填海造地必然選項 政府造勢避免失焦

<轉載自2018年7月4日 明報 社評>

行政長官林鄭月娥表態支持填海，各界議論紛紛，有人批評政府不尊重土地大辯論諮詢、架空土地供應專責小組，不過換個角度看，也可以說成是政府「打蛇隨棍上」，趁着推出「房策六招」，游說市民支持填海造地，以便增建資助房屋，協助市民置業。政府表態為填海造勢，是利是弊暫難斷言，然而無可否認，填海乃長遠增加土地供應的有效方法。解決土地問題必須多管齊下，填海是必然選擇之一，惟亦不可能是全部。政府需要處理短期土地供應問題，發展棕地、收回部分私人遊樂場契約用地等，同樣無法迴避。

藉房屋新策順水推舟 不等土地報告損觀感

土地小組的公眾諮詢仍在進行，將於8月做大型抽樣民調。諮詢期9月底結束後，小組將撰寫報告，年底前提交政府。然而林鄭月娥表示，解決土地房屋問題有迫切性，下一份《施政報告》不可以交白卷，她會在今年10月的《施政報告》交代如何處理土地供應問題，不能等到年底土地小組提交最終報告。她希望9月時土地小組能先交出一些方向，供《施政報告》參考。

土地大辯論盼為增加土地供應凝聚共識，政府最理想做法，當然是等待土地小組提交最終報告，之後再下決定。現在政府表示無法「等埋」，難免惹來非議，不信任政府的人，必然質疑土地辯論是「假諮詢」，不過平情而論，本港土地供應短缺已是水浸眼眉，上一份《施政報告》「無貨交」，已惹來不少批評，如果今次仍然沒有着落，很難說得過去。政府不「等埋」小組報告，公眾觀感一定不好，可是政府確需急民所急，能否釋除「假諮詢」猜疑，還看政府的態度和具體處理。

土地辯論展開以來，一個不時聽到的觀點，是政府覓地建屋不過是幫發展商大撈一筆，有地都是用來起豪宅，云云。有關說法，多少影響了公眾對土地辯論的投入。不過上周林鄭公布「房策六招」，宣布居屋、綠置居等資助房屋與市價脫鈎，確有可能影響整場討論的風向。未來資助房屋售價，改為參考家庭入息中位數，以市民負擔能力為定價標準，不少市民希望置業安居，當然歡迎新政策。際此時刻，林鄭表態支持填海，還表示未來土地供應有了保證後，公營房屋對私樓的「六四」供應比例可以改變，暗示「七三比」有商量，論時機顯然有順水推舟之意。

政府擺明車馬為填海造勢，缺點是予人「早有定見」之感，然而在維港以外填海造地，確是一個長遠解決土地問題的方法。滄海桑田是香港歷史寫照，過去數十年的新市鎮，大都是靠移山填海而來，新加坡經驗亦說明，若要大規模造地，不可能排除填海。土地小組分析，本港欠缺的土地不是區區數百公頃，絕非單靠收回粉嶺高球場就能解決，當局必須大刀闊斧，始能解決欠地最少1200公頃的情况。

短期選項勿放軟手腳 多管齊下可保公信力

不少市民對「地產霸權」深惡痛絕，填海造地最大優點，在於政府可以建立土地儲備，對於土地供應的主導權，將比現時大得多，毋須處處受制於發展商。當然，社會上必然有人反對填海，例如有環保人士認為環評制度不能保護海洋，總之填海就是錯；亦有一些政黨出於選票考慮反對填海，強調填海會加重附近社區交通和基建壓力，實際是想討好區內選民，避免填海建屋破壞景觀拖累區內樓價。填海對海洋生態難免有影響，不過技術進步有助減少生態破壞，在生態價值較低海域填海，是值得考慮的務實選項，不應出於意識形態一刀切反對，至於政黨就更應放下私心，以社會大局為重。

民調顯示，約有45％市民贊成在維港以外填海興建新市鎮，反對者佔34％。支持填海者雖佔上風，惟未算壓倒性，年輕人與長者分歧尤大。政府趁着公布「房策六招」為填海造勢，效果究竟是成功爭取更多市民支持，還是適得其反，現階段難以斷言。然而不管政府有何傾向，都應該抱持開放態度，尊重土地小組和市民意見，更不能將填海描繪成「唯一選擇」。

土地小組發表諮詢文件，強調多管齊下，主席黃遠輝亦明言，未來香港欠地上千公頃，沒有單一選項可以一次過滿足需求。無論是官員還是民間人士，任何人若將土地供應問題簡化為對某一選項的支持或反對，都是轉移視線，只會令討論失焦。政府是否尊重土地小組、能否釋除「假諮詢」疑慮，還看當局是否願意貫徹「多管齊下」原則。填海只屬中長期造地選項，解決不了未來10年將會出現的800公頃土地缺口。政府宣揚填海之餘，必須以行動證明，不會對發展棕地和收回部分私人會所土地等短期選項，採取放軟手腳態度，不敢向權貴和既得利益開刀，否則整場土地大辯論將會喪失公信力。

Land reclamation an inevitable option

CHIEF EXECUTIVE Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor's vocal support for land reclamation has aroused widespread concern and discussion. Some have accused the government of paying no regard to the current consultation process on land supply and bypassing the Task Force on Land Supply. But seeing this from a different perspective, one may also say the government is seizing the opportunity created by its earlier announcement of the "six new housing initiatives" to persuade people into supporting reclamation for the purpose of building more subsidised housing and helping people to buy homes. It is hard to judge now whether it is wise or not for the government to declare where it stands and put forth a campaign for reclamation. However, it is undeniable that land reclamation is an effective means of increasing land supply in the long run. The land issue has to be tackled with a multi-pronged approach. Reclamation is certainly an inevitable option but not the only one. To deal with the short-term land supply situation, the government cannot evade options like developing brownfield sites and resuming some of the sites leased under private recreational leases either.

The public consultation exercise conducted by the Task Force on Land Supply is still under way, with a large-scale random opinion survey expected in August. After the consultation ends in late September, the task force will compile a report and submit it to the government by year end. However, Lam says it is an urgent task to solve the land and housing problem and she cannot "leave a blank" regarding this question in her next annual policy address. She wants to mention in the October policy address how to deal with the land supply issue. She cannot hold off dealing with it until the submission of the task force's final report at the end of the year. She hopes the task force can give her some broad direction in September which the policy address can refer to.

The task force initiated the debate over land supply for the sake of reaching a consensus. Of course the ideal way is for the government to wait for the body's final report before making any decisions. The administration's refusal to wait is bound to draw criticism. Those mistrustful of the government will inevitably question whether the land supply debate is only a "fake consultation". But to be fair, Hong Kong's land shortage problem has put the city in deep water. The last policy address had already been under fire for failing to "deliver the goods". People will find it hard to justify if again no solutions are offered this time. It is true that the government's decision not to "wait" for the task force's report has given the public a bad impression. But it is also the government's duty to take timely action to address the pressing needs of the community. Whether it can shake off the doubts over "fake consultation" will depend on the government's attitude and the exact way it will handle the matter.

Since the start of the land supply debate, it has been frequently opined that the government's efforts in finding land for housing are aimed at helping property developers rake it in, and that all the land found will only be reserved for building luxurious residential units and so forth. To a certain degree, such sayings have affected the public's eagerness to engage in the consultation process. However, it is indeed possible that the "six new housing initiatives" rolled out by Lam may sway the direction of the entire debate. Under the new measures, prices of subsidised housing units like Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats and Green Form Subsidised HOS flats will be unpegged from market prices. Future subsidised housing prices will be based on the median household income. How well people can afford the flats will become a criterion in setting prices. With buying homes being the common wish of many, the new policy is of course widely welcomed. It is amid such an atmosphere that Lam has signalled her support for reclamation. She has even suggested that the current 6:4 ratio of public housing to private flats be changed after land supply is assured in the future, implying the 7:3 ratio could be brought up for discussion. The timing of her latest comments manifests an intention of riding on an opportune moment.

填海造地必然選項 政府造勢避免失焦

行政長官林鄭月娥表態支持填海，各界議論紛紛，有人批評政府不尊重土地大辯論諮詢、架空土地供應專責小組，不過換個角度看，也可以說成是政府「打蛇隨棍上」，趁着推出「房策六招」，游說市民支持填海造地，以便增建資助房屋，協助市民置業。政府表態為填海造勢，是利是弊暫難斷言，然而無可否認，填海乃長遠增加土地供應的有效方法。解決土地問題必須多管齊下，填海是必然選擇之一，惟亦不可能是全部。政府需要處理短期土地供應問題，發展棕地、收回部分私人遊樂場契約用地等，同樣無法迴避。

土地小組的公眾諮詢仍在進行，將於8月做大型抽樣民調。諮詢期9月底結束後，小組將撰寫報告，年底前提交政府。然而林鄭月娥表示，解決土地房屋問題有迫切性，下一份《施政報告》不可以交白卷，她會在今年10月的《施政報告》交代如何處理土地供應問題，不能等到年底土地小組提交最終報告。她希望9月時土地小組能先交出一些方向，供《施政報告》參考。

土地大辯論盼為增加土地供應凝聚共識，政府最理想做法，當然是等待土地小組提交最終報告，之後再下決定。現在政府表示無法「等埋」，難免惹來非議，不信任政府的人，必然質疑土地辯論是「假諮詢」，不過平情而論，本港土地供應短缺已是水浸眼眉，上一份《施政報告》「無貨交」，已惹來不少批評，如果今次仍然沒有着落，很難說得過去。政府不「等埋」小組報告，公眾觀感一定不好，可是政府確需急民所急，能否釋除「假諮詢」猜疑，還看政府的態度和具體處理。

土地辯論展開以來，一個不時聽到的觀點，是政府覓地建屋不過是幫發展商大撈一筆，有地都是用來起豪宅，云云。有關說法，多少影響了公眾對土地辯論的投入。不過上周林鄭公布「房策六招」，宣布居屋、綠置居等資助房屋與市價脫 鈎，確有可能影響整場討論的風向。未來資助房屋售價，改為參考家庭入息中位數，以市民負擔能力為定價標準，不少市民希望置業安居，當然歡迎新政策。際此時刻，林鄭表態支持填海，還表示未來土地供應有了保證後，公營房屋對私樓的「六四」供應比例可以改變，暗示「七三比」有商量，論時機顯然有順水推舟之意。