Green

剷郊野開土地,真是解救樓市的萬靈丹?

圖︰高祈        住在樹上過日子?

科大教授雷鼎鳴日前向郊野公園開刀,指每名行山客的成本達23,040元,建議撥出一成郊野公園土地,解決住屋問題。

現實是,土地/房屋供應短缺不是高樓價主因,2014年的樓宇落成量為1.76萬,為10年新高,比2013高出1.1倍,連番辣招下,大陸客漸少,如果房市是按供求關係,樓價照理應該大跌。但樓價不跌反急升13%,回報比港股高十倍,合理嗎?香港的樓市問題是由於供應被壟斷。去年,五大地產商佔七成的賣樓數量。長期壟斷,最嚴重是2010年,單是新地和長實竟佔75%。說拆一成郊野公園增加供應,就能解決高樓價,讓人人有屋住,明顯迴避了問題核心──土地在誰人的手上呢?

被操弄的樓市

消委會多次發表報告抨擊新樓的銷售手法,報章多番批評地產商賣樓如「擠牙膏」,樓市非理性亢奮,狂升搶盤,比目皆是。諷刺的是,2014年,樓宇落成量和地產商賣樓利潤皆創新高,但香港人卻「愈住愈細」,豪宅劏房多如牛毛。2015年預計大地產商推出的1.4萬伙中,近六成為細單位。大地產商手執大量新界農地,囤積達8000萬呎的農地,不單郊野,連市中心的大項目也推出無期,包括︰新地的北角邨和司徒拔道項目、長實的北角油街和中半山波老道項目。

樓市問題必須看清根源,對症下藥。不斷開發土地,無視現時房屋市場的供應問題,若非無知,恐怕是另有用心混淆視聽。屆時香港市民的住屋問題仍水深火熱,而香港市民獨享的美好生態更白白犧牲。

受害不只是生態,也是香港市民。

全面評估發展的影響

雷鼎鳴教授大膽假設,卻簡單求証,沒有評估開發郊野背後的成本,忽略了碳排放、生態、空氣污染及其他社會代價,就得出開發郊野公園「節省288億元居住成本」的結論。有關發展對生態和社會價值的影響其實有專業的評估方法。早在2013年,香港地球之友、香港海豚保育學會、公共專業聯盟及英國智庫新經濟基金會就為機場第三條跑道進行「社會代價及回報」的評估方法(SROI) ,將沒有市場價格的社會、環境及社區因素計算出來,發現三跑的碳放量等於全港的五年總排放量,即便第三跑有其收益,香港仍不賺反蝕975億。如果教授真的計算發展郊野公園的成本,應該參考三跑的SROI,而不是簡單以到訪郊野公園人次作推算。

郊野公園對香港的生態和環境具長遠價值,負責任的學者和政府不應短視只為盲搶地,破壞下一代的生活,必須整全方式考慮各項因素,為香港長遠規劃把脈。

 

 

 

分類:Green, 政治

Tagged as:

9 replies »

  1. 另,文章沒有提及的是,不少郊野公園的劃界與水塘及水務署集水區範圍重疊,向郊野公園要地,即是縮窄水塘及集水區與市區的綠色屏障,危害香港食水安全與自主,其心可誅!

  2. Some numbers that we should all find interesting –

    Country/national parks as percentage of total land area:

    Hong Kong (40%)
    Japan (5.4%)
    South Korea (6.7%)
    Indonesia (11.9%)
    France (9.5%)
    Germany (2.7%)
    Norway (6.3%)
    UK (8.2%)
    USA (2.2%)
    Canada (3.8%)
    Australia (4.4%)
    New Zealand (10%)

  3. The “parks as % of land area " is at best irrelevant and at worst deceptive. With 7 million people living in 1104 km2 of land in Hong Kong, obviously an important part of the reason for the 40% designation is to prohibit illegal occupation and buildup inside the parks.
    I live in Canada for which 3.8% is given. Let me tell you about Nunavut, a province of land area 1.88 million km2 — nearly 2000 times that of HK. Population? 30,000+. Do you really need to designate some parts of it as “national parks “? The whole province IS a park. And it is 20.4% of Canada’s land area. 3.8%, what a joke!

    • According to Nunavut Tourism, there are FOUR National Parks in Nunavut: Auyuittuq National Park, Quttinirpaaq National Park, Sirmilik National Park and Ukkusiksalik National Park. Skiing is one of the favourite activities there.

  4. 感謝「訪客位於 2:03 下午 的 07/01/2015 」指出那個Joe Wong提出的數據是如何荒謬,此人我留意很久了,絕對是個五毛,希望多些有識之士能對人之謬論提出有力反駁

    小弟不熟悉香港郊野公園,也不懂甚魔大道理,但知道香港郊野公園根本不適合建高樓大廈,有識之士已指出各種就業交通生活配套無法配合,可以肯定香港郊野公園起樓只適合毫宅,根本無法解決房屋問題,可說是丁點幫助也沒有,郊野公園起樓絕對係只為地產商同巨富服務而犧牲其他人嘅利益

  5. Kindly try to distinguish “country parks" from “countryside" first. Please go to Parks Canada’s website and check out their National Parks System yourself. Much of Nunavut is located north of the Arctic Circle. Not really my taste for parks when the temperature range is 11 to -34 degrees!

    • You asked me to differentiate between “country park " and “countryside “. This is derisible given your inability to differentiate between Hong Kong, a CITY (and a geographically small one with a very big population at that), and the other NATIONS on your list.
      The word “city " already connotes an opposite to “countryside “. For nations, whatever lies outside their cities is the countryside; now I ask this : what is there that lies outside the city of Hong Kong? Nothing other than water!
      That is why designated country parks are so important to protect what little greenery areas Hong Kong people can enjoy away from the hustle and bustle of city life.
      And I am curious as to why a much more appropriate candidate for comparison : Singapore (a city state), did not make your list. Perhaps some more of your sophistry at work?

      • It is ironic that the one trying to use facts and data comes under attack here. No one even bother to check the facts and just respond with gut feeling and/or hear-say.

        It would take you much less time than that you used to type your response to google the map of Singapore to see that over 50% of the land area is developed. Singapore was the first I looked up but didn’t include because there wasn’t readily available information when I first commented (OK, I was lazy). According to the Singapore National Parks Board 2013-14 Annual Report, the so-called Garden City (“evolving into City in a Garden") has 2,363 ha of “Parks, playgrounds, open spaces, fitness corners and park connectors" (no separate data for national / country / nature parks available) and 3,380 ha of “Nature reserves." Throwing in the 2,550 ha of “Roadside greenery" gives you a total of 8,293 ha, which is only 11.6% of the total land area of 71,400 ha. And this includes all sorts of parks and open spaces. Believe it or not, Singapore has a HIGHER density than Hong Kong now thanks to the government’s aggressive policy on importing low skilled labour and attracting immigrants.

        This is precisely the point I wanted to make when I posted those numbers (stand guilty as charged of deliberately painting a much exaggerated picture) – that when you demand your civic RIGHTS, you must also fulfill your civic DUTY to familiarize yourself with the facts and data first before making judgement. Rather unfortunate that I attracted only criticism and not critical thinking.

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 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 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 )

連結到 %s