development areas in the New Territories" and "developing the River Trade Terminal site"). The eight options could provide 3,000 hectares of land in total.
The full endorsement on the eight options of course shows that our government respects public opinions, but one cannot underestimate how difficult it would be for the authorities to implement these recommendations. Let us take the short- to medium-term options as examples. Despite public support, the partial requisition of the Fanling Golf Course would be extremely time-consuming due to the presence of historic buildings and old and valuable trees.
Similarly, the development of private agricultural land reserve in the New Territories would not be easy, as a transparent, fair and impartial mechanism must be in place first, in order to avoid accusations of corporate-government collusion. As for the 760 hectares of brownfield sites scattered all across the New Territories, progress could be hampered by numerous legal challenges and judicial reviews, as the government has to deal with the difficult and controversial process of compensation and relocation. It is obvious that the implementation of these three short-term options are easier said than done. If they were to be implemented at the same time, the government must be determined and prepared for all the challenges ahead.
Therefore, the government should accord priority to options that are both easier to implement and more efficient. It will not only ease the urgent need for land supply, but also expand the land reserve to meet the long-term needs of the public's livelihood and economic development. The three short-to-medium-term options listed by the Task Force, when combined, can only provide 320 hectares of land. According to the government estimates, this is still far from sufficient when compared to the projected shortage of at least 815 hectares.
Our Hong Kong Foundation projects that 9,350 hectares of new land would be needed to accommodate demand in the next 30 years. According to the government's "Hong Kong 2030+" study however, only 5,300 hectares of land can be provided by 2030. It means that there will be a shortfall of 4,000 hectares. Reclamation should be the most viable option on the table, as it can provide new land in a large scale without affecting too many stakeholders.
Reclamation has long been an important source of land supply for Hong Kong. As of today, about 7,000 hectares of land in Hong Kong had been formed by reclamation, representing 26% of the city's developed area.
However, reclamation has virtually come to a halt for more than 10 years, leading to the land shortage today. The problem of land shortage in Hong Kong is a complicated matter that involves multiple vested interests. Although land creation is vital to the improvement of people's livelihood and economic development, it has been met with heavy resistance for a long time already. One of the advantages of reclamation is that the newly obtained land would be directly under government control, thus avoiding all the difficulties involved in private land resumption. Therefore, apart from implementing the short-to-mid term land development options, the government should also accelerate the preliminary study of the East Lantau Metropolis in order to solve the problem of land shortage once and for all.■Jeffrey Tse (ywc_jeffrey@hotmail.com)
Exercise
1. 既得利益
2. 丁屋
3. 原居民
4. 回收土地
Answer
1. vested interest
2. small house
3. indigenous villager
4. land resumption