<轉載自2014年1月14日 明報
社評>
房委會首批新居屋，截至昨日下午5時，累計收到約5.28萬份申請，其中白表申請超額58倍，確切反映私樓價格狂颷之後，中產人士對置業安居的渴求。今次申請踴躍，讓社會與政府有機會重新認識居屋政策的重要；另外，綠表與白表申請差距懸殊，顯示居屋過往的向上流動階梯和增加公屋流轉的作用，現在並不明顯。當局應盡可能興建更多居屋單位，並加強對公屋住戶入息審查等做法，強化公屋流轉，盡量做到房屋資源用在有需要協助的市民身上。
逾5萬份申請 白表超額58倍
歷來居屋政策主要有兩個功能。一是讓市民擁有自置居所，增加對社區的歸屬感，凝聚成為穩定社會的力量；證諸30多年實踐，前後共出售了約30萬個居屋單位，這個龐大中產階層歷經多年繁衍，形成社會其中一股中堅力量。2002年因為經濟危機停建居屋，其後未因應經濟復蘇恢復興建居屋，現在大批中產人士淪為無殼蝸牛的景況，與政改爭議觸發的大規模群眾運動有多大關連，是值得探討的議題。
居屋另一個作用，是形成上流階梯增加公屋流轉。公屋戶收入增加，有能力購買公屋，改善居住環境，提高生活質素，使社會形成一股向上流動的無形動力。另外，公屋戶購買居屋之後，交回租住單位，房委會將之編配給有需要的市民，周而復始，公屋資源獲良性運用；當然居屋還有一個作用，就是房委會出售居屋獲得的利潤，用以興建公屋，變相減輕了政府在公營房屋的財政負擔。
因此，居屋從社會功能到具體應對市民置業安居，或公營房屋的財政循環，過去30多年實踐證明，這是本港其中一項最佳政策，當局要汲取因為一時需要而停建居屋的教訓，日後務必要堅持居屋政策，勿再輕言廢止。
市民對今期居屋反應踴躍，他們冒雨打蛇餅交申請表的場面，使人印象深刻。首批新居屋共有2160個單位，綠表和白表分配比例為6比4，即是綠表獲分配1296個單位；以房委會收到綠表申請約2300份計算，攪珠抽中機會超過50%，平均1.77個綠表申請爭1個單位。反觀白表申請共50,500份，獲分配單位864個，超額58倍，即是平均58個申請爭逐1個單位。綠表與白表成功申請機會，可說極其懸殊。
今次新居屋申請，由於樓市變化，居屋促使公屋流轉的功能，未若以往明顯。今次申請綠表只佔4%，白表佔96%，由於可供申請單位不算多，即使綠表申請比例低，相信仍可盡售分配給綠表的單位，不過，情與過去比較差異甚大。歷來申請居屋的綠表與白表比例，大概是3比7，白表一貫較多，原因除了白表申請人超越入住公屋的資格，中產人士負擔不起私樓價格，唯有申請居屋；另外，則是公屋住戶已有居所，除非收入大幅增加，足以轉購居屋，否則要公屋戶放棄已經享有的「福利」，誘因不大，特別是近年樓價狂飈，居屋售價相對於私樓雖有折扣，有能力的公屋戶選擇不高價入市，可以理解。
今期居屋5個屋苑，實用面積介乎371至511平方呎，維持市價七成定價，售價介乎187萬至326萬元，其中售價最高單位，呎價接近6400元，將打破一手居屋呎價紀錄。即使是售價較低的單位，每月供款也需1萬以至約2萬元，對於繳交二三千元租金的公屋戶，除非經濟景特佳，否則在樓價超高下，難以吸引他們「棄租轉買」。
面對市場力量，政府難有作為，但在促使公屋戶購買居屋，加速公屋流轉方面，政府應該還有空間操作。例如現在的富戶政策，還有不少富戶寧願繳交更高租金，仍然不肯購買居屋交回租住的單位，當局研究採取更多措施，強化入息申報等，迫使富戶不再霸佔公屋資源。
公屋財政負擔沉重 售居屋資金回籠解困
目前，房委會興建公營房屋，每個公屋單位成本約70萬元，居屋約100萬元，居屋出售後有資金回籠，對房委會財政不會構成負擔，公屋則不然，除了建築成本，每年每個單位管理和維修開支，還要補貼約2200元，現在房委會管理約75萬個公屋單位，每年補貼就超過160億元。這些龐大開支固然困擾房委會，最終還是由公帑埋單。因此，興建居屋是應對房委會財政的一條出路。
未來10年共興建9萬個居屋單位，平均每年9000個，遠遠不及過去每年約供應1.5萬個居屋單位，除非房地產與整體經濟和政府財政收入有根本轉變，否則高地價、高樓價、高租金現象，將會揮之不去，則中產人士置業難就成為本港永恆的問題，職是之故，居屋在香港，也就是永恆的需要。居屋這步棋只要走對、走穩、走好，就可以解決環繞居住有關的諸多深層次矛盾，政府應該加大力度去做。
HK needs HOS forever
AS OF 5 pm yesterday
(Jan 13), the Housing Authority (HA) received about 52,800 applications for new
Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats. They are 58 times oversubscribed by
white-form applicants, which shows precisely how much middle-class people want
to buy their own homes.
The HOS has served two main functions. One is to allow
citizens to own their dwellings. It increases their sense of belonging to the
community and thus helps maintain social stability.
The other is to enable public rental housing (PRH)
tenants to move up and thus increase PRH circulation. If a PRH tenant acquires
an HOS flat, he will surrender his PRH unit, which will be allocated to a
household that needs it. PRH resources can thus be efficiently employed. There
is of course another function the HOS serves. It helps lighten the financial
burden of public housing on the government as the proceeds from the sale of HOS
flats are used to build PRH.
The HOS serves social functions, meets citizens' housing
needs and helps finance public housing projects. What has happened over the
past three decades shows the HOS policy is one of the best ever implemented in
Hong Kong. The HOS was once suspended because of a transient circumstance. The
government ought to learn a lesson. It ought to try its utmost to stick to the
policy and must never rashly abandon it.
Thanks to changes in the property market, the HOS is not as effective in
boosting PRH circulation as it was. Green-form applicants make up only 4% of
the total. Since not many flats will be available, though the proportion of
green-form applicants is small, we believe all the flats reserved for
green-form applicants will be sold. Nevertheless, the situation is very
different from what it was.
Market forces are such that the government cannot do
much, but there is still a lot it can do to persuade PRH tenants to buy HOS
flats and thus increase PRH circulation. Because of the well-off tenants
policies, many well-off tenants would rather pay higher rents than buy HOS
flats and surrender their PRH units. The authorities should look at the
possibility of taking steps (such as imposing stricter income declaration
requirements) to discourage well-off tenants from holding onto PRH resources.
It costs the HA about $700,000 to build a PRH unit and
about $1 million to build an HOS flat. As it can recoup its costs when HOS
flats are sold, the HOS does not add to its financial burden. But that is not
the case with PRH. The HA must not only pay for the construction of PRH units
but also subsidise their management and maintenance. The subsidy is now about
$2,200 a PRH unit a year. It running about 750,000 PRH units, the expenditure
tops $1.6 billion a year. The huge outlay causes the HA much difficulty, and it
eventually comes from the public purse. Therefore, it is a way of easing its
financial burden for the HA to carry out HOS projects.
In the next decade, 90,000 HOS flats will be built, or on
average 9,000 a year. HOS flat supply will be much smaller than it was (15,000
a year). Unless the property market and the overall economy see radical changes
and the government's revenues change radically, land premia, property prices
and rents will remain high. This is why it will forever remain a problem that Hong
Kong middle-class people have difficulty buying their own homes. The government
can deal with housing-related deep-rooted contradictions if it uses the HOS
properly, consistently and effectively. It ought to try harder to do so.
經濟財政結構倘不變 居屋是本港永恆需要
房委會首批新居屋，截至昨日下午5時，累計收到約5.28萬份申請，其中白表申請超額58倍，確切反映私樓價格狂飈之後，中產人士對置業安居的渴求。
歷來居屋政策主要有兩個功能。一是讓市民擁有自置居所，增加對社區的歸屬感，凝聚成為穩定社會的力量。
居屋另一個作用，是形成上流階梯增加公屋流轉。公屋戶購買居屋之後，交回租住單位，房委會將之編配給有需要的市民，公屋資源獲良性運用；當然居屋還有一個作用，就是房委會出售居屋獲得的利潤，用以興建公屋，變相減輕了政府在公營房屋的財政負擔。
因此，居屋從社會功能到具體應對市民置業安居，或公營房屋的財政循環，過去30多年實踐證明，這是本港其中一項最佳政策，當局要汲取因為一時需要而停建居屋的教訓，日後務必要堅持居屋政策，勿再輕言廢止。
今次新居屋申請，由於樓市變化，居屋促使公屋流轉的功能，未若以往明顯。今次申請綠表只佔4%，白表佔96%，由於可供申請單位不算多，即使綠表申請比例低，相信仍可盡售分配給綠表的單位，不過，情與過去比較差異甚大。
面對市場力量，政府難有作為，但在促使公屋戶購買居屋，加速公屋流轉方面，政府應該還有空間操作。例如現在的富戶政策，還有不少富戶寧願繳交更高租金，仍然不肯購買居屋交回租住的單位，當局研究採取更多措施，強化入息申報等，迫使富戶不再霸佔公屋資源。
目前，房委會興建公營房屋，每個公屋單位成本約70萬元，居屋約100萬元，居屋出售後有資金回籠，對房委會財政不會構成負擔，公屋則不然，除了建築成本，每年每個單位管理和維修開支，還要補貼約2200元，現在房委會管理約75萬個公屋單位，每年補貼就超過16億元。這些龐大開支固然困擾房委會，最終還是由公帑埋單。因此，興建居屋是應對房委會財政的一條出路。
沒有留言:
張貼留言