網上討論: 補償、編配安置及土地收回  

 
論題:   補償方法
Compensation methods
Webmaster
發表於:
2008-12-08 17:09

應否檢討目前重建與保育方面的補償方法?公平的補償方法應包含哪些主要元素?
 
Should the current compensation methods for redevelopment and preservation be reviewed?  What are the key elements of fair compensation methods?

wai
發表於:
2008-12-17 18:11

空置、出租及自用的自置居所計算方法應統一處理,而不應因不因使用物業情況而作出扣減,因為現行的補償計算方法引起居民之間的不必而矛盾。

在香港,房屋除了是必須品外,也是投資的工具,出租物業本身可為投資者帶來回報。投資者不一定是很有錢,正因舊區物業普遍的價值在一佰萬元以下,所以一些業主也會出租本身自住物業的部份地方以賺取收入。

現行的補償方法對出租者帶有懲罰的意味,雖然公帑不是用來津貼投資者,但放在收購物業的角度來看則不應區分業主買下物業的意圖,為什麼他們要為市區更新作出犧牲。

ada wong
發表於:
2008-12-24 23:45

近年來,市建局積極製造偏見 -- 受重建影響的業主都是貪婪的人。

 

偏見本來不是事實,但是當偏見一次又一次在不同場景被複製後,偏見成為真理,社會被偏見分化。就像市建局觀塘重建項目,在局方公布「自置居所津貼價」為每平方呎$5,937後,部分業主覺得不合理,公開要求更高的價錢,張震遠主席就在報章撰文,強化偏見,對業主的訴求作出批評。

 

主席的語氣冷漠傲慢,缺乏同理心。市區重建策略檢討正在進行中,若策略完善,為何需要檢討?然而,市建局的高高在上態度,實在不利這議題的坦誠公開討論。

 

為何這批業主會不高興?在自由市場,樓宇的買賣是你情我願,價錢由雙方討價還價後決定,但當物業被納入市建局的範圍,你會發現以下市建局不會對你說的「三大問題」。

 

首先,是業主被分等級,自住的業主有機會取得$5,937,但買樓投資收租的、或暫時丟空的,收購呎價就只是「樓殼價」,即上述呎價的一半左右。為何買樓收租會受懲罰?

 

其次,是業主不能不賣,因為《收回土地條例》是一只「強制性」的魔掌。第三,是業主只能收取劃一的現金賠償,沒有其他選擇,例如「樓換樓」。張震遠主席說,樓換樓行不通,但樓換樓也是公平的機制,在不少大城市都有採用,是市建局怕煩吧?

 

市建局高調製造偏見,社會繼續被偏見分化:乖乖接受市建局賠償的才算識事務,其他的都是貪得無厭的刁民。在偏見愈見嚴重的香港,我痛心看見,不少舊區鄰里間的情誼已被市建局的偏見磨滅。

david
發表於:
2009-01-02 10:25

乜政府原來要用公帑貼人投資舊樓?仲要保証有得賺?嘩!我都要買番兩三間!

咁都係道理?!我認為政府應幫果d真係有需要o既人,而唔係保証投資者有錢賺!




ABC
發表於:
2009-01-03 02:17

投資? 如果把物業空置十八年, 想賣卻沒有巿場的叫投資

你去投資好了!!

 

MK Chan
發表於:
2009-01-16 16:20

 


 

I agree with the comment posted by:

wai on 2008-12-17 18:11

I don't understand why URA makes the compensation policy so complicated by discriminating the affected owners into those from self-use or those for tenancy. There are many reasons for those owners to go for tenancy with their properties. If the existing policy punishes those owners with tenancy agreements, many will feel being unfair and the whole resumption process will be very controversial.

I suggest the URA, which is not a government department, should take a similar approach currently used by private developers which offers one average purchase price based on the property size. Simplicity makes less controversay.

 

Miss Lam
發表於:
2009-02-24 14:07

URA likes to set out many rules in the name of public interests to compensate less to those affected owners and at the end resume their properties at cheap price. Then they can sell the land to the private developers at an expensive price. It is how URA makes money and takes advantages of the affected owners.

CY Wong
發表於:
2009-02-24 14:12

I browse through the webiste of URA and understand that the total amount of compensation will be dedected, if not punished or denied your life effort, if your property is rented out and if you own more than 1 properties within the same redevelopment boundary. I think it is very unfair and unreasonable. Many owners within the redevelopment areas are old people. They spend their whole life to earn money and to buy properties. Some may be able to buy more than 1 properties. Why should they be punished by providing less compensation if they own more than 1 properties under their own names? It is also very ridiculous to punish those owners with property with tenancy.
 

WK Lam
發表於:
2009-02-24 14:32

The URA should make reference to the market and try to be consistent in the compensation rationales. It is good to have 1 price to all affected owners.

JOAN CHAN
發表於:
2009-02-25 23:40

留言嘅David及ABC真離譜。如果住在舊區,唔好彩被重建,政府有一大堆方法guidelines同你計,最後的賠償金額人人唔同,又可能低過市價,睇你會唔再亂講。

Peter
發表於:
2009-02-26 10:58

我睇完賠償方法感到十分混亂。政府應該一口價,不要分出租、自住或半自住。私人市場都是這樣哩!

susan cheung
發表於:
2009-02-26 11:01

By reading the existing compensation method of URA, you will find it extremely arguable and very diffcult to understand and apply. Each owner and tenant has their own stories and the compensation guidelines create different feelings among them. It's better to have one price/rate policy. That means one rate applicable to all owners and another one rate to all tenants. The rate should have included all other allowances. In this case, the public can only focus on the price/rate and there is no other debates.

Pig
發表於:
2009-06-26 15:43

政府目前計賠償的方法十分不公平。土發在當年制訂賠償標準,基本上沒有做過公眾諮詢。政府訂標準,由土發來執行。換言之,整個過程閉門造車,一定不公平,一切以政府利益為大前提。事實勝於雄辯,賠償標準應用了20多年,政府所應出的賠償金額比私人發展商少了很多。最可怕的,土發及市建局所有收回的業權,經過重新包裝,以價高者得方法賣給私人發展商。這是不是利益輸送呢?

Lam
發表於:
2009-06-26 15:44

市建局的賠償方法矛盾重重。市建局一直高舉公正、公平、公開。如果公正,為什麼空置出租單位比自住單位所得的賠償不同呢?如果公平,為什麼要punish出租單位業主?如果公開,為什麼第二個出租單位比第一個出租單位少25%呢?奇怪的是,少25%的依據。為什麼不是45%或15%?一切由市建局來訂,自話自說,黑箱作業,十分危險。

David
發表於:
2009-07-04 21:23

I guess URA cannot answer the questions on why a discount e.g. 50%, 25% or 0% is given to affected owners. The whole point is that URA can pay less to the members of the public and finally be more profitable to the redevelopment projects. All these percentages e.g. 50%, 25% or 0% are arbitrary. I think URA should try to listern to each affected property owenrs and each understand if they should give you a discount when talking about resumption. URA should uphold fairness and equality. They should be human and reasonable. They should try to understand if the final compensation amount is enough for all affected owners to find a replacemnt property for self-occupation or tenacy. These percentages are very controversial and discriminatory.

 

Rodrigo Siu
發表於:
2009-07-06 10:28

本人認為目前賠償方法,雖然在2001年經過立法會財務委員會制訂,但這套方法有三個問題:

[1] 在當年沒有就有關賠償方法進行公眾諮詢,民意基礎不足。

[2] 經過多年實施,錯漏百千,不平聲音,此起彼落。對自住和把物業出租的業主採取不同的賠償金額,制造不公平不平等情況。其實,不同業主購買物業的時候,都有不同的原因背景。自住業主可以是職業釘王,出租業主可以是患病老翁。建議市建局應採取一視同仁,在公共政策面前,人人平等原則!

[3] 目前賠償方法,由於爭議太多,製造太多民怨,直接拖慢重建速度。建議參巧市場智慧,以一口價方法,不會針對任何業主(例如出租業主、公司業主、擁用多個物業業主),硬性扣減賠償金額。

Joan Au
發表於:
2009-07-06 10:35

其實我覺 政府的賠償方法 OUT
一個政策如果用了多年
便應幾年去討論一次
是否要修定新的賠償方案
有時政府應出去跟那些舊樓業主居民交流研究
了解大家的意見
而整合出最佳的收樓賠償方案
起碼政府要俾出誠意去傾
而且低價買入高價賣出
政府所食的中間差價幾和味
收多幾條街便賺越多

Barbara HUNG
發表於:
2009-07-06 11:03

香港特首曾蔭權近年曾多次表示香港奉行大市場,小政府政策,堅持港府一直沒有背離自由市場經濟哲學,甚至強調港府在制訂不同政府時均研究如何“結合政府與市場力量”,以締造最能支持經濟發展的環境。

 

所謂大市場,小政府政策,就是在在絕大部分情況下,政府應尊重市場,在合法平等原則下,政府都以不干預比較有利。

 

目前市建局所實施的補償及安置政策,與大市場,小政府政策背道而馳。市場中而有一套合法平等的收購方法,多年來自由自願。市場絕對尊重私人物業業權,私人與發展商以市場數據協商,絕對不會出現下列強硬干預行為:

 

1.     出租物業業主賠償應該較少

2.     擁有一個以上物業主賠償應該較少

3.     空置物業業主賠償應該較少

 

事實上,私人發展商收購所引發的社會爭議比市建局所推行的重建項目更快、更多、更少怨氣。如果政府仍然堅守大市場,小政府政策,應在研究新一輪市區重建策略時,積極考慮採取市場方法,一視同仁,不要讓受重建影響業主對政策反感,常怨市場都不會這樣的

gigi
發表於:
2009-07-06 14:42

The current compensation policy should not be discriminatory between retail shop owners and owners of vacant or tenanted residential properties. The URA is double-standard if the retail shop owners are given a business loss allowance and the owners of vacant or tenanted residential properties are not allowed to be considered for their bsuiness loss.

Wallace - URA - ARE YOU LISTENING?
發表於:
2009-07-06 21:24

SUBJECT: URA – ARE YOU LISTENING?

 

Listen!

Listen!

Listen!

 

In fact, I agree with most of the above comments that the compensation policy is a BAD BAD BAD one. It is BAD as URA is two-faces. If URA criticizes the affected owners greedy, URA itself is also greedy. It is BAD as URA can only allow itself to make big profit ($4,000,000,000) from Wedding Street Project and does not allow the members to claim equal compensations as a result of their loss of private property ownership right. It is BAD as URA allows no watch from the public. People can go to Obudsman to complain to the HK Government. However, people can go nowhere to share views or make comments to URA.

URA – PLEASE MAKE CHANGES IN THE COMPENSATION POLICY AND I SHALL WISH TO SHUT UP. CAN I?

 

Ruth Lee
發表於:
2009-07-06 21:30

If URA makes no real change in compensating the public in old areas, the public will think that URA is the most greedy public organisation in HK.

Siu Mei
發表於:
2009-07-06 21:41

Frankly, I don't understand why the public comments are so negative. I think some of them are quite fair and good indeed. There must be something wrong done by URA. Can URA break the silence and say something? Do you think you are misunderstood or you are always good and perfect? Are you going to respond to some if not all the above comments?

will chan
發表於:
2009-07-07 09:34

All legal business activities should be encouraged and private property ownership right should be respected in HK. The URA should adopt a consistent compensation policy to all affected owners in redevelopment areas in HK.

Elsa Tsang
發表於:
2009-07-07 09:34

I would like to share one real case in Tokwawan with the public. One ownerI owns 4 properties under the name of a company. He has just received an offer by URA with the average compensation price at HKD2500 per sq.ft., whereas the other owners can get in general HKD 5800 per sq.ft. In other words, a discount of 60% off is given to URA. The fact is that the current market price for properties in Tokwawan is rising over HKD2900 per sq.ft. and in the 13 street district, the price is over HKD 3500 per sq.ft. There is no way that this owner can find 4 replacement old building properties in Tokwawan. The URA always claims that the affected owners can get a compensation good enough to purchase a replacement property with improvement in living environment. I would like to ask if this case is a proven fact to demonstrate that the current compensation policy of URA totally fails to meet the original intention of the policy. It is also important to add a point that this owner spent over HKD1.3 millions to renovate the 4 properties by creating 16 rooms for tenancy. The current compensation is discriminatory in a sense that this real case is a total victim. His effort to run a business is wholey disrepected. This HKD1.3 millions are intended to help him to make a business for 10 years. However, the redevelopment proposal by URA takes aways this business potential and the HKD1.3 millions is simply a loss to him. If the current compensation policy is not reviewed, this case will keep emerging in HK and unfairness and anger to HK government will keep spreading everywhere in old districts in HK. It is also unfair to these businessmen who try to survive legally and creatively. 

ANNIE
發表於:
2009-07-07 14:57

只要劃一賠償
便不會有爭議

政府要思量現在政策是否還合符現在社會環境?
因為賠償不一
每次重建收樓都有大部份業主持反對聲音
這樣吵來吵去只會拖延收樓進度
而影晌重建的進度

chris
發表於:
2009-07-08 00:19

Why does URA consider owners with tenancy agreements unqualified to stand equally in compensation?

eddie
發表於:
2009-07-08 00:19

I check up the URA Ordinance. It appears that the existing compensation policy guidelines are not law. The guidelines are only reference to be used by URA to negotiate with the public. URA should be geniune to negotiate with the public and try their best to arrive at a compensation price. The public should not think that they are unlawful when disagreeing with the compensation policy guidelines. They are free to raise up their requests with reasons to URA and URA should fully consider the counter requests by using the market principles. All the above comments may be overreacted.

bill
發表於:
2009-07-08 00:20

Let's stop discrimination against the non-self occupied owners. All people should be equal in law and any government policies.

mary
發表於:
2009-07-08 00:37

同意annie講法

政府聽吓業主D意見啦

強制收樓攪到不歡而散,二敗俱傷

到時又攪到一頭煙

人地唔俾,你收唔到

 

 

 

 

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-08 02:13

我唔同意David的意见 (2009-01-02 posted 个位)。URA对外话比7年楼龄价,但七除八扣后,实际上比你两千几一尺。如果赔偿只得百几万一个单位。我想问现时香港有边到有D百几万既楼的实用面积如唐楼一样,有成700几尺 !! 比首期后都要供,谁肯帮D公公婆婆做Mortgage??如果系甘,我认为以‘楼换楼’形式解决最好!!

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-08 02:17

One more thing:

私人收购出价都高过URA好多。人地收购价对外公开。点解URA从来都唔公开每一个单位收购价??今时今日既香港人会可以接受零透明既半政府机构??!!另外,话就话用成十几亿收购。但发展商如果可以届时卖到七千几一尺或以上,URA自己都可以分红,坐底袋几十亿走!!点解还要系平民百姓到抢钱??

Kwok Tung
發表於:
2009-07-08 13:02

我始終同意不少網民意見,認為香港是一個法治,公平的社會。若這一次不是業主主動要賣樓,而是要按政府政策賣樓,則應該給予一個公平,視每一個人為平等方法交易。

從這幾次重建補償條例中,不平等的項目實在太多。首先,不知為何,要將出租和自住物業定為兩個賠償方法。若一視同仁,給予人公平的感覺,相信引起反對會減少。另一個令人費解,會使多人質疑的,就是為何人若擁有兩個物業以上,他們第二個物業賠償會少於第一個物業一半。為何要減少呢?為何要規定減少一半呢?這使很多香港,自力更新,希望靠著幾個物業來收租,以作養老之人仕,帶來打擊。希望政府在重建項目中,減少這些不公平現象。

THOMAS
發表於:
2009-07-08 14:19

一句到尾
支持賠償政策一視同仁,不分自住,出租,空置

Doris Lee
發表於:
2009-07-08 15:29

其實,好多市民只不過期望一個平等方法進行收購。一個單位,每一尺均等一個價錢。這又不是社會福利,為何要按那個單位的性質而加減補償方案呢?當補償不公平,最後又是會讓一些政客帶隊上街,那時政府才補鑊。那時候,問題仲大。

苦業主
發表於:
2009-07-08 15:42

一生積蓄來置業
好過存放在銀行
一聲重建無奈何
補償難再置新居
蝕錢蝕樓可如何
爭取要求公道價
一聲貪心傷自尊
蟻民不敵官家口
惟有唉唉搖搖頭

Paul Chan
發表於:
2009-07-08 23:10

  市建局濫用尚方寶劍強創小市民的資產, 賤價強奪商場大地, 與商家分紅拆帳, 鯨吞私人舊樓資產, 並成為全港最具規模無本發展商。

  極權無理, 全力反對與壓民爭利之政策!!

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-09 01:01

我心表明白苦业主既心声。

我爷爷就是住在被收购既唐楼。他辛辛苦苦一生就系为左层楼,同时最自豪自己就系可以自给自足,不靠政府不靠人。谁不知。。。政府一句话收返爷爷层楼。他用URA出既价去睇同区既楼,根本买唔到差不多既楼。叫他过来同我地住,他话几十年都没走出过以区,死都唔肯搬。同时重要比人出口伤人话贪心,偏低人格。身心受压。身为他个孙,我只希望URA可以以“楼换楼”方式解决问题。免得不必要既争吵。因为我都唔想睇到其他老人家好似我爷爷甘为左层楼搅到坐唔安食唔乐。

Ching
發表於:
2009-07-09 12:34

I highly agree with the ‘楼换楼’ suggestion !! I believe that it can diminish all the arguements between the private and public sectors and help speed up the redevelopment process !!

Kwok Tung
發表於:
2009-07-09 14:38

苦業主的一首詩,使我有感同身受。難道我們作為小市民,就要被人用法例去搶我們的物業嗎?越來越覺得我們似雷曼苦主,有怨無路訴。

MF Cheung
發表於:
2009-07-09 14:50

我覺得苦業主(Posted on:2009-07-08 15:42)都幾有創意,絕對是黑色幽默。不過,有創意不代表政府會聽,可能只是"得啖笑"。

 

我明白什麼叫苦業主!接受罷!

Tony Lam
發表於:
2009-07-09 14:52

公平!公平!公平!真的那樣難做到嗎?

近日社會怨聲載道,不少事情都與政府無情處事手法,使人怨聲載道。就好似市區重建,一個有其好一面的計劃,卻因很多人為因素,使其怨聲載道。難道苦業主們聲音,就不需要理會嗎?

公平!公平!公平!其實是很單的。劃一賠償,減少怨氣,真不想最後我們又有一班苦難主,要上街遊行,政府才肯聆聽我們的聲音。

多多貓
發表於:
2009-07-10 10:07

支持樓換樓等價交換!!!

GIGI
發表於:
2009-07-10 10:59

Hahaha ... 苦業主好好笑好生動 ... Sorry .... 可能你好慘! 可以唱出來嗎?

KT Lam
發表於:
2009-07-11 13:15

近日發現多了人關心重建補償的問題。慢慢才知道對很多業主來說,這是一個有切膚之痛的決定。有很多會離開自己所喜愛的社區和鄰居,有的還會失去一個重要財政倚靠。誰不知逼害小市的,不是地產商,而是政府。為何要以說亮的聲音來包裝一個不公平制度呢?一個規則,一個價錢的合理買賣,始終才是令人信服的。政府定下那樣多賠償制度,不是用作幫人,而是在剥削小業主,又何苦呢?

Doris Lee
發表於:
2009-07-11 13:22

很少在新聞之中,發現其他地區有市建上怨氣。這一點,政府真的要反省。

paul smith
發表於:
2009-07-12 22:07

苦業主真有意思, 以詩歌形式表達既生動又有趣。

好有意思, 又到位~

Tsang
發表於:
2009-07-13 12:13

我認為政府可以研究所有業權業主,不論出租、交吉、自住都要劃一原則賠償。其實,在施政時有以下原則應該比現行政策更好:
1.政策面前人人平等
2. 一視同仁
3. 前後一致
4. 尊重及配合市場做法
希望發展局的政務官可以考慮。

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-13 14:33

香港唔只有嘉亨湾发水楼,仲有好多发水地,等URA做最大规模的“無本發展商”!!

無本發展商 = URA = 無本心、無成本、無本事、只会"本pair"做事

K P Wong
發表於:
2009-07-13 19:16

 

市區重建局(市建局)就觀塘月華街項目邀請提交合作發展意向書,在2009710日(星期五)截止。市建局共收到15份意向書,表示有興趣合作發展該項目。該地盤位於觀塘協和街與月華街的交界處,佔地約4,326平方米。月華街項目現為巴士總站,佔地近 4.7萬方呎,只建 1幢約 40層高住宅,單位只有約 300伙,總樓面近 30萬方呎,規模不算大,且地下 3層要重置現時觀塘道的公眾健康院。預計項目完成後會提供總樓面面積約27,830平方米的用地作住宅及政府/團體/社區設施之用。

蘋果日報所知,美聯測量師行董事林子彬認為,項目的地價成本只約 11.6億元,總投資約 16億至 20億元,適合中型及大型發展商參與。

在這裡誠邀香港網友,留意市建局可賺收購成本多少倍?

相信比利東街的2.5倍更高。初步估計,市建局用8億收購成本,私人發展商會用2530億投標,即市建局有機賺34倍利潤

繼利東街業主反對後,觀塘業主相信會對政府怨氣加深,這套利益輸送做法,長遠來說,市民一定可以看穿,政府管治威必定下降,相關官員(包括市建局)的誠信人格,終有一天被廣大市民批評。

Winnie
發表於:
2009-07-14 12:40

URA claims to uphold the principle of paying enough to help affected onwers to find a replacement property. I have to say that the current compensation policy is discriminatory to owners with tenancy agreements. The policy pays no consideration to their loss on renovation costs to make it fit for dwelling for tenants. I hold a property in Tokwawan. I spent $90000 for each tenanted apartment. I have 4 apartments and the total renovation costs are $360,000. The current compensation policy makes no consideration to this loss of renovation costs. The owners with tenancy agreements are the number one victim of all. 

Violet Chan
發表於:
2009-07-14 13:29

本人認為現行政策,有關補償是十分不公平。

為何要如此麻煩及複離? 自住業主,非自主業主,非住宅業主,住宅及非住宅租客,這樣分類本身就是不公平。 大家都是同一單位,政府補償卻不一,很難令人覺得合理,而且有許多情況增潻計算麻煩,費時失事,應該劃一補償。

 

Kwok Tung
發表於:
2009-07-14 14:27

越來越多人就補償條例發表意見,可見當中爭議甚多。期望政府多聽民意,正視劃一收購的好處。

Veebon
發表於:
2009-07-14 18:10

I support most of the above comments that everybody should be equal in front of the law and the public policy. All domestic and non-domestic properties should be respected with the same compensation amount. Owners with vacated property and tenancy agreements should not be taken as 'greedy' owners who deserve less compensation.

PLEASE MAKE A CHANGE!

 

市區重建局
發表於:
2009-07-16 11:07

重建如何賠償才合理?

市區重建局

 

在論壇上,論者有的觀點部份與事實不符,謹澄清如下:

 

1.          買樓投資收租或空置的,收購呎價只是「樓殼價」?

 

事實上,非自住業主所得的,是其單位的市價,加上一項補助津貼。如該單位實用面積500平方呎,市價為100萬元,而市建局按同區七年樓評估出的呎價為$5,937元的話,該非自住業主第一個單位所得的會是 :

 

市價100萬元+補助津貼($5,937元x 500呎-100萬元)x50% = 約198萬元。

 

第二個非自住單位的補助津貼為25%而第三個非自住的單位才沒有補助津貼。此外,每一個單位皆可獲得相關費用津貼約$87,700。相關費用津貼將每半年調整一次。根據统計,在一個重建計劃內擁有超過兩個單位的小業主數量很低。

 

2.          現行補償方法對出租者帯有懲罰意味,要他們犠牲?

 

自置居所津貼的用意,是讓受重建影響的自住業主,能運用補償金重置居所,改善居住環境。對於擁有一個單位的非自住業主,市建局的補償包括有關單位的市價,另加上一筆補助津貼(即自置居所津貼一半),很多時候這筆特惠津貼已差不多等於該單位市價的一倍。

 

3.          市建局向政府申請收地時,以賤價收購物業?

 

事實上,在政府收地時,地政署會根據《收回土地條例》及現行政策提出補償給有關業主,如果未能達成協議,可交由土地審裁處決定賠償數額,而非市建局。

 

4.          市建局制訂賠償標準,沒有公眾諮詢。

 

市建局的賠償標準,在2001年3月由立法會財委會經討論後才制訂,市建局一直按照有關決議執行賠償。

 

 

市建局的賠償是有所依據的。我們要遵照立法會財務委員會2001年的議決,以同一或近似地區的「7年樓呎價」去賠償業主。

 

這個「7年樓呎價」不是由市建局自訂的。我們要公開邀請不少於7家合資格的測計師行去獨立評估。以觀塘市中心重建項目為例,因業權眾多,我們更邀請11家測計師行估價,由於希望參加估價的合資格測計師行超過20家,我們邀請了當區區議員、業主代表和香港測量師學會的代表一起見證抽籤過程,並由他們親手抽出該11家測計師行。這11家測計師分析了多個與觀塘市中心的環境和特點近似的區域和樓宇成交個案,才得出5,937元這個7年樓呎價,使自住的業主可以迅速改善居住環境。

 

市建局不但會賠償業主,也會照顧租客,租客除了可選擇現金賠償之外,如合乎資格的話,亦可選擇安置往公屋。

 

至於商戶方面,市建局會給與自用業主市價另加35%或四倍應課差餉租值的賠償(以較高者為準),而非自用的商戶業主,也可得到市價另加10%或一倍應課差餉租值的賠償(以較高者為準)

 

賠償是所有重建項目中最常出現的爭議,對於真正自住的業主,「7年樓呎價」這個立法會批准的機制,是保證賠償公平公正的標準。

 

重建區受影響的業主,常常建議樓換樓,鋪換鋪。在現實層面,這種補償方式在現時的香港未具基礎。立法會在2001年決定以近似重建區的七年樓呎價作為賠償住宅自住業主的基礎。樓換樓等於以新樓作為賠償,已經超出了立法會同意的水平,亦增加重建項目的成本。

 

在現實層面,樓換樓也極為困難。現時市區可供安置的地皮非常罕有,加上協商收購曠日持久,一般的重建項目,從啟動、規劃、賠償、收購、招標、建設到落成,少不了要七、八年。如果要在同一地塊用樓換樓方式賠償,在這七、八年間,居民可以住在那裏?他們住在新居所落地生根幾年後,又願不願意再次搬遷?

 

雖然為現實所限,市建局也竭盡心思,在實際可行的情況下,嘗試尋找出路。在一些重建項目裏,我們按照七年樓呎價作賠償後,讓自住業主多一個機會,優先以市價購買未來落成的新樓宇,或讓商店經營者以市值租金優先租用項目落成後的商鋪。

 

 

在賠償方面,現時市建局的賠償方式,或許不是十全十美,但已因應立法會財委會2001年的議決,在滿足居民期望,善用公帑兩方面,作出能力所及的平衡。

 

有關市建局重建補償的資料, 可參市建局網頁上的常見答問欄目:

http://www.ura.org.hk/html/c404000t2e.html

Kwok Tung
發表於:
2009-07-16 13:33

多謝市建局的人願意行出來回應。不過,你們幾句話,將責任放在立法會,放在測量師所定呎價,而表現出自己是無可奈何,被逼去逼害我們一班小業主。你們認為解決了問題嗎?

作為苦業主,最苦的是政府沒有詳細通知下,就說立法會通過了收回你的物業。作為業主,樓宅買賣絕不是那樣兒戲。就如私人發展商,他們提出收購。而我們作為業主,不單會收到有關信件,更會有人與我們商議,討價還價,才完成買賣。現在政府卻指問題推給立法會,是因他們立了法,我們才要執法。這是負責任政府做法嗎?

Kwok Tung
發表於:
2009-07-16 16:44

想補充一句,就是對市建局認定所謂合理的方法,本人認為只是他們自圖其說,自己定下遊戲規則來逼我們認為合理。

我始終認為一個劃一價錢買一個單位才是合理做法。

mk chan
發表於:
2009-07-16 18:34

就市區重建局在2009.7.16在網上的回澄清,本人有下列提問:

 

[1] 買樓投資收租或空置的,收購呎價只是「樓殼價」?

 

根據市區重建局澄清,市區重建局已承認有重建區業主收購呎價只得「樓殼價」,與事實相符!

 

既然有這種情況,請問收購呎價只是「樓殼價」是否最合理、最一視同仁、最乎合自由市場的做法呢?部份市民提出訴求,為什麼市建局一起首便說與市民事實不符呢?批判民意呢?

 

至於相關費用津貼,該津貼用來資助業主因購買新居所而引致的開支及搬遷的費用,不是用來評估物業價值,請不要和「樓殼價」課題混為一談。況且,這筆費用將會全數或更多用來支付印花稅、地產佣金、保險費、律師費等,最終都不是給業主的。

 

[2] 現行補償方法對出租者帯有懲罰意味,要他們犠牲?

[3]    市建局向政府申請收地時,以賤價收購物業?

 

市建局整個賠償政策包含一個信念,就是自住業主所得的賠償金額就是最高賠償線,出租或空置者就必須取得較少賠償。問題就在這個位置出現了!為什麼市民一定要同意這個最高賠償線?為什麼強制要求市民同意出租或空置者須取得較少賠償呢?

 

香港市民多年來都活在自由經濟社會裡,一切私有產權轉讓都受着私人市場監察。換言之,除了市建局所建議的最高賠償線,自由市場都有一個人人平等的最高賠償線。

 

由於多年來如此,自由經濟絕不會扣減出租或空置者賠償金額。當市建局對出租或空置者提出(扣減的)賠償金額時,因和市場賠償金額不同,人們便感到有有懲罰意味,要他們犠牲了。這種感受,絕對有市場基礎及香港文化價值觀為依據。

 

至於是否賤價收購,從自由經濟角度,就肯定是了。從物業代理在售樓時所知,如果低於市價10%叫荀價,如果低於市價20%叫超荀價,如果低於市價超過20%叫賤價。市建局在過去多個深水埗及土瓜灣項目,收購價都在5300-5500元左右,和私人發展商收購價(5500-6800)相差5-10%左右。但在市建局重建區所有出租或空置業主所得尺價,就只介平2500-3600左右(按所持物業數量而变),即出租或空置業主的賠價只得自住業主的47-68%,這是不是叫賤價呢?如果和市場做法比較就更低呢?

 

按自由市場基礎提出訴求,為什麼市建局說市民訴求與事實不符呢?

 

4.          市建局制訂賠償標準,沒有公眾諮詢。

 

答案就是沒有公眾諮詢了。事實上,當年只有20013月的立法會財委會經討論。

 

公眾的提問,為什麼與事實相符呢?

 

 

 

Barbara
發表於:
2009-07-16 20:53

By ready the comments above, I think there is nothing wrong to uphold the laissez-free policy and to follow religiously with the invisible hand value in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has a long history to develop its city with this invisible hand value system. Most of the comments are simply a reflection of their mindsets and the HK value. Their comments have made a reasonable reference to the free market examples. I can only see the Urban Renewal Authority has an arbitrary policy.

In relation to the comments posted by the Authority posted above earlier today, the tone is so bureaucratic and the altitdue is 'government-is-always-ight'. It is contrary to the purpose of this webiste and the promise by Ms. Carrie Lam to listen to the public with a humble heart and an open mind. It is also upset that the Authority belives the public is factually wrong, although they keep making reference from the market. As a matter of fact, the public only wants to take the free market approach. I urge the URA to promise once again there is no pre-determined agenda in this Urban Renewal Strategy Review. If the Authority thinks that the existing policy is perfect, why does Ms. Carrie Lam want to have a review?

There is one thing certain. There was no public consultation in 2001, as replied by the Authority. The public was not allowed an opportunity to express their views in 2001. The society is getting more and more democratic. Most of the public policies are now based on public consultation. That's why Ms. Carrie Lam is pushing for a review and the public echoes her intention and to give comments freely. The replies by the Authority is alarming and not accountable to the public. The four replies are a proven pre-determined agenda. It is also clear that the Authority is never critical / updated on the existing policy. The Authority is so defensive. I urge the Development Bureau to review if the Authority has an open mind to help carry out this Review. I don't want our views to be mis-interpreted.

On the other hand, the Authority is not ready for changes. If this happens, it is impossible for the Authority to respect all public views and then bring forwards the public views to the Development Bureau. I urge the Authority to re-think the original intention of this Review and remind the Authority not to disagree, disagree, disagree and disagree.

It is also important that this Review is interactive and mutually respect. Your replies show only disagreement. Is there anything (perhaps just one comment) that you agree?

The public proposes for more options in the existing compensation policy. However, the Authority is once again not ready to change. I can only read the Authority's excuse of being difficult to implement flat-for-flat and private owner participation scheme. Is there a pre-determined agenda? I can predict that the public will never be given the options of flat-for-flat and private owner participation scheme other than cash compensation at the conclusion of this Review. I am 100% sure.

Why does URA think the compensation only on money point of view? The Authority is a public authority and should jump out of the box. Please investigate more options to the public. The so-called option (i.e. to allow the affected owners to firstly purchase the flats built by the private developer in the same redevelopment zone) is in fact a further guarantee on the sale performance of the private developer. There is no discount given to the affected owners (particularly the owners with vacated flats and tenancy agreements). If it is fair, the tenanted owners should be given discounts as if they provide discount(s) to the Authority when selling their property right. Please don't quote this as an option. Please ask the public in this Review if the public consider this as an option.

 

 

 

 

 

MF Cheung
發表於:
2009-07-16 21:24

My replies to the Authority:

[1] The Authority does compensate only the 樓殼價 in some real cases.

[2] The Authority does buy the property rights cheaper than the market.

[3] There was no public consultation in 2001.

[4] The Government has a hidden agenda in this Review, as the Authority disagrees with most of the public opions.

MF Cheung
發表於:
2009-07-16 21:26

Before I forget, with regards to the comments recently posted by the Urban Renewal Authority, is it possible to have an English translation? Most old urban area residents cannot read Chinese.

christ
發表於:
2009-07-16 23:14

The above comments by the public are fair as they quote cases from the market. URA is not the only body who participates in the urban renewal. The private sector is also efficient and less controversial in urban renewal. As far as I understand, the private sector is responsible for 70% of urban renewal and URA only 30%. (Am I right?) If the private sector is more market-oriented and well-supported by the public, the Bureau may consider minimize the intervention of URA in urban renewal and let's the market to operate more.
 
The URA still fails to explain the underlying rationales why the tenanted owner provides only 50% of allowances for the first property, 25% for the second one and 0% for the third, fourth and fifth one. Why do the percentages not 100%, 90%, 80% ... ?

jackson
發表於:
2009-07-16 23:15

The Authority should listen to the society and never jump to any conclusions too fast. I see no hope on one-flat-to-compensate-with-one-flat. I can also feel that the Authority does not respect the market when resuming the property while turning to the market when selling the land. Is there something wrong here? A reasonable man can give you the answer.

hing
發表於:
2009-07-16 23:16

I hope the Development Bureau can reduce the role played by the Authority in the Review. Their mindsets are so dictating and rigid. The Authority can think of NO options even in this Review. An independant body should take over the Review. If not, we know the answer now.

wilson
發表於:
2009-07-16 23:19

The private market can do urban redevelopment less compulsorily, more openly, more favorable equal to all owners, more efficient, more innovative and more comfortable /better compensation to the public.

The URA can only do urban redevelopment more compulsorily. less openly, less favorable to tenanted and vacant property owners, less efficient, less innovative in offering compensation options and more debatable in the society.
So, the conclusion of this Review is "GO FOR THE MARKET".

Liu
發表於:
2009-07-16 23:34

对于URA716日的回应,本人十分气愤!!

1)何谓public consultation?原来2001年在立法会表决的就是代表了今时今日被重建影响的人的意见。这等同特首说他说的就是代表全香港人的意见一样,不可理喻!!

2一句“現時市區可供安置的地皮非常罕有”,一句“在這七、八年間,居民可以住在那裏?他們住在新居所落地生根幾年後,又願不願意再次搬遷?”就可以把“维系社区网络”的责任抹得一干二净!!如此不负责任的公营机构,真令人感到失望!!

3)如果URA真的明白“落地生根幾年後,願不願意搬遷?”的话,URA应该更加明白为什么受重建影响一群,对于URA强抢他们的家园,会如此关注!!

4)其实对于7年楼龄的意见,我看不到有很多人有很多反对。不满之处是所谓7年楼龄是再要七除八扣!所以URA500尺单位可得198万的比喻是虚构。因为实际提供可能是198万的46折!!请不要再三的骗公众!!!!!!从而把受影响的人标签为贪婪的人!!!!!!

Dick Ng
發表於:
2009-07-17 00:57

I think the market is well-done in urban redevelopment. The Government should turn back to the minimum intervention approach. The Authority should admit that there was no public consultation in 2001. There was only a discussion in a committee meeting of the Legislative Council in 2001. Does the Government consider the committee meeting a public consultation? If it is the case, your definition of public consultation is fundamentally mistaken. 

KM Ng
發表於:
2009-07-17 01:00

I propose a consistent compensation package to all types of affected owners.

BB King
發表於:
2009-07-17 02:26

The existing compensation policy fails to consider the severe financial loss to tenanted owners and retail shops. It only favors to owners who actually live there. It ends up to be a nightmare to most owners in old districts in HK when they know that their properties will be resumed compulsorily (that means no need for any reasons). I hope the government can learn from the free market in HK and adopt the approach currently upheld by the market.

M C Li
發表於:
2009-07-17 08:37

Please don't make up too much excuse to resume our properties cheaply. In my case, I worked for 10 years to save money to buy a property for self occupuation. I then spent another 10 years to work hard to buy another property for renting. Why does the compensation policy 'mislabel' my 10-year work hard effort to force me to sell my property for renting with a big discount?

Kwok Tung
發表於:
2009-07-17 12:35

我都說市建局的解說是自圓其說,推卸責任。你們看看,他們一回應,就受到網民們圍攻,就知他們問題有多大了。

J Lee
發表於:
2009-07-17 12:38

agree with M C Li, if the members of the public buy the property from the free market, the Government should buy their property rights as if they buy them directly from the free market. Everybody should be equal in the market and nobody should get less in their sale of the property titles.  

 

CH Chan
發表於:
2009-07-17 16:29

The most important issue is to be fair to all. The compensation rules are too complicated and must have the results that make those people receive less money to feel disappointed and need to protect their interest. Why not one price to all?

 

 

Anki
發表於:
2009-07-17 17:18

VERY UNACCEPTABLE !

 
HOW COME A LEGCO DECISION CAN BE ENTITLED AS A PUBLIC CONSULTATION ?
 
HOW COME A ‘FLAT-TO-FLAT’ METHOD CAN’T WORK IN HONG KONG WHILE IT WORKS IN MAINLAND CHINA  ?
 
AS THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STORIES ON THE EXISTING COMPENSATION POLICY, THIS SHOWS THAT THE POLICY IS NOT CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT ENOUGH  ! TO EASE THE CONFLICT, URA SHOULD PUBLIZE ALL THE TRANSACTION PRICES SO THAT THE PU
 TO EASE THE CONFLICT, URA SHOULD PUBLIZE ALL THE TRANSACTION PRICES SO THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE STORY !

旁觀者
發表於:
2009-07-17 18:43

朱門酒肉臭, 路有凍死骨.

這是唐代詩人形容社會貧富兩個世界不公平的現像.富者食物發臭,貧者凍死街頭.眼看苦業主們景況,真擔心社會也會如此.政府公平一點好嗎?

Eric
發表於:
2009-07-17 20:10

I think the Government should provide more optiuons in compensation to the public to choose. If both the URA and the affeted owners cannot arrive at a price, then they should be offerred with more options e.g. flat for flat / private participation right.

susan cheung
發表於:
2009-07-17 22:01

我前陣子有去過你們的公眾諮詢

你們的職員只因有市民在大叫便立即用不好的語氣說了一句

"你聽唔聽?唔聽我便走人"

我覺得你們應以虛心的態度去聽取人家的意見

整個感覺便像你們出來做SHOW給大家看

實話聽取意見其實只是聽過便算

你地話有向市民諮詢.但其實你們的報告有多少是真的?

是否百分百是市民的意見?還是你們的職員混在公眾諮詢市民範圍那幫你們說好說話?

這也是你們才知道.有多少黑商作業我們市民怎會了解?

一次公眾諮詢便令我對你們失望

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deborah
發表於:
2009-07-18 09:15

林鄭月娥, 發展局局長在2008-10-17在網誌中提出下列引言,作為今次市區重建策略檢討的開場白:

 

「與民共議」是今次市區重建策略檢討最大的特色,故此我們會利用各種不同的途徑和嘗試嶄新手法,收集和聽取市民對市區重建的看法及建議。

我曾經表示這次檢討是完全沒有預設的議題,我們亦會以最開放的態度去聽取大家的意見。開設這個網上論壇的目的,就是要提供一個方便、快捷、自由的平台讓大家隨時隨地發表對市區重建的看法。除了要遵守一些發表言論的基本規則外,大家可暢所欲言參與討論,我們絕不會對言論作出刪剪或過濾。

你們的意見是《市區重建策略》檢討最重要的一環,希望大家歡迎並充份使用這個為你們建設的平台。無論是批評、建議或閒談,我們都會虛心聆聽,並會作出適當的回應。

在林局長的開場白有四點十分重要,包括[1] 與民共議、[2] 完全沒有預設的議題、[3] 最開放的態度、[4] 虛心聆聽。就因為這四個原則,廣大市民才積極參與,集思廣益。但市建局在2009.7.18的澄清及對市民的指責,用上一句 ------ 與事實不符,希望發展商可以回應及檢討今天市區重建策略檢討市建局應扮演的角色。坦白說,從公眾的反應,市建局根本不能中肯真誠,與民共議。

 

如果是與民共議,市建局不應只有澄清,細心再看,根本是四大反對!

 

如果是完全沒有預設的議題,為什麼市建局會在檢討中期巳說:

重建區受影響的業主,常常建議樓換樓,鋪換鋪。在現實層面,這種補償方式在現時的香港未具基礎。立法會在2001年決定以近似重建區的七年樓呎價作為賠償住宅自住業主的基礎。樓換樓等於以新樓作為賠償,已經超出了立法會同意的水平,亦增加重建項目的成本。

必須一提,關於樓換樓,鋪換鋪、業主參與等概念的專題討論尚未進行,但一句未具基礎已經說明已有預設的結果。如果結果真的這樣,請發展局盡早了結今次檢討,因市民被誤導,勞民傷財。

 

如果以最開放的態度,為什麼市建局會說:

4.          市建局制訂賠償標準,沒有公眾諮詢。

 市建局的賠償標準,在20013月由立法會財委會經討論後才制訂,市建局一直按照有關決議執行賠償。

市建局的回應充滿僵化的官僚作風,對於公眾諮詢的性質仍然停留在或局限於立法會財委會的討論。有就有,無就有。其實,市民有眼可見,無論特首及一眾問責局長,都實事求事,勇於承擔。但市建局的回應,完全開放欠奉,沒有問責感及為大官者氣度。

 

如果是虛心聆聽,理應用心分析市民意見,痛陳利害。好的要回應,不好的也要回應。如果對大眾的意見誤解了,就當承認。

 

希望發展局可以回應吧!

Mama R
發表於:
2009-07-18 19:12

I can see that the majority of the opposition against URA and their boss Development Bureau comes from the unfair compensation policy. The victims of the victims are from those owners with properties vacated and tenanted. The unfair differentiation between owners for self-use and owners for tenancy/vacancy causes the public discomfort, if not anger.

I think if the URA keeps using the same compensation policy against tenanted owners, their redevelopment plans will become a political bomb in one day.

This Urban Redevelopment Strategy Review should put a top priority on the real review on the compensation policy. All owners should treated equally. Don't define those self-occupied owners should get the best compensation and others less and less.

 

James Fan
發表於:
2009-07-18 19:18

Wow, the replies from URA are so misleading. Thanks to the public to keep a watch on the URA. Well-done. It is so useful to have correct and factual information. Otherwises, URA will keep providing wrong information when purchasing / compulsorily resuming private ownership right from the market.

I support the public wisdom to uphold free market principle when doing compensation. Everyone should be the same in law and policy. HK is HK. HK likes free market.

 

Oliver Owens
發表於:
2009-07-18 19:22

Is it possible to have an English translation on the replies from URA?

Can the public help? I think URA does not want to do it.

Michelle TO
發表於:
2009-07-18 20:41

URA draws a lot of public criticisms and triggers loads of public cries, tears and angers because:

[1] They adopt some policies so unfair to some owners.

[2] They get the properties cheaply from the owners and sell it at the market price to the big developers. Most of the completed projects are evident that only wall-buildings and limited open space were planned in their projects.

[3] They are not market oriented and fail to operate their business cost effectively. That's why they should not be given so much power to compulsorily resume private property right. In fact, the performance of URA should be given a "FAIL" grade. The free market should therefore be the answer. Less URA, More Market.

 

S H Li
發表於:
2009-07-19 03:07

The Urban Redevelopment Authority is doing something unfair to the society. It is totally unacceptable to HK. Hong Kong people can tolerate a lot politically and socially. However, whenever you set up some policies at the advantages of their money. They will fight it till the end of the world. The public oppositions are correct to justify themselves by market reasoning. Hong Kong people are proud of themselves as they can settle many issues in the market. However, URA touches on the private ownership right. The right is acquired as a result of lifetime saving and hard work. Everybody buys the property title without any deduction and discount from the market. However, URA just makes up many guidelines which will then deduct the property prices by 40% to 60% off as compared with the market price. The guidelines were prepared by Legco Committee in 2001. 8 years are over. It is time to correct the guidelines and make the policy right.

 

Please learn it from the free market!  

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-19 22:01

对于S.H. Li的意见,本人十分认同!首先,URA私立规条强抢公众私人物业。我不明白为什么必要公众准守这些规条,令物业价值低于市场价格的同时,还要对外偏低业主人格和对业主做出强骂的态度!香港应该是一个公平交易买卖市场,何解要公众接受一个不公平交易?!何解不能对公众交待真实买卖价?如果说用了十几亿收购,为什么在土地查册登记处登记的交易价与所说的收购价总和相距甚大?逃税还是假帐?URA应该对公众交待清楚所有账目!!

另外,借口多多说是为了改善区域环境,提升生活区域质素,请问那一个项目不是与整个区域完全不配合?荃湾荃新天地说设计了直立式花园,但如果不是要把建筑面积扩大至最大化,那会需要人家抬高头看花草,导致楼高比周边建筑物高一倍多及产生屏风楼效应?如何改善区域环境,提升区域生活质素,请解析!

还有一点及最重要的一点是从来没有听取民意!这种黑箱作业,无本生利的做法真的令人非常非常非常非常反感!!!!!!!!!

香港C朗
發表於:
2009-07-20 12:30

旁觀者好一句:朱門酒肉臭,路有凍死骨。

我就話:市建局酒肉臭,苦業主凍死骨。

你話市建局用了這樣多制度,來增加自己花紅收入,苦的只有苦業主,給他們用法例來搶我們畢生積蓄。

Tony Lam
發表於:
2009-07-20 12:43

失望!失望!失望!

上一個星期六參加了市建局一個所謂諮詢會。失望之情由心而生。市民的訴求,用了近年少見溫和的方法表達,結果只換來市建局沉默的回應,立法會議員循例地指責。是不是要大家用一些激進手法,才會有政府官員,才會有議員走出來表達關心呢?

希望市建局明白,不要讓市民認為用溫和表達是錯,更不要讓我們認定要上街,要生要死,你們才回應。若真有人被你們逼死,你們良心會一世受責。希望你們仍有良心?

另外,在諮詢會裡,在座大部份業主都覺得賠償不公平,特別是政府用左扣右扣的方法,使人更不滿。公平,你們真的要留心。

Paul
發表於:
2009-07-20 13:54

上面好多意見都有批評市建局!市建局解釋只是按本子辦事,但錯在沒有吸引多年來收購時所聽見的聲音,業主的反對理由,客觀反映給發展局知道。其實,市建局最清楚知道賠償政策的問題,作為一個公共機構,有社會責任完善制度,不可能一面倒反對市民意見。市建局這種姿態,市民只會感到官字兩個口了。

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-20 14:05

天大喜讯!今日蘋果日報报道了三篇有关URA的恶行!

 

报道一: 市區重建樓價三級跳 呎價動輒近萬 趕絕原居民

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090720&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=12731&art_id=13007634

 

【本報訊】關乎全港舊樓命運及市區重建方向的《市區重建策略》,正進行公眾諮詢。有檢討委員會委員認為,過去多年來,重建不但破壞了舊區居民的社區網絡,重建後新建的豪宅單位售價更貴得嚇人,每呎動輒 8,000 9,000元,「重建之後啲樓價可以三級跳,叫原本住喺嗰區嘅人點樣住?」有受重建影響的居民更批評,市建局重建是將舊區「士紳化」,迫使窮人無法在原區生活。

市區重建策略檢討督導委員會委員何喜華接受訪問時指出,市建局的目標重建區內,大部份是 40 50年樓齡的舊樓,住了不少基層市民和窮人,「好似深水埗、觀塘咁,好多板間房同籠屋,保守估計全港至少有五萬人住喺呢啲環境咁差地方。」市區重建原本的目的是改善市民居住環境,但他指,市建局與地產商合作發展的重建項目,通常都包裝成豪宅出售,即使不是低下層人士,一般業主收取市建局的賠償後,也不可能買回單位居住。

本報翻查資料,市建局近年與地產商合作發展的重建項目,幾乎全部都包裝成豪宅出售。去年 10月金融海嘯發生時就推出的荃灣御凱,當時平均呎價也要 6,251元;毗鄰灣仔港鐵站的尚翹峰,今年 7月出售最後一個面積 637呎單位,售價逾 590萬,呎價高達 9,300元;俗稱喜帖街的利東街重建項目雖未建樓,但業界估計落成後住宅每呎至少賣 9,000元。

標籤成「有錢人嘅社區」

中原分區營業經理張永泉表示,灣仔尚翹峰、嘉薈軒等未重建前,同區 40年樓齡舊樓每呎售價不到 3,000元,但隨着重建地盤興建的都是呎價動輒 8,000 9,000元的豪宅,令豪宅旁未拆卸的舊樓身價勁升,「家啲舊樓通常都要 5,000蚊一呎。」
舊樓變豪宅的同時,重建區通常會引入高消費生活模式。何喜華指,以灣仔和昌大押為例(重建地盤建成嘉薈軒,和昌大押則復修),復修後即變成高檔食肆,平民百姓根本無法負擔一餐數百元的消費,「就連嗰幾條街嘅茶餐廳都貴過人。」他說,過往不少重建區被標籤成「有錢人先可用嘅社區」,低下層無法分享重建成果,是他們反對重建原因之一。何喜華希望市建局重建時,要顧及受重建影響居民感受,及盡量安排他們可原區安置
今年 5月開始,《市區重建策略》公眾諮詢曾進行多次巡迴展覽、公眾論壇及專題討論,但參與討論及發表意見的公眾人士不多。何喜華指,諮詢期今年底屆滿,擔心公眾現時少參與討論,日後推行新重建政策時反對聲音會大增,呼籲市民多發表對舊居重建意見。
詳情可瀏覽《市區重建策略》網址

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-20 14:06

报道二:舊區「士紳化」街坊失至親

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090720&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=12731&art_id=13007635

【本報訊】舊區重建是好是壞?不同人可能有不同答案,但對重建區內居住的老街坊來說,就可能是壞事。在筲箕灣南安街住了 30年的張婆婆說,重建除令她的朋友四散,也令她失去至親。有受重建影響的居民批評,市建局重建時完全不理居民感受及反對聲音,「市建局重建根本就係士紳化,街坊只可以搬走,好無奈」。

曾倡原區居住遭拒

在俗稱「喜帖街」的利東街住了 48年的超哥,早年與一眾街坊向市建局提出「啞鈴方案」,建議保留及復修重建區內部份舊唐樓,保留街道特色之餘,又可讓受影響居民返回原區居住,但被當局拒絕。他強調不是反對重建,但市建局目前重建策略是將舊區「士紳化」,即舊樓重建後都變成豪宅,重建區變成中上階層的住宅區,原來的舊區居民只有搬離住了數十年的舊居,有的惟有遷往較邊陲的新發展區,重新適應環境。
另一受重建影響的張婆婆,不但要重新適應新居住環境,更要適應一個人的孤獨生活。她說,受房協收樓重建影響,她與丈夫 04年搬離住了 30年的筲箕灣南安街單位,丈夫疑因不適應新居環境,搬走半年後過身,「以前住嗰間屋有成 900呎,家間屋就細咗一半,佢(丈夫)成日都好激氣。」張婆婆明白,社會要進步,重建是其中一個方法,但同時令她最感無奈,「啲朋友各散東西,就連至親都失去埋,好唔捨得。」

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-20 14:07

报道三:賣樓收益減 市建局收入或「見紅」

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090720&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=12731&art_id=13007636

 

市建局未必可保住政府早年注資的 100億元。該局目前盡量揀選區內單位少、地盤面積大的目標重建區舊樓作重建,奉行「賠償少、收入大」的政策,但隨着這些舊樓買少見少,加上社會反對建高樓的聲音越來越大,市建局未來收購成本大增之餘,賣樓收益大減,未來收入可能「見紅」。

將動用政府百億注資

市區重建策略檢討督導委員會委員何喜華表示,市民反對屏風樓聲音日大,加上政府在多區設定新建樓宇高度限制,規限了市建局在重建地盤的建樓高度及單位數目,勢令賣樓收入大減。他指,具重建效益、即單位少而地盤面積大的舊樓買少見少,市建局未來要向單位較多的舊樓埋手,勢將增加重建成本,加上日後賣樓收益可能受高度及地積比率所限,市建局未來將要動用政府注資的 100億作收購重建。
市建局上年度錄得超過 45億元虧損,令該局累積虧損達到 1.3億元。該局主席張震遠早前表示,下半年會發債集資 10億至 20億元,以應付日後收購重建及營運,但強調市建局財政穩健。

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-20 14:08

对于三份报道,本人有以下不满:

l           URA强抢市民资产后,把地卖给发展商,导致楼价暴涨,忘记市民利益、资产,更而从中获利!!!

l           URA的讨论会是有限额性,降低公众参与机会,所以不是想参加就可以参加!!!!希望URA举办非秀才SHOW的公众咨询!!!!

l           URA逼使小市民搬迁,把区域改为富贵区留给有钱人!!!

l           URA黑箱作业!!!从不交待收购交易状况,与发展商合作有花红分!!!还要发债集资!!如果集资,坚持URA先交待清楚所有账目,把每一个单位的收购价公报!!

SUNG
發表於:
2009-07-20 17:22

URA is getting hot in the mass media. It's regretful that no reporter is invited to attend the public forums and topical discussions. If not, I think they would understand what really happens deeply.

I have to say that the mass media cannot fully understand the reality of the compensation policy adopted by URA. They make no points to the pains of the owners.

However, there is one phrase which is true. It's the original residents are compulsorily moved out and given no opportunity to move back. They lost their money, properties and friends. It is so unlucky if your homes are identified to be redeveloped.

 

 

Fans of Apple
發表於:
2009-07-20 19:29

Thanks to the Apple Daily which always plays a good role to watch over the performance of the HK Government. It is very good to at least sympathize the victims under the government compensation policies.

Samson Ng
發表於:
2009-07-20 23:50

If not reported by Apple Daily today, I didn't know that there were public forums available! And how could URA treat a Legco decision as the public consultation? It's ridiculous!

URA should increase the transparency of the entire redevelopment process (in terms of both the planning and financial aspects); review the existing policy especially the hottest issue - the compenstation policy; and produce a compatible development!  Please stop making the gap between wealthy group and poor group bigger and bigger!!

世聯顧問
發表於:
2009-07-21 09:57

謝謝CK Liu對市區重建策略檢討的關注及意見。必須澄清一點:市區重建策略檢討的公衆論壇和專題討論是沒有限制參加人數的,歡迎任何人士參加。唯一有限額的是發表簡報的人數,限額是六名,以預留時間給公衆討論; 但有可能的話,我們也會盡量讓更多人參與簡報,如剛剛過去星期六的公衆論壇,由於報名作簡報的反應熱烈,我們也把簡報名額由6位增加至9位。第五次專題討論「業主參與重建發展」將於八月一日舉行,期望你繼續關注及參與。

MAY CHEUNG
發表於:
2009-07-21 11:07

我都有出席2009.7.18的公眾論壇,覺得世聯做得不錯!市民都有機會發言,甚至可以發言2次!雖然3號風球,但市民怨氣不減。李華明先生作為當日的moderator,都公平公正地給市民一致時間表達心聲,甚至流淚,憑歌寄意。在論壇總結時,李華明先生都驚訝絕大部份市民意見都在批評市建局,甚至用土匪來形容市建局,並要求市建局自我反省,為什麼市民會一面倒地痛駡市建局。

 坦白說,李華明先生結論好都不代表市建局会聽。市民和市建局交手多年巳明白市民如何合理,市建局只会笑面迎人,最終都是一成不变。

 希望市建局上下員工自我反省市建局是否一個好的工作單位,你們是否如土匪般強逼市民賤交業權呢?

moon chow
發表於:
2009-07-21 11:13

《基本法》訂明必須維持資本主義的經濟體系,確保貿易和金融服務的巿場自由。請問,目前賠償方法,是否違反《基本法》精神呢?如果賠償準則租自由市場造法有50%距離,這是否離開了《基本法》給予香港人基本權利了。

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-21 14:26

谢谢世联顾问回应。但9个人发表实在太少了。名额应增至最少15人。还有的是,如果没有发言机会的公众,可以在那里表达意见及这些意见是可以所有市民议员到知道的! 

May Cheung一样,我想知道公众的意见收集之后,URA会做什么?如不改革,只会令反对声音不断扩大。咨询后不检讨,不回应,不改革,我看不到咨询目的在哪?

Lydia Yik
發表於:
2009-07-21 14:55

I don't know who is right or who is wrong.  But according to the comments above, I found the public highly dissatisfies not only the outdated policy but also the entire URA.  Hence, I believe it's a time for revolution.

My view is in line with Tsang's comment posted on 13-7-2009:

1.政策面前人人平等
2. 一視同仁
3. 前後一致
4. 尊重及配合市場做法

Helen
發表於:
2009-07-21 16:44

I propose the URS to review the prevailing compensation and rehousing policies of URA with reference to the Basic Law and the free market philosophy. All property rights should be protected by law and market principles. It is not right to have different policies towards owners with tenancy and owners for self-use. Everyone should stand equal before legistation and government policy.

R.SIU
發表於:
2009-07-21 22:17

I support to uphold the free market economy in reviewing the compensation policy adopted by the government. Owners will be happy when signing the sale and purchase agreement. The free market economy will be good to improve the living environment and promote the vibrancy of the HK economy in the long run.

The existing approach taken by URA is compulsory and stressful to owners. It is founded on unfairness. Although self-use domestic property owners can get more, they still have a problem to get relocated to a newer flat within the same district. They can only use the compensation and move to a more remote location. In this sense, they need to lower the living standard as they cannot have a convenient location as originally located.

For tenanted owners, they spent their whole life to purchase those properties. They bought properties legally and properly from the free market. However, the existing compensation policy cannot allow them to have sufficient money to purchase a similar property with the same size and rental return. In this sense, their business is upset by the redevelopment scheme. URA is intervening the economic activities in a negative way. It is not accepted by the long-term free market principles of HK.

Most owners cannot sleep well and feel bad when they have the news to have their properties to be redeveloped / resumed by URA. It could be a nightmare indeed. They cannot be offered with any alternatives. They cannot have a friendly and peaceful negotiations with URA. They can only be offered with reasons based on a guideline. All proposals by owners will not be seriously considered by URA. Owners are only reminded that if not accepting URA's offer, their properties will be compulsorily resumed and they may get even less in the end.

The existing compensation system results in a lengthy 'negotiation' process. This process is very psychologically unhealthy. Most cannot tolerate this painful process.

Most transaction records adopted by URA are usually lower than the market cases. This approach has a determining effect. They should take reference to the other resumption cases implemented by the private sector.

 

Gara
發表於:
2009-07-21 23:49

Please respect the public and the surrounding environment and please review the compensation policy! Otherwise, the public won't trust URA! 

Please take action now!

Roger
發表於:
2009-07-22 12:31

The public is not happy with URA. There are so many criticisms against URA. It guesses it is all related to the compensation. URA needs to improve the system la.

Wong
發表於:
2009-07-22 14:41

香港市民由自由經濟養大的,人人都流着自由市場的血。民主選舉權利,市民還可以等,但要拿走市民口袋裡的業權,必須自由公平。

 

市建局的賠償政策,就不能学似自由經濟市場的原則,自由公平地買入業權,最終只有民怨。

 

市建局未來還150-200個重建項目,如果每個項目有2500人口,即合共有500,000人口。如果政府市區重建政策固步自封,一成不變,政府永遠是對的,相信這1,000,000人口會變成民怨,直接挑戰政府管治威信。

老實人
發表於:
2009-07-22 15:56

我叫老實人,是一個業主,在七月十八日的諮詢會上,我才發現我的老實,一個我多年來被稱讚的美德,是非常愚蠢。

我相信香港有法治,但是,現在才發現政府才是大奸商。那一天不少聰明業主指出市建局用各種無理規則來減低收購價。他們有警方作後盾,有法例出支,若不願意賣出單位,是不是會被拉下監裡呢?很多人說他們是強搶,但是,市建局的人郤不敢走出來面對或回應,他們是默認嗎?

突然間,我發現我的老實,一個中國人被稱讚的美德,落到曾特首統治的政府,已經不適合了。

Jackson
發表於:
2009-07-22 17:17

Please review the policy with the following principles:

1.政策面前人人平等
2. 一視同仁
3. 前後一致
4. 尊重及配合市場做法

 

petty
發表於:
2009-07-23 00:02

Hong Kong success is because of its free market mechanisms. All citizens are free to buy and sell. In the URA compensation policy, the public has no choice of not selling their properties at a price not agreed. URA can only answer to the public there are thousands of difficulties and impossibilities of offering further options for the public to choose. In other words, there is no option. URA can only answer to the public there are thousands of difficulties and impossibilities of offering further options for the public to choose. In other words, there is no option. URA can only have a focus on money, money and money.

simon
發表於:
2009-07-23 00:08

I would like to share one example in Guangzhou. The government needs to buy the property title at a price equal to 3 times of the market price. But in Hong Kong, some owners can get only the market price of the property while for the most lucky owners, they can get 2 times of the market price as their compensation.

 
 URA has less respect to the property right than Guangzhou and all the other Asian countries. 


 In the website of URS, it is noted that most URA officers and Development Bureau staff paid many trips for their overseas case studies. The public paid for their trips. I wonder if they can really learn something from other Asian cities and give some new solutions to urban redevelopment in Hong Kong. I hope that URA can at least respect HK as a free market city. References should be made to the ma

Tung
發表於:
2009-07-23 00:27

I urge the Development Bureau to give an answer why tenanted owners need to give 50% off for the first property in the special allowance, 75% off for the second property and 100% off for the third and the fourth and the fifth. It appears that URA cannot answer this question from their replies. They give only a bureaucratic answer to the public.

 

I agree with most of the above that everybody should be equal in compensation on their loss of property right which may be the amount of their whole life saving and salaries.

TT
發表於:
2009-07-23 15:02

Discretionary approach (100%, 50%, 0%) being adopted by URA on compensation is strongly objected.  Instead, one-price compensation for all affected persons including company owner, individual owner, living-in owner, non-living-in owner, tenant is supported.

KYT
發表於:
2009-07-23 15:04

Crrent compensation level is not reflecting the actual market value as practiced by the private market.  Moreover, compensation offer by URA in many cases is not in line with 7-year replacement value as claimed by URA because there are always many discounts through URA's calculation.  Discounted compensation renders great difficulty for many affected owners or residents to look for residence or business replacment in the same locality.

RW
發表於:
2009-07-23 15:06

to date, URA is purchasing the ownership at a discount rate of market value.  ironically, after tidy up the land titles, URA sells the land to private developers at the highest market price.  the difference between the compensation costs and the selling price of the land at the end is incredibly huge.  does it mean that URA is making profit at the expenses of the interest of affected owners or residents for the benefit of themselves and private developers?

View of the general public
發表於:
2009-07-23 16:19

I think it's time for URA to stand in front of the public to explain what is going on with the redevelopment project and the financial aspect.  As there are so many people commenting on the existing compensation policy, there must be something wrong / unfair with the policy.  If we are still relying on the problematic outdated policy, the goal of making a better city can never come true! I believe that the policy and the redevelopment process should respect the public's will and right; and they should be equal to each individual.

I see that there are some owners whose compensation is deducted due to having more than one property.  I disagree with the existing compensation method: 1) I don't see that the owners are willing to sell their homes; 2) I don't understand why they have to sell their homes but the price is lower than the average market price; 3) URA does make the redevelopment project's property price increase few folds; and 4) the owners really cannot afford to buy a similar flat in the same district.  Hence, URA should review the method and generate a FAIR compensation policy!

Besides, the comments imply that the owners are being insulted by URA / URA's staff.  If not, the owners won't have such big reaction on their attitude and manner.  Hence, URA should review their communication / presentation too.

張小姐
發表於:
2009-07-23 20:47

市建局高舉”每件個案將按其個別情況而作出考慮”的原則。但以下例子說明,這個原則只是紙上文章,名不符實。

例子:一個重建區業主,他有3個出租物業,要求與市建局討論賠償金額及營商損失,但市建局回覆是一切可賠償已寫了出來,開會都沒有特別補充,為免浪費時間,建議不開會罷!

從這個例子可見,市建局在施行政策時,根本不會聆聽個別情況再作出考慮。

JOHN
發表於:
2009-07-23 20:52

市建局現行賠償政策打壓出租/空置/商鋪業主,他們所取得的賠償往往比自住業主少,結果社會明白一個道理:請遠離舊區做生意,免生是非,拖慢經濟。至於市建局是否具透明度?在市民訴求聲音中,不少指出市建局黑箱作業啊!

發表於:
2009-07-23 21:34

建議政府加快研究更多賠償選擇方式,包括樓換樓、鋪換鋪、業主參與等。在賠償方面,廢除目前分類,無論自住或出租或空置的人,在政策上都一樣。

Blue Girl
發表於:
2009-07-23 21:35

Hey hey ... earth calling... everybody .... there is no use to keep posting comments. It is a waste of time to participate in this public consultation. We had only negative feedbacks from the Urban Redevelopment Authority and not even ONE comment from the Redevelopment Bureau. They are not listening. They are only smiling without hearing. The public will be angry when they answer our queries. It is better for them to shut up.  

So, they have already all the conclusions.

Ladies and gentlemen, by early next year, the Development Bureau will tell the public :

[1] No real change in the compensation policy! The compensation system is very fair and a pride of HK. All owners should understand that they should sell their properties cheaply for the ill-defined public interest.

[2] No change in the sale of land to the developers! There is nothing wrong for the government to make profit..

[3] No real options available to the public when their properties are sold to the government.All other compensation options have technical difficulties.

[4] All public comments are concluded to be supportive to the system now. Oppositions to Urabn Redevelopment Authority are minor. 

[5] The Urban Redevelopment Authority is excellent in the past 20 years and should be given even more power in urban redevelopment. The public should appreciate them.

These are pre-determined agenda. All the public members are invited to wait and see. 

 

 

 

Chao
發表於:
2009-07-23 22:04

There should be no difference among owners. Every individual is the same. All should get the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

不平嗚
發表於:
2009-07-24 12:38

網民正發揮網民的力量,發表對補償條例裡不滿的地方。其實,大家都只不過期望公平公正去處理,希望市建局能留心一下。

大家對於補償方法最不公平的地方,就是見市建局高賣低買,用低價買入業主的單位,用盡法例來壓價,結局只不過高價買給私人發展商。市建局壓價的目的給人印象只是賺更多的錢,政府是有必要正視這個問題。特別是私人發展商也收購,市建局的做法也應公平一點,一口價收購,有商有量,這總會好的。

TRUElight INsight
發表於:
2009-07-24 14:29

What Makes Average People In Old Areas To Be A Poor Last In The Race Of Urban Renewal? 

 

In the race of urban renewal in Hong Kong, the Urban Renewal Authority is an utmost winner in all beyond doubt as the URA is the most privileged player in the game – who is having countless special rights that estate developers and average people never even think of:

 

[1] Taking control of the assessment of purchase prices;

[2] Practising non-statutory house rules to deduce compensations based on a classification of tenant, owner-occupier, partial-owner-occupier, partial-tenant, wholly tenanted owners, vacant;

[3] Purchasing individual property interests below open market value by way of compulsory resumption;

[4] Selling redevelopment right and potential of a project area at the highest open market bid price to a joint venture partner to secure a net gain of a few billions; and

[5] Getting considerable share of income and sale proceeds of the new development from its joint venture partner.

 

Riding on definite advantages of the URA over other stakeholders in the process of urban renewal, respective joint venture partners of the URA should naturally come second in the race. 

 

Who is leaving behind then?  Needless to say, the ordained loser in the game would be average people in old areas who are having no power or special rights.   Does one think they could lead a better quality of life with the cash compensation that they get from the URA?  The answer is definitely not.  In fact, many affected people did express in thousands of public occasions that they have great difficulties in identifying replacement flats or business outlets in the same locality.

 

One may ask why?  Firstly, by experience, gentrification as a result of urban renewal efforts shall rise up real estate values with higher associated rent and home prices by 20% to 30% subject to the scale and nature of reinvestments.  This boosting effect is particularly obvious after announcements made by the URA and could be carried throughout the long-haul redevelopment process.  Except URA itself, I guess nobody would have a good idea of URA’s valuation method, factors and period.  However, one thing must be true: that is, the assessment of purchase prices must be undertaken and completed before URA’s formal announcement of a renewal project.  In other words, purchase prices offered by the URA are making reference to a pre-gentrification market situation. 

 

Here comes the problem.  By the time affected people in old areas gets the compensation from the URA, real estate values have been increased by 20 to 30% for a similar stock of old tenement housing or business outlets.  That is to say, affected people only have two choices:  Either they buy a smaller old flat or commercial premises in the same locality to offset the increased unit price per square feet; Or they choose those old flats or commercial premises of similar size in relatively inconvenient locations or of poorer building conditions such to counterbalance the increase in cost.  Secondly, higher home prices aside, should affected people choose to purchase a second-hand apartment which is normally having an efficiency of some 70% to 80% on average in flat size, their actual living space will be reduced by 20% to 30%.  The gentrification process has a human cost to affected people - The increases in rent and home prices render housing or commercial premises no longer affordable.  This results in the dispersal of unprivileged people to even older areas and a poorer quality of life.

 

It is crystal clear that URA’s special rights are corresponding to major contrary comments made by average people in any project areas: 

[1] URA deliberately underestimates the market value of the property;

[2] All stakeholders are forced to follow URA’s non-statutory house rules with compensations considerably deduced regardless of the principle of equality;

[3] Without an equal footing, negotiation with URA on purchase price and compensations has been a top-down process.  Average people leaving no choices are forced to be moved out at the end;  

[4] While URA is making a huge fortune through selling redevelopment right and potential of a project area and is getting substantial share of income and sale proceeds from the new development, average people are not receiving any compensations as to the redevelopment potential and value of their properties.  The worst thing of all, they are paying the costs of gentrification and are forced to share costs of compensation originally borne by the URA such as rehousing; and

[5] Should average affected people choose to buy a flat or rent premises in a project area after redevelopment, even though they might sell their original properties to the URA at a discounted open market price, they will be buying a flat or paying a rent at the then current market prices to the URA and its joint venture partner. 

 

It is no wonder that the URA is an all-in-all winner and average people in old areas are the poor last in the race.         

 

Make a short
發表於:
2009-07-24 15:04

1.政策面前人人平等

2. 一視同仁
 
3. 前後一致
 
4. 尊重及配合市場做法
 
1+2+3+4=Solution!

HUNG
發表於:
2009-07-24 15:39

市建局中環重建被斥濫拆樓

蘋果日報

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090724&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=11867&art_id=13023353

 

 

發展局局長林鄭月娥說要保育舊區,卻容許市區重建局開動推土機拆舊樓。市建局修訂的中環士丹頓街/永利街重建方案,今日到城市規劃委員會審議前夕,獲規劃署表態支持。居民組織擔心區內再多一幢巍然巨廈會造成屏風效應,批評市建局漠視有小業主花數千萬元翻新舊樓的成果。

城規會今日開會同時審議市建局的重建方案,以及兩個由受影響小業主提交的保留復修唐樓方案。中西區關注組成員羅雅寧稱,小業主提出的兩個方案,分別是申請將整個地區由綜合發展區重劃為住宅(丙類)地段,限制建樓密度;另一申請則是保留區內多幢戰前唐樓。

她批評市建局一味要拆舊樓,但部份小業主早前自資數千萬元,將部份舊樓整幢翻新活化,證明拆樓不是唯一選擇,質疑市建局一心要興建更多新樓圖利。

在社會強烈反對下,市建局去年底宣佈縮減該重建項目的密度,由原本興建 3幢各高逾 20層的豪宅,改為只建一幢高 28層大廈和兩幢低密度式商住大廈;永利街 12幢高五、六層的戰前唐樓則保留 3幢。

不過,羅雅寧指新建的 28層高巨廈,將會跟旁邊兩幢大廈互相緊貼,距離極之接近,有如三文治,「呢項申請收到 400幾份市民反對意見書,得幾份贊成,唔明規劃署點可能仲支持?」

**************************************************

400幾份市民反對意見書 = 0

市民意見 = O

阿信
發表於:
2009-07-24 15:41

本論題是有關補償,並討論怎樣補償才是公平。眼看多人發言,看來這是最不公平的地方,最多人有意見的地方。

業主
發表於:
2009-07-24 17:38

大家經過那麼久的時間跟市建局去表達意見
但是市建區只作出了一次回應
而後一直也沈默無回覆各位的疑問
市建區其實是否有用心去聽大眾的意見和心聲?
因為市建局賠償機制是以2001年3月由立法會財委會經討論後才制訂
現在巳經是2009年7月了
相差了8年的時間
全球所有事物和人也在變
為何市建局不重新去訂制最新的賠償機制?
舊的一套真還合用?
人人所見..........NO
人在變,事在變,機制也要變
要變得合乎市場和大眾

每一次的論壇諮詢,市建局是否真有接納大家意見?
我去了二次,市建局每次的回答根本完全滿足不了業主及疑問者
他們只會推說會考慮會諮詢會開會會討論
但你們真會回去反省開會改善?
我根本見不到你們有任何改變
你們還是作風依舊
論壇的性質只是一個給你們作秀的地方
只是給市民大眾覺得你們有做事
有給市民大眾發表意見和心聲
但實在你們什麼都不做
你們依舊不改變
那大家再去論壇還有何意義?
這種作秀的表現,是你們市建區逃避大眾責罵的方法?
這個帖巳過百個回帖了...其實你們有否反省過?
你們的作法真的正確?
希望你們反思一下

Chun
發表於:
2009-07-25 02:32

支持政策面前人人平等。還非自住業主一個公道!

有要求
發表於:
2009-07-25 15:11

我有要求,就是要求和支持網民們提出兩個論點。

第一,支持政策面前人人平等。還非自住業主一個公道!

第二,要求:

1.政策面前人人平等
2. 一視同仁
3. 前後一致
4. 尊重及配合市場做法
 
為出租業主還一個公道。

憤怒
發表於:
2009-07-25 15:14

我憤怒,因大家發表了這樣多心聲,但是,市建局只回應了一次。他們正在漠視民意。

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-25 15:46

继续要求URA对市民坦白交待,保卫现在及未来受影响的重建弱势群!

坚守争取:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!!!!

若果URA继续不用问责,他们做事作风将会继续一意孤行,只向发展商招手,不理会公众生死!!!!!

BOBO
發表於:
2009-07-25 16:30

市場經濟反對壓迫買賣,反對黑箱作業!!!

Ling
發表於:
2009-07-25 23:44

建議市建局劃一賠償,不論自住/出租/空置業主,應該一視同仁,人人平等,避免出現上述所出現的怪現象。同時,建議政府加快研究更多賠償選擇方式,包括樓換樓、鋪換鋪、業主參與等。

celeste
發表於:
2009-07-26 21:07

Hong Kong is really a strange place. Take urban renewal as an example. You hear so much about owners complaining that they are not properly compensated but the strange thing is, if you think carefully about it, why is there a need for urban renewal? It's necessary because many building owners allow their buildings to fall into dilapidation, and for neglecting their duty to maintain their properties, they are rewarded??? Yes, there are cases where the owners are elderly people who may not have the means to maintain their buildings, but there are many more cases of "able-bodied" owners (many of whom are investors) who purposely let their buildings "rot" knowing full well that no actions will be taken against them. Instead, they stand to gain from their dereliction of duty. What kind of warped logic is this?

Gabriel
發表於:
2009-07-27 11:13

舉手舉腳贊成:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!!!!

再加一點:

 

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

 

 

 

angle
發表於:
2009-07-27 12:39

市建局高舉”每件個案將按其個別情況而作出考慮”的原則。但以下例子說明,這個原則只是紙上文章,名不符實。

例子:一個重建區業主,他有3個出租物業,要求與市建局討論賠償金額及營商損失,但市建局回覆是一切可賠償已寫了出來,開會都沒有特別補充,為免浪費時間,建議不開會罷!

從這個例子可見,市建局在施行政策時,根本不會聆聽個別情況再作出考慮。

發表於:
2009-07-27 12:42

建議市建局劃一賠償,一口價,不論自住/出租/空置業主,都一視同仁,人人平等。

Samson
發表於:
2009-07-27 13:35

I don't agree with Celeste's comment dated on July 26 2009.  Renting a flat is a long term stable investment.  The owners can set up a committee to make building renovation decision.  Just like what you said, not all the owners are able to chip in the cost! They can only turn to the other governmental body to request for subsidy and they did do so! But now URA takes an action of doing redevelopment project which makes them no place to go.  I believe the owners strongly object what URA is doing is that they feel being cheated or taken advantage of.  We are now talking about URA who steals their homes but sells their homes to the developer! URA is not helping the owners to renovate the building.  We are talking about the way URA treats the owners!  We are talking about the existing compensation policy is not transparent!

Please ask yourself ... if you believe that URA is doing right, can you tell me why URA is still taking a redevelopment action at 中環士丹頓街/永利街 while the owners there have already spent a lot of money on the buildings.

As more and more news on URA's redevelopment projects are reported lately, the more I understand why the owners insist to review the existing URA's policy!

Below is one of the comments posted previously.

市建局中環重建被斥濫拆樓

蘋果日報

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090724&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=11867&art_id=13023353

 

 

發展局局長林鄭月娥說要保育舊區,卻容許市區重建局開動推土機拆舊樓。市建局修訂的中環士丹頓街/永利街重建方案,今日到城市規劃委員會審議前夕,獲規劃署表態支持。居民組織擔心區內再多一幢巍然巨廈會造成屏風效應,批評市建局漠視有小業主花數千萬元翻新舊樓的成果。

城規會今日開會同時審議市建局的重建方案,以及兩個由受影響小業主提交的保留復修唐樓方案。中西區關注組成員羅雅寧稱,小業主提出的兩個方案,分別是申請將整個地區由綜合發展區重劃為住宅(丙類)地段,限制建樓密度;另一申請則是保留區內多幢戰前唐樓。

她批評市建局一味要拆舊樓,但部份小業主早前自資數千萬元,將部份舊樓整幢翻新活化,證明拆樓不是唯一選擇,質疑市建局一心要興建更多新樓圖利。

在社會強烈反對下,市建局去年底宣佈縮減該重建項目的密度,由原本興建 3幢各高逾 20層的豪宅,改為只建一幢高 28層大廈和兩幢低密度式商住大廈;永利街 12幢高五、六層的戰前唐樓則保留 3幢。

不過,羅雅寧指新建的 28層高巨廈,將會跟旁邊兩幢大廈互相緊貼,距離極之接近,有如三文治,「呢項申請收到 400幾份市民反對意見書,得幾份贊成,唔明規劃署點可能仲支持?」

**************************************************

400幾份市民反對意見書 = 0

市民意見 = O

問責
發表於:
2009-07-27 14:32

支持要市建局有問責制度,要他們改正黑箱作業的行為。

支持收購項目要一視同仁,自住和出租劃一收購。

堅持
發表於:
2009-07-27 14:39

絕對同意堅持,市建局應要:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增強制度、收購過程等透明度;

6.對外公開檢討結果及對應措施;

7.URA都需要問責!!!!

發表於:
2009-07-27 15:06

問,真想問市建局會怎樣回應我們網民的提問呢?會否只在乎自己花紅,不理會我們所關心的項目呢?

不平則鳴
發表於:
2009-07-27 16:29

Celeste

關於2009.7.26 Celeste意見的回應

 

你弄錯了!!

 

公眾主流意不是反對市區重建,公眾大聲反對目前市建局重建的賠償手法及利益輸送的情況。

 

其實,Celeste根本就喺市建局的想法,公眾聲音完全聽不懂,看不見!

 

最錯就是市建局認為只有市建局才可以做市區重建!

 

只有市建局計算賠償才最公道!

 

市建局錯在不信任市場,認為自由市場不識做市區重建,小業主又不識做市區重建!

 

中環士丹頓街/永利街是好例子!小業主可以自己翻新舊樓,不要屏風樓,又不要萬丈高樓。Celeste,請你看一看,中環士丹頓街/永利街小業主是否反對市區重建,舊區真活化?他們花上千萬,目的是反對由利益輸送的市建局來做!如果市建局還要和中環士丹頓街/永利街小業主告上法庭,市建局就要告諸天下,市建局為了錢、錢、錢,強逼小業主放棄業權,力求建高層,賺大錢!市建局是最貪心在大經紀!

 

不論公眾及傳媒都不停評論市建局,重點並不在於市區重建的必要性,而是由誰來做。市建局一句打擊釘王,就可以賤買貴賣,又可以和大發展商對分利潤,大條道理建屏風樓,趕絕原居民。Celeste,請你撫心自問,市建局只是依靠偷取小業主權利才可以活到今天,市建局的所有員工根本就靠這批弱勢小業主支取薪水,特別是出租/地鋪/空置業主!如果市建局願意交給市場,相信小業主不會如此不滿,心有不甘。請Celeste不要描寫出租/地鋪/空置小業主,他們因不懂打釘,才叫苦連天!

 

況且目前政策,將打擊釘王手法用來針對出租者/空置者/地鋪者,為什麼呢?

不平則鳴!

RAY
發表於:
2009-07-27 16:59

去左次論壇諮詢
覺得市建局代表Joseph Lee為人不可一世,目中無市民,.態度囂張

 

佢每次回答都語氣勁差,又黑口黑臉, 似來論壇的人都是他仇人
給我感覺好差勁

 

市建局你派呢種人出來係想同市民示威?
表明你們同樣 可一世,目中無市民,.態度囂張?

 


他的態度令我清楚你們市建局係點睇呢件事
就係唔聽囉,你有你講.我有我就

相反發展局的蘇翠兒小姐全程都用心去聽我地的意見
而且也用認真的態度去接納我們的意見

 

你地應該檢討吓啦

Erica
發表於:
2009-07-28 12:30

贊成:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

一視同仁
發表於:
2009-07-28 12:39

我人如其名,要求市建局一視同仁。

在重建收購項目中,要求一視同仁。

無論是自住或出租,都劃一價錢,要求一視同仁。

不要左扣右扣,要求一視同仁。

總而言之,要求一視同仁。

Lemongrass
發表於:
2009-07-28 16:37

市建局又被駡利字當頭

轉載蘋果日期

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090727&sec_id=4104&art_id=13031731

市建局保育利字當頭

20090727

 

【記者馮永堅報道】為回應社會訴求,發展局要求市建局重建時多做保育舊樓工作,但由於沒有相關政策配合,市建局要額外斥資或只能「保啲唔保啲」。據了解,市建局曾因認為保育舊建築無利可圖,曾考慮放棄重建時保育的政策,後來因收益達標才打消此念頭。

有關法例被批落後

社會近年出現不少保育歷史建築的聲音,灣仔和昌大押、中環永和號雜貨店外牆、孫中山 1880年受洗及住過的美國公理堂遺址(即現時必列者士街街市大樓),都是例子。市建局 04年為灣仔莊士敦道重建項目招標時,應當局要求不拆除百年歷史的和昌大押。但據了解,市建局當時擔心要斥巨資保育及保養,曾考慮如項目蝕本,日後重建時就不再做保育項目。不過,莊士敦道重建項目最終變身豪宅嘉薈軒,市建局因而獲巨額收入,才打消不保育的想法。
香港建築師學會古蹟及古物保育委員會主席李仲明認為,法例沒賦予市建局權力去做保育措施,令該局平衡重建及保育時遇到不少困難;以和昌大押為例,屋宇署要求市建局拆去建築物內木地板及木樓梯,以符建築物條例,但保育應盡量保留內外所有建築,當局做法落後,「外國啲建築物條例都有豁免,香港咁先進,但法例就好落後」。

發展局發言人回應指, 01年公佈的《市區重建策略》已指出,在切實可行的情況下,獲保存的歷史建築物應用作適當的社區、公共或其他有益用途,目的是發揮這些建築物的功能。

好同意一句:「香港咁先進,但法例就好落後」。雖然曾特首聲言大經濟、小政府,又有最強的自由經濟體系。可惜,在市區重建一環,就走相反路徑,什麼都干預,利字當頭,小業主賠上一生血汗,換來大大大發展商大大大利潤。市建局連自由經濟都不認同,原因只有一串符號:

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$
發表於:
2009-07-29 09:13

近日,這樣多網民吐苦水,大有可能與$$$有關。例如:

  1. 有人黑箱作業,不知是否與$$$有關。
  2. 有人不一視同仁,不知是否與$$$有關。
  3. 有人左扣右扣,不知是否與$$$有關。
  4. 有人不敢站出來回應群眾,不知是否與$$$有關。
  5. 有人揮動尚方寶劍,不知是否也與$$$有關。

$$$足夠影響一個人視線,足夠影響一個社區的重建。同時,令人擔心的,就是會否有人因為$$$而損害他人生活。趁還有可回頭的機會,就回頭是岸。

Respect the public
發表於:
2009-07-29 12:11

I believe the aim of the redevelopment must be good but is it misrepresented lately?

It can be seen that the projects that URA has completed so far generate huge money in return!  And the development seems to target a new resident rather than the original residents!

URA shall go for 'people-oriented' approach not '$-oriented' approach.  People should be put in the first priority, not $.  We have a lot of private developers in Hong Kong.  URA should stop making / treating itself as a private developer.

Respect the public and review the policy! Stand out to explain to the public in a polite manner! 

We trust you because we believe you are professional.  Don't act like a rude boy!

Tricia
發表於:
2009-07-29 14:45

URA should listen to the public. It is important that URA is smaller than the market and legislation. If the policy cannot do better than the market, just let the market perform.

There are many complaints on URA's compensation policy. Wish that URS can help correct the problems.

Kelvin
發表於:
2009-07-29 14:47

Equal, Equal, Equal.

Everyone should be equal in compensation.

 

世聯顧問
發表於:
2009-07-29 15:00

再次謝謝意見。舉辦公眾論壇的目的,是讓大家公平公開地提出意見。所有從不同渠道收集的意見(包括巡迴展覽,公眾論壇,專題討論,伙伴機構作曲辦的活動及網上論壇等),都會轉交中大亞太研究所進行分析研究,並作出歸納,有關各方案的分析均會編寫成「公眾諮詢」階段報告,並會上載於《市區重建策略》檢討網站。

公眾論壇為時兩小時三十分鐘。多一位人士作公眾簡報(4-5分鐘),相對便會少一位以上的人士自由發言(3分鐘),對不打算作公眾簡報的人士有影響,我們希望能平衡公眾簡報和自由發言時段。其實未能作出公眾簡報的朋友,都可在自由發言時段暢所欲言,而且我們共有五場公眾論壇,八場專題討論,八個巡迴展覽,二十五個伙伴機構活動計劃等,全都歡迎各位提出意見,網上討論也讓大家更多渠道發表言論。

希望大家繼續積極參與《市區重建策略》檢討,由下而上,建立社會共識。有關當局在這次檢討上投入大量心思資源,明顯懷有誠意。回應和改革背後必須要詳細準確地掌握資訊民情,不是一朝一夕的事。請大家對自己有信心,給予這次重要檢討一個機會、一點時間。我們在下一場專題討論(八月一日)見。

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-07-30 00:57

谢谢世联顾问回应。但有些不明白的地方:

轉交中大亞太研究所進行分析研究,並作出歸納,有關各方案的分析均會編寫成「公眾諮詢」階段報告,並會上載於《市區重建策略》檢討網站。

1)上载检讨网站后,URA会有什么跟进?可否告诉我们URA跟进做法及时间表?

2)你的意思是否我们的意见收取后,URA也许不会作任何回应或改变,是吗?因为如若URA继续说内部检讨,那对于现在受影响的人而言是不公平,及让URA采取‘拖字诀’,破坏我们的家园!

3)上回你们不是说可以增加发表人数吗?现在是怎样?多一份简报少一个自由发言机会?

4)你们一早知道将会有很多人参与。问什么不能预先安排把讨论会的时间延长一些?

5)URA会否出来解答市民疑惑? 因为我发现他们如不出来说话,那每一次的讨论会市民将重复发表相同意见。那互动沟通就不能发挥。

 

Public supporter
發表於:
2009-07-30 10:34

贊成:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

發表於:
2009-07-30 13:13

 

對世聯顧問的意見作出回應


作為公眾的一份子,對於世聯顧問的表現,可以接受。但網上不少留言,仍反映了不少改善空間,希望貴司可以虛心聆聽,持續進步,不要学了市建局,老是錯誤澄清,自我贊同,政府永遠是對的,不可一世,激起民怨,利字當頭。


貴司說:有關當局在這次檢討上投入大量心思資源,明顯懷有誠意。」可惜,事實勝過一切,市民在不同渠道發現市建局根本欠缺誠意,又有預設結論。

 

欠缺誠意例子:


RAY Posted on:
2009-07-27


去左次論壇諮詢

覺得市建局代表Joseph Lee為人不可一世,目中無市民,.態度囂張

佢每次回答都語氣勁差,又黑口黑臉, 似來論壇的人都是他仇人
給我感覺好差勁

市建局你派呢種人出來係想同市民示威?
表明你們同樣可一世,目中無市民,.態度囂張?

他的態度令我清楚你們市建局係點睇呢件事
就係唔聽囉,你有你講.我有我就

相反發展局的蘇翠兒小姐全程都用心去聽我地的意見
而且也用認真的態度去接納我們的意見

你地應該檢討吓啦

請公眾再真心評論,發展局的蘇翠兒小姐可稱為用心去聽,但市建局代表Joseph Lee就欠缺誠意,與民為敵。請世聯顧問澄清究竟當天是否有一個Joseph Lee在公眾諮詢如此回應市民意見。


預設結論的例子:


市區重建局

Posted on:
2009-07-16 11:07


.. 重建區受影響的業主,常常建議樓換樓,鋪換鋪。在現實層面,這種補償方式在現時的香港未具基礎。立法會在2001年決定以近似重建區的七年樓呎價作為賠償住宅自住業主的基礎。樓換樓等於以新樓作為賠償,已經超出了立法會同意的水平,亦增加重建項目的成本。….


公眾再真心評論,如果沒有預設結論,為什麼市建局會說樓換樓,鋪換鋪在現時的香港未具基礎呢?市民要求合理賠償方法,市建局只會說会增加重建項目的成本。試問,市建局代表發展局舉辦今次檢討,內心已有一切答案了!


貴司說:有關當局在這次檢討上投入大量心思資源,明顯懷有誠意。」我回應一句:「市民不用花時間,盡快完結今次檢討罷!市民如此不滿市建局,但檢討結果只會給予市建局高度評價及更大權力!道理只有一個,市建局負責今次檢討。」

 

下一步
發表於:
2009-07-30 15:22

近日有關賠償的問題,受到網民的關注。或許市建局會覺得網民言論過激,以至不願回應。但是,這不回應卻不是辦法。面對市民和業主的訴求,市建局的下一步會怎樣子走呢?

小小市民
發表於:
2009-07-31 10:14

好同意大市場&小政府講法,好似曾特首都咁講。市建局啲賠償,冇理由同市場出入咁大,太離譜喇!如果用大市場&小政府原則,市建局應該做少啲,賠償好似私人發展商咁,俾私人市場做仲好啦!大市場應該大過小政府嘛!人人都唔多like市建局,市建局最好不要干預市場太多,看看私人市場做先啦!不過,林鄭應該好like市建局,如果唔係,又掂會俾市建局做show,權控今次檢討呀!市建局可以隨時找chance,消化民意,包裝民意。好似有人叫市建局翻譯市建局網上回覆,因對自己不利,市建局便當聽唔到看唔見,叫唔識中文的唔知。最怪連世聯都不敢翻譯。掂解?市建局高招!總之,市民不要再講太多,市建局信唔過。

 

利字當頭,市建局精神!

無人聽
發表於:
2009-07-31 14:58

我們的說話是沒有人會聽的。就算我們有幾多網民表達意見,最終都沒有市建局,甚至立法會的人會聆聽我們苦情。

議員們,高官們,你們會關心我們嗎?

繼續
發表於:
2009-07-31 15:04

日復日,年復年,多日來反對市建局黑箱作業,要求賠償金額一視同仁,但是,卻沒有人願意站出來幫助我們。

從前或許還有立法會議員,為了選票或公義來幫一幫我們,但是,現在連一個也沒有了。

我只可以繼續,繼續在網誌裡不斷發聲,希望有一日會有人幫助我們。

                 一個繼續活在痛苦中的業主

重建陷阱
發表於:
2009-07-31 15:20

憑歌寄意。近日為了應付重建,心力交瘁。突然心血來潮,從譚詠麟一首金曲:愛情陷阱,改騙為重建陷阱。讓大家出出氣。

重建陷阱

撥著大霧默默地在覓我的去路
但願路上幸運不會遇著是你的腳步
我是怕見你 怕你將心聲透露:搶錢

獨自望著路上密密畫滿的記號
像是合法又像特別為了搶我錢
到處去碰 到處去看
墮入陷阱 方知太胡塗

不甘心俘虜 肯定是圈套 重建這道路
尚方寶劍已叫我跌倒

我墮入重建 你卻在網外看
始終不釋放 你笑笑看看我
像是望著獵物 我心已傷

我墮入重建 你卻在網外看
始終不釋放 恨 你 心中激盪
這陷阱 這陷阱 這陷阱 偏我遇上

Margaret
發表於:
2009-07-31 16:50

市建局應該認真反省吓啦!D出租空置業主叫苦連天,因為他們比自由市場可能得到的賠償差太多,少咗一半以上。

嗰個江湖傳聞的市建局Joseph Li,冇可能態度咁差!大庭廣眾喎?我覺得市民誇大咗!

 

SIU HUNG
發表於:
2009-07-31 17:23

轉貼蘋果一則報導,有業主幸運地不被市建局攪重建,自己招標,有機獲取總發展潛力每尺7000元。平均每戶700萬。如果俾市建局干預,最終只能得150-250萬。市建局食水深可見一斑!出租空置業主,市建局標準,賠償只得100萬左右,只得少過樓殼價。

啟德大廈標售 20財團覬覦

20090730 (蘋果日報)

 

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090730&sec_id=15307&art_id=13042850

 

【本報訊】位於觀塘道 53 55A號,樓齡近 50年的舊樓啟德大廈,現已收集約 93%業權,並委託代理標售,意向價維持之前曾透露的 20億元, 9 9日截標。項目現時已收到逾 20家發展商查詢。

已收集 93%業權

中原測量師行有限公司董事張競達指,啟德大廈由 4幢物業組成,地盤總面積約 6.15萬方呎,共涉及 288個住宅單位、 16個地舖及 100個車位,最高地積比為 9倍,城規會現時未有對該地皮列明高度限制,可建樓面約 55.3萬方呎。以目前意向價計算,估計發展成本及補地價,樓面呎價逾 7000元。
業主代表鍾先生表示,自兩年前開始進行業權收集, 4幢共 328個業權中迄今已收集約 93%,另有部份單位正在處理中,可望最多取得 95%業權。由於部份業主已去世,又有個別不肯出售單位,故此要收集全部業權並不容易。
另外,第一太平戴維斯投資部董事鄭漢華表示,獲業主委託標售葵涌廣場 3 3069 3091室及 1號儲物室,共約 10370方呎,分間為多個舖位,全部租出,現時每月租金收入約 17.7萬元。目前業主之意向價為 5000萬元,回報約 4.3厘,截標日期為下月 27日。
據了解,業主於 03 05年期間,以 1399萬元購入上址。

啟德大廈物業資料

地址:觀塘道 53 55A
物業幢數: 4
單位數目: 288個住宅單位、 16個地舖、 100個車位
地盤面積: 61497方呎
地積比: 7.5倍(純住宅)或 9倍(商住)
截標日期: 9 9
意向價: 20億元

 

發展局市區更新組 Urban Renewal Unit, Development Bureau
發表於:
2009-07-31 20:17

首先謝謝各位在網上論壇的積極參與。在過去兩個星期,我們注意到大家就補償政策及《市區重建策略》檢討提出了寶貴的意見和一些疑問,容許我們在下文作一個簡短的回應。我們希望重申,我們一直以開放的態度推展自去年七月公布的《市區重建策略》檢討。我們希望利用兩年時間,透過不同階段與市民大眾去探討市區更新這個課題,以便做好市區更新的工作。由於市區更新涉及眾多複雜的社會和經濟問題,而這些課題與市民對生活質素的價值觀和訴求息息相關,並隨時日改善,故此,我們認為有需要就《市區重建策略》進行全面檢討,以確保《市區重建策略》可繼續反映社會各界在市區更新方面的訴求和優先次序。

 

我們在檢討的第一階段,即「構想」階段,透過聚焦小組討論、座談會、研討會和其他渠道,蒐集了大家的意見,編印了「公眾參與」階段諮詢摘要的小冊子,臚列了包括「補償及安置政策」等七個主要檢討議題,作為在第二階段,即「公眾參與」階段,與大家透過公眾論壇,專題討論以及網上平台等深入討論的議題(諮詢摘要載於(http://www.ursreview.gov.hk/tch/public_engagement.html)。多位網友就補償政策提出的意見,包括“樓換樓”、“舖換舖”、“市建局有權就更新項目申請強制收地是否合理、 “一些受影響業主認為現時補償不足夠等意見,正正是我們收納在小冊子內的一些公眾意見,也是我們希望大家再作仔細討論的課題。有關原文見小冊子的第18頁。我們就這些意見,在小冊子的第20頁提出了一些我們希望大家進一步思索的相關課題,包括如以「樓換樓」或「舖換舖」去取代現金賠償,有關居民應否獲發租金津貼,直至新樓落成而這些將增加成本,作為納稅人,大家是否願意支持;自住和把物業出租的業主補償金額應否一視同仁;市民要求降低市區發展密度,因而令重建收益減少,現行的補償政策能否持續等。我們希望大家繼續就着這些相關課題,給我們提供你們的意見,讓我們在檢討的第三階段,即明年開展的「建立共識」階段,可綜合分析公眾就市區重建的不同主要議題所持的意見和所持意見的考慮基礎,並作出歸納。

 

我們透過網上論壇、公衆論壇和專題討論等渠道收集意見的同時,亦正進行一些相關議題的研究,包括香港市區更新的成就與挑戰、市建局市區更新項目的經濟影響評估研究、樓宇狀況調查、市建局重建項目追蹤調查等,這些研究在最近一次的《市區重建策略》督導委員會上作出討論,研究的結果將可為是次檢討提供更多資料。有關的討論文件,將於日内上載本網站供公衆參考。

 

由於我們現時仍在檢討的公眾參與諮詢階段,並未就這階段蒐集的意見,全面分析和歸納,故此未能就網友的意見作具體的回應。

 

籍此機會謝謝網友的提議,我們以後的回應均會以雙語編寫。我們再次多謝各位的積極參與,期望大家繼續就小冊子內臚列的七個主要檢討議題下標題為「仔細再想想」的相關課題,給我們提供你的意見和觀點。

 

Thank you for your active participation in the eForum.  Over the past two weeks, we noted that many of you have given valuable inputs and raised your concerns about the compensation policy and the Urban Renewal Strategy (URS) Review.  Let us provide a brief response below.  We would like to reiterate that we have been launching the URS Review in an open manner since it was announced in July 2008. We hope that by spending two years to explore the issue of urban renewal with the public through different stages, we can enjoy the fruit of urban renewal in future.  As urban regeneration involves many complex social and economic issues directly related to people’s values and aspirations about quality of life, and they are changing over time, we decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the URS to ensure that it will continue to reflect the aspirations and priorities of the community on issues related to urban regeneration.

 

During Stage 1 of the Review, namely the Envisioning Stage, we gathered public views through focus group sessions, discussions, seminars and other channels and published a booklet entitled “Public Engagement” Stage Consultation Summary.  The booklet sets out 7 key issues including “Compensation and Rehousing Policies” for in-depth discussion by the public through public forums, topical discussions and web-based platform during Stage 2, namely the Public Engagement Stage of the Review.  (Please visit http://www.ursreview.gov.hk/tch/public_engagement.html for the Consultation Summary).  Many of you expressed views on compensation policy, including the “flat for flat” and “shop for shop” options, “…whether it was reasonable to allow the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to apply for land resumption for implementation of its urban regeneration projects”, and “…some affected property owners considered that the current compensation was insufficient”. These views are in fact some of the public views we have included in the booklet, and the topics of which are what we would like to raise  more detailed public discussion.  An account of these public views can be found on P.18 of the booklet.  Having regard to these views, we have raised certain issues in P.20 and  we wish that the public can give some thoughts on these issues.  For instance, whether rental subsidies should be given to residents who opt for “flat for flat” or “shop for shop” in lieu of cash compensation until the redevelopment projects are completed; and as these will increase the redevelopment cost, as taxpayers, will you support these compensation options?  Besides, should the amount of cash compensation be the same for owner-occupiers and owners of tenanted residential properties?  The community in general wishes to lower the development density in urban areas.  This would reduce the financial returns of redevelopment projects.  Is the current compensation model sustainable?  We hope that you can continue to offer your views on these issues so that we can forge consensus by consolidating and analysing the public views and the rationale behind on different key issues at Stage 3, namely the Consensus Building Stage, to be  launched next year.

 

Apart from collecting views through eForum, public forums and topical discussions, etc., meanwhile, we are carrying out a number of relevant studies including the study on the achievements and challenges of urban renewal in Hong Kong, the economic impact assessment study on the URA’s urban regeneration projects, the study on building maintenance and the tracking survey on URA redevelopment projects, etc.  These studies were discussed in the last meeting of the Steering Committee on URS Review and the findings of the studies will provide more information for the URS Review.  We will upload the relevant discussion papers onto the URS Review website for reference by the public.

 

As we are still at the Public Engagement Stage of the Review and have yet to complete a thorough analysis and consolidation of the views at this stage, we may not be able to respond specifically to your comments.

 

We would like to take the opportunity to thank you for the suggestion of the forum users and will provide bilingual responses in the eForum from now on.  Thank you again for all your active participation in the eForum.  We hope that you can continue to provide us with your inputs and viewpoints regarding the relevant topics under the caption “Food for Thought” at each of the 7 key issues listed in the booklet.

philip
發表於:
2009-07-31 23:48

希望發展局聽取市民心聲,一視同仁,不要針對出租者空置者,把他們的賠償七除八扣啊!

Tim
發表於:
2009-08-01 10:51

I propose the Government to honestly and seriously review the need to have the Urabn Renewal Authority. Nobody likes the Authority and they can not make any good things for HK.

Judy
發表於:
2009-08-01 10:53

I don't want URA. I want the free market to do the urban redevelopment. URA is not fair.

Terence
發表於:
2009-08-01 10:59

The Secretary for Development should learn to respect to the free market. There is much a wisdom in the invisible hand. URA is too expensive and unpopular. If the Review wants to make a progress in the urban redevelopment, the role of URA should be re-examined. URA is too powerful to have the compulsory resumption right. This right will limit the creativity of the URA staff to discuss on the compensation package.

CHOW
發表於:
2009-08-01 11:01

MARKET SHOULD BE BIGGER THAN THE GOVERNMENT.

LESS URA, BETTER WORLD.

Little Kitten
發表於:
2009-08-01 19:39

贊成:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

 

 

 

發表於:
2009-08-01 21:37

-政策面前人人平等 一視同仁 能加快重建速度
-要尊重及配合市場做法
-增加制度收購過程等的透明度
-要對外公開檢討結果及對應操施
-URA都需要問責!
-廢除ura強制性收購權 要求最少90%收購業權份數要求

Tai
發表於:
2009-08-01 21:45

贊成:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

Blue Mountain
發表於:
2009-08-01 21:49

I am happy to sell my property to the market. I bought my property from the market and want to sell the property to the market. I do not want to sell my property to the government.

Faith
發表於:
2009-08-01 22:28

Let the market lead the redevelopment job.

Give more options to allow owner participations.

Offer equally to all owners.

Treat the public with a true heart to protect the private property right.

Help the owners to fight for the best interests.

 

Nicky
發表於:
2009-08-02 02:47

林局長,多謝開放這樣的空間給市民發表意見。雖然作用不大,總算有地方舒一舒悶氣。在這個論壇發表意見的人都有一定的知識,起碼會用電腦,會上綱及會打字,還要很有心才可以在茫茫綱海中找到這一片土地。這樣的咨詢其實是不夠的。真正受市建局重建影響的人知道及會利用這片空間發表意思的不會超過1%,這里受了市建局冤屈氣發表意見的人相對外面街坊只是冰山一角而已。

 

市建局令到民怨沸騰的原因是一個字。只要少給街坊一分錢,市建局就可以多拿一分錢。壓價的動機是非常明顯。市建局內部如何分錢,無人會知,因為黑箱作業。另外,如果有同市建局的較高層接觸過的人相信會同意我的講法,即是不去還好,一去就把幾火。那嘴臉實在氣人,一副高高在上及傲慢的態度,像是對付乞丐一樣。那態度就是反正我食定你(一定要賣樓給我),我不須要聽你講廢話,不要阻我收工,快快 “過主” 。另外市建局講話不須要make sense, 不須logic, 反正講了就算,無人可以Challenge 我,因為這個game我玩晒。

 

局長這樣的咨詢過後是否能幫到街坊?市建局是否會自動自覺按自由市場的規則去賠償給業主,不再克扣街坊的錢,我懷疑。以局長個人的能力能改變些什麼 ? 當中涉及太多利益關係。市建局是一個製造民怨、削弱政府管治威信的毒瘤。

 

 

bruceli
發表於:
2009-08-02 06:15

現行不公平的賠償方法只會製造更多民怨,加上市建局在媒體上大力打擊重建戶,將賠償不足而抗議的重建戶塑造成貪婪人,此舉只會令社會更分化, 民怨更深.實屬不智.(全港有大量舊樓需要重建)

 

現時市建局所為已製造大量民怨, 若不改革,只會如癌細胞擴散,削弱政府管治威信.

不平人
發表於:
2009-08-02 13:25

梁柱(名不平人)

本人是市建局重建區業主,本人的物業因為有租客,市建局在賠償給我的金額扣起了180萬,但是市建局給予租客的賠償只有約10萬元,為何差額不是給業主,而是市建局袋袋平安。

Kandis
發表於:
2009-08-03 14:22

I think most of the owners have the same mind as I do have towards URA - Unacceptable!

I like the private developer to take the lead rather than URA because the private developer offers the current market price and they annouce all the transaction.  Nothing hidding!

I want to sell my property in a fair open market rather than selling to URA because URA deduces the compensation according to its own outdated policy! Like 不平人 , I don't know why URA deduced my compensation while URA gave my tenant about $100K only.  I wonder where the rest of the money had gone?!

I don't like to sell my property to URA because URA's acquisition process is very very slow while I need to spend some much time talking to them and attending its "no result consultation".  The process makes me TIRED physically and mentally!

I don't like to sell the property to URA because I suffer from the very very bad service while the compensation is unreasonable! Why I'm labeled as a greedy owner?! URA acts like a real estate agent only. URA is the worst agent in the world!

All in all, I will fight till the end unless the following suggestions have met.

1.政府面前人人平等,一視同仁;

2.尊重及配合市場做法;

3.增強制度,收購過程等透明度;

4.對外公開檢討結果及對應操施;

5.URA都需要問責!

6.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購權份數要求。

Say BYE to URA
發表於:
2009-08-03 14:30

We don't need URA to take the redevelopment action. Please leave us alone.  We know whom we want to sell the property to!

We want a free fair market, fair compensation, fair policy!

Ben Kwong
發表於:
2009-08-03 14:43

Public comments are not crazy.  They just request for a fair result. Hence, I am in line with the public's views and I agree:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

WC
發表於:
2009-08-03 14:53

To URA:

I need not only your explanation about the existing compensation policy but also the review of the whole organization.  Do what the public wants you to do. 

要問一問
發表於:
2009-08-03 16:08

我參加了八月一日的專題討論,分配在第三組當中。

我不是第一次參加市建局的專題討論,不過,今次發覺有一些心裡不平。我相信這些專題討論會議的目的,是希望藉着討論,收集更多民間好意見,令市區重建有更好發展。不過,今次在第三組裡,卻看見市建局和發展局,並不希望看見這局。特別是發展局,明顯希望透過這些民主活動來製造假民主的現象。

為何我這樣說呢?可從當天的安排裡看到。我是第三組,市民代表只有六至七位,而市建局和發展局的成員,也有相當的數目參與其中。市建局與發展局美其名是以觀察員身份參與。何謂觀察員呢?原來就是以個人身份,發表他們的意見。他們不斷強調市民在重建的參與,是要面對很大風險,所以,不支持市民參與。我看不出這是一個聆聽民意的時間,只是要民意強硬接受我們的意見。最想要問的,就是這班觀察員,在名牌上卻沒有寫上名字,以至要在網絡裡寫上他們名字也不能。市建局與發展局考慮真是週到!

不滿
發表於:
2009-08-03 16:13

網絡討論來到這裡,市建局也不願出來回應。我們這些網民,真的應該想一想會否用可以引起更多注意的行動,來逼使市建局回應一下我們。大家真要想一想有什麼更好方法?

期望
發表於:
2009-08-03 16:16

我期望市建局真的要修改要有做法。不要再黑箱作業,要一視同仁,將出租和自住的,視為同等。更不要欺負老人家,他們是沒有倚靠的一群,欺負他們就真的過份了。

Mr. Cheng
發表於:
2009-08-03 18:34

I do not know much about the redevelopment procedure taking by URA.  I visit this site because of the ads promoting on TV.  I just want to list out what I want only.

I have two properties in the so-called district.  they are only one block away from one another.  One is for self-use and the other one is for rental use.  I want to know what are the compensation if URA acquires my properties? Will it be offered according to the current market price? Why some people got discounted price (price less than the current market price)? And how long is the redevelopment process? I do not have much saving.  I cannot buy a new flat unless I have received the compensation from URA.  Can anyone advise?

旁聽席
發表於:
2009-08-03 20:38

評心而論,市建局在731日的回應的確有明顯改善,至少不像部份市建局那些至高無尚、唯我獨專的高高高高官那樣目中無人,在公眾論壇時與民為敵,完全破壞林鄭月娥局長與民共議的原意。坦白說,部份市建局官員真是市建局害群之馬,發展局應重新選兵,替換這些官員負責公眾諮詢,否則公眾諮詢變成官民駡戰,違背了檢討真正目的。

 

首先,就我個人而言,我同意市建局不再急速定案,否定民意,耐心繼續公眾檢討。另一方面,市建局已經初步掌握幾個檢討重點,包括:

 

1.  “樓換樓”、“舖換舖”、若以「樓換樓」或「舖換舖」去取代現金賠償,有關居民應否獲發租金津貼;

2.  市建局有權就更新項目申請強制收地是否合理、

3.  一 些受影響業主認為現時補償不足夠等意見,如自住和把物業出租的業主補償金額應否一視同仁;及

4.  市民要求降低市區發展密度,因而令重建收益減少,現行的補償政策能否持續。

5.  再加一點,私人發展商及原業主如何參與市區重建。

 

真奇怪,整個檢討已变成市建局聲討大會,這些討論重點卻乏略了!

 

就上述五點,本人有下列意見:

 

1.  “樓換樓”、“舖換舖”可以不同形式進行,市建局可提出不同方案給業主/租客選擇,最少業主可以選、有得揀。至於有關業主/租客應否獲發津貼,答案肯定要。不論業主/租客都因為市區重建而失去本來穩定的租金收入或營商收入,獲發津貼內合情合理,以人為本。

 

2.  市建局有權就更新項目申請強制收地是否合理,本人認為就是因為強制收地權,養出那些沒有市場創意靈活,態度不可一世的市建局大人高官。從今次檢討可見,不少公眾對市建局印象已經非常差,為了監察市建局表現,只有加上一個業權收購份數,如80%-90%,這個比例可以比市場略低,因市建局重建區范圍較大。相信加入一個業權收購份數要求,市建局要貼近市場造法,逼使市建局想出更以人為本賠償方案,社會認受性也更大了。

 

3.  關於補償金額應否一視同仁,那就肯定了。一視同仁一辭,根本上已經較正面,公平合理。基本法保障香港為自由經濟社會,支持企業精神及公平競爭。不論自住/自用/空置/把物業出租的業主,個人/公司/基金受托人的業主,打公仔/大財團業主都應該公平競爭,一視同仁!目前賠償方法,實在不倫不類。第一,任何業主所得的賠償金額,必定私人收購(如田生、金朝陽、英皇集團…)低;第二,當空置/出租/公司的業主業主所得的市場的低、又比自住/自用業主低,他們肯定反對到底,直到拖慢收購及重建時間,減弱投資回報。市建局心知肚明,目前重建政策最大阻障,就是這一點!第三,目前賠償方法製造不少怪雞例子,如地鋪賠償金額少過頂樓住宅賠償金額,低層舊樓住宅賠償金額少過頂樓住宅賠償金額,三個低層出租住宅(3000)賠償金額少過一個中層住宅(1000)賠償金額等。一個高舉自由經濟的社會,這些怪雞例子絕不能接受。

 

4.  關於市民要求降低市區發展密度,因而令重建收益減少,現行的補償政策能否持續,本人了解,這種情況實屬冰山一角。相反,賺大錢項目屢見不鮮。況且,史丹頓街項目降低市區發展密度,乃整個港島北共同面對的規限,公平公道,亦由發展局划一要求,市建局不能獨善其身,要求特權。市建局不能每個項目都賺錢。其實,市建局太官僚了,一味要求更多特權。相反,市建局應学效私人企業,設法開源節流,開發市場智慧,加快重建時間,減低時間成本。

 

5.  關於私人發展商及原業主如何參與市區重建,本人建議新政策應盡量增加私人發展商及原業主參與市區重建,盡量減少市建局參與市區重建。原因十分簡單,因只有私人市場及業主直接參與重建,業主權益才可以取得最大保障。

 

最後,本人在香港長大,在美國接受大學及碩士教育,深信市民主導,市場經驗的重要。希望市建局不要只為自己辯證,一味為自己爭取特權,忘記了為業主及租客爭取最大權益的重任!

David Chiu
發表於:
2009-08-03 20:49

Everyone can see that the Urban Redevelopment Department has a bad name. Nobody thinks that they are fair in compensation. I think the Department fights too less to protect the right of the owners / tenants.

Let's make a change. Please.

 

小業主
發表於:
2009-08-04 00:28

看見那麼多業主對市建局收購之價格非常不滿,我也忍不住要發表一下。我也是一個小業主,在深水的重建計劃區內,有4個分別不同門牌編號的地舖,每個都有圖則的呎數,平均每個為仟餘呎,市建局給我的收購價格加加埋埋都不足5,000元/呎,這是收購合理價格嗎?簡直笑死人.......簡直是荒謬.........簡直是一個無知兼且不懂計數的市政區重建局。

香港現時有很多地區買私人住宅樓好,買私人非住宅樓(商業)也好,有邊度唔駛超過5,000元/呎買賣?更何況我是屬於地下舖面,不地下舖面的樓價不是高過樓上嗎?無地下點起樓起樓上呀?點解市建局夠膽出這些金額數字來向我收購?我真係要向佢寫個'服'字。

CK Liu
發表於:
2009-08-04 01:28

我觉得世联顾问真的有考虑市民的提议,如更换较大场地容许更多市民参与讨论大会。这个及时修改的做法蛮好,因为这给我的感觉是你们真的想为市民争取发表的机会。

但我发现在讨论大会作小组讨论时,URA职员的工作是监察员。但我组的监察员在我们市民发表的十几分钟内不停打断市民发言作解析,足足用了共九分钟。还有我在2009-07-30发表过,希望URA能每一次就有关市民在上一次讨论大会或网上讨论的意见作出一个统一性、综合性的解析。所以我有一个建议。我希望URA可以考虑在每次讨论大会时用大概10分钟时间解析如若有有关市民对URA的误解,及URA能透过这10分钟的平台向市民报告一些你们检讨过程的进展。这样,一来监察员不会用了市民的发言机会。二来能令市民知道你们真的听取了我们的意见。这才能达至民意收集、互相交流最大化!

还有,我真的希望市民提议的8大点,URA是真的认真检讨、研究及改革!

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

回應上面小業主
發表於:
2009-08-04 10:51

嘩!曄!嘩!地鋪賠償不足$5000/尺!?好誇張,深水埗基隆街一地鋪1000尺剛成交$1200萬,四個地鋪都不足再買一個新舊區地鋪!

冇法啦,市建局要業主補貼市建局巨大運作成本及經營不善的損失。

沒有你們這些苦業主,市建局如何生存啦?市建局上下員工都要出糧,他們都要養家嘛!

小業主,接受啦!這叫命中註定呀!

 

業主之一
發表於:
2009-08-04 12:18

嗰個市建局大官Joseph Li 有得睇:

http://www.ursreview.gov.hk/tch/gallery_av.html
2009年7月4日
專題討論4 - 録影片
整體討論及總結 (15) (8-10分鐘後)

特別邀請林鄭月娥局長瀏覽及廣大市民評論,Joseph Li說出了市建局心底話,一句到尾,官字兩個口。

T. Tam
發表於:
2009-08-04 13:02

 

這首歌代表很多市民對市建局的看法:

 

Beyond不可一世

:黃家駒 詞:黃家駒

誰願壓抑心中怒憤衝動 咒罵這虛與偽與假
從沒信要屈膝面對生命 縱沒有別人幫
一生只靠我雙手 讓我放聲瘋狂叫囔
今天的他 呼風可改雨 不可一世太囂張
乜哥乜哥 多麼的討厭
we don't need you anymore
GO TO HELL! 誰願意將一生扮作英雄
去面對風雨共創傷
難道世間真的沒有公道
縱沒有別人可 高聲呼叫我不甘 獨我放聲瘋狂叫囔

'你話, 又有邊個覺得唔滿意呀?' '我地呀!'

 

業主
發表於:
2009-08-04 13:28

 

Person 1:

貼上Apple Daily一則報導,可見不少業主可自發保育,以心以錢保留低密度發展,不要市建局干預市場,不要高樓大厦,為什麼市建局仍要一味談錢,千方百計強制收購私人業權。市民心裡有數,市民局只貪錢,原居民只要社區風貌,老中區人性社區。

市建局,不要再干預市場,讓市民做保育啦!大市場、小政府,如果市建局同意曾特首施政理念,就應先問業主,查問意願,如果業主真的不能做,市場明顯失衡,政府才應該干預,甚至極端地強制性收購。

*******************************

中區唐樓自發保育

20090804


http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090804&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=11867&art_id=13060202

城市規劃委員會上周押後處理市區重建局有關中區士丹頓街的重建修訂項目申請,部份在重建範圍「地盤丙」的業主已經組織起來,堅拒出售個人物業,並試圖以民間保育的方式,取代市建局拆卸後再興建的保育方案,重點是保留區內已買少見少的唐樓建築。

保留地道傳統

由美國來港已 15年的 Dare Koslow,兩年前以 800萬港元購入兩個士丹頓街 6062號的唐樓單位,並耗資 200萬元將兩單位打通,裝修成一個面積達 1,200平方呎的單位。他強調在美國時居於紐約蘇豪區,正是舊樓林立的區域,現時居所又連接中環蘇豪區,倍感親切,他更特地保留樑柱的殘缺油漆及大木門,留住地道唐樓傳統。

Dare是早前向城規會呈交保留復修舊樓方案的其中一名業主,他與數名同屬重建項目「地盤丙」的業主已組成一個關注組,齊心堅拒出售名下物業。他指已視現居單位為家,無論市建局出價多少,都不打算出售。他又指,目前市建局已收購的重建範圍只佔少數,難有把握收購大部份業權,應考慮業主自資活化唐樓方案,取代該局拆卸重建高達 28層高樓大廈的保育概念。
市建局發言人表示,研究城規會會議紀錄後,再決定下一步的重建士丹頓街方案。


Person 2:



廣邀天下網民評論李頌熹先生在蘋果的言論:


  • 「居民唔識做地產發展,拖耐咗仲大鑊。」

  • 對於深水埗福榮街重建戶黃乃忠上月終被房協逼走,李頌熹直言拖得太久,「好鬼慢,啱啱先搬走咗條友,楊家聲(現任房協主席)都就嚟卸任,只係因為一戶人家,成個項目就咁拖咗一年。」

這個李頌熹先生為什麼會成為市區重建策略檢討督導委員會成員,原因好簡單,他根本就是市民眼中的市建局,利字當頭,與民為敵,市民永遠是條友唔識做地產發展,政府永遠是對的。


好失望,發展局邀請李頌熹先生為市區重建策略檢討督導委員會成員的目的,就是裡應外合。公眾公評,檢討由市建局負責,督導委員會成員又有李頌熹先生這種官僚聲音,結果如果:


市建局更貪更多權 + 天怒人怨


希望林鄭月娥局長可以澄清李頌熹先生會否影響督導,將市民說成嗰條友!

***************************************************************

官僚怨商戶拖慢重建

20090804


http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090804&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=11867&art_id=13060203

【本報訊】在支持市建局的管治階層眼中,深水埗老商戶拒絕遷出,是「阻住地球轉」,讓街坊參與重建,是令簡單問題複雜化。由政府委任的市區重建策略檢討督導委員會成員李頌熹認為,市建局用 200萬元收購 80萬元的舊樓單位,已足以彌補街坊所有損失,「居民唔識做地產發展,拖耐咗仲大鑊。

「用錢賠最簡單」

李頌熹於 0306年間擔任房協主席,又做過市建局前身土發公司董事。他日前以督導委員身份,向記者分享多年重建心得。對於深水埗福榮街重建戶黃乃忠上月終被房協逼走,李頌熹直言拖得太久,「好鬼慢,啱啱先搬走咗條友,楊家聲(現任房協主席)都就嚟卸任,只係因為一戶人家,成個項目就咁拖咗一年。」

目前市建局一旦收樓,會向自住業主提供市價與津貼補償,相等於同區七年樓齡物業價值,他說是經過深思熟慮才定出,「用錢賠最簡單,唔應該用兩個問題去解決一個問題。」又指若將居民原區安置會產生很多麻煩,「社區網絡都冇咗,仲搬番嚟原區有乜意思。」他說不少舊區街坊都很感激市建局,「觀塘有人收咗錢之後,買一個單位自住,一個收租,幾鬼開心。


Person 3


嗰個市建局大官Joseph Li 有得睇:


http://www.ursreview.gov.hk/tch/gallery_av.html

200974

專題討論4 - 録影片

整體討論及總結 (15) (8-10分鐘後)


特別邀請林鄭月娥局長瀏覽及廣大市民評論,Joseph Li說出了市建局心底話,一句到尾,官字兩個口。

有寃無路訴
發表於:
2009-08-04 14:35

If URA understands its positioning or its character, problems won't be caused.  

 

First, I do not agree with  the way URA towards redevelopment project because 一味拆樓的做法,也未必為社會所有人受落.    URA is a semi-government organization that what URA is doing should be for public goods.  However, seems to me that URA pretends itself as a private developer and URA is very greedy that URA keeps on making profit on other properties.  If so, I do not see the point why we need URA.  

 

Second, URA cheated on the public.  In the past, we thought that URA did for public goods.  But from the result of several redevelopment projects, URA keeps using us to make money.  Our home is being destroyed! Just like the wedding card street which was built up by a group of owners is now become a Collected Memory.

 

督導委員:不該一味拆樓 市建局應支援舊樓復修 20090803

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090803&sec_id=4104&art_id=13056207

 

【記者黃偉駿報道】市區重建局拆毀舊樓建豪宅出售,局方解釋賺大錢是要保住政府注資的 100億元老本。不過,有由政府委任的市區重建策略檢討督導委員會成員黃景強(圖)認為,市建局不一定要收支平衡,即使減少重建造成赤字也沒有問題,「調整角色,可以多啲為政府提供專業支援復修樓宇。」建議市建局毋須死守數十個重建項目的目標。

事前諮詢不足

督導委員、城規會前副主席黃景強接受訪時認為,現時市建局重建項目經常引起爭議,跟事前諮詢居民不足有關,而且一味拆樓的做法,也未必為社會所有人受落。他說拆樓與復修樓宇的比例應該調整,「復修係咪可以多番啲?拆樓係咪可以少番啲?」但指市建局有保留的必要,因為有些舊區須急切重建。
黃表示,市建局有兩個不該,包括不該死守之前訂下的重建項目數量目標,「唔係話一定要做晒幾十個重建項目。」又指政府未來應多做樓宇復修,包括成立由政府監管的維修基金,專門協助舊樓復修,而市建局則可提供這方面專業人才的協助。
做樓宇復修不像賣豪宅般有錢賺,若由市建局執行必蝕本收場,所以他認為應將樓宇復修「拆出嚟」交由政府負責。雖然少拆舊樓勢必減少市建局收入,但他指市建局財政不應該堅持量入為出或收支平衡,最重要是讓社會得益。

預計收支平衡

翻查市建局的財政紀錄,近年幾乎每年都賺個滿堂紅, 04 05年度更錄得破紀錄的 30億元盈利。雖然 08 09年度因為觀塘市中心項目作出虧損撥備,暫有 45億元赤字,但預計隨着正興建的豪宅陸續售出,將可收支平衡。
黃景強說,督導委員會正進行多個研究,包括全港樓宇樓齡、重建對社區的影響及經濟效益,希望年底前有結果,作為重建策略調整的參考。

 

Moreover, a lot of owners complain that URA takes advantage on the public properties that URA makes profit  by selling  the public properties to the private developer.    I agree with one of the commenters that URA acts like a real estate agent.  But what URA is doing is somehow like  a very bad real estate agent who cheated  the elderly to sell her property at a very low price but then sold it out at a current market price.  經紀涉呃阿婆賤價賣樓 20090731 

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20090731&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=12731&art_id=13047402      

 

If this agent needs to be disqualified, I believe URA should be disqualified too!

 

Therefore, I believe that the reason why the public is complaining is because they feel that URA以高價轉售該物業圖利,惟發現被騙後「有寃無路訴」。

participant
發表於:
2009-08-04 17:23

I have joint the meeting hosted by URA on 1st August 2009 in Wanchai. I found that it was a very clever arrangement by URA. That afternoon we were surrounded by several surveyors, one acted as facilitator, and other tried to write down the points that the participants said. It seems that they were in some way helping the participant to write down their points, but when it came to presentation, the way the surveyor presented was not what the participants wanted it to be. Its focus shifted, its tone was much less stronger than it meant be, though the points that raised by the participants were mentioned. It was a poor presentation, it did not convey the message clearly. Even though we did not agree, we did not make any commends, since it was a video recording event, we were too shy to speak out. I have been wondering why there were so many outsiders in every group and I find that the views of more than half of the groups were presented by the surveyor and I wonder whether their roles in that event was neutral, or was it the way that the URA manipulate the public views.

有訴求
發表於:
2009-08-05 14:58

我有訴求,因我是苦業主,面對面帶慈祥的長官,卻要面對他們那一班不友善的下屬,我有訴求。

我有物業出租,所以,我有訴求。

補償金額被你們左扣右扣,所以,我有訴求。

我有訴求,希望有關官員將出租/自住劃一看待。

土瓜灣新山道業主
發表於:
2009-08-05 17:58

贊成:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

通洲街街坊
發表於:
2009-08-05 18:49

我有一個裝修中單位在通洲街,本來想自住所有空出來裝修,但市建局話空置扣了我170萬。我現在將裝修停了,不知怎算?因為市建局自住/出租/空置有不同計法,好亂!因要重建,本來想自住冇可能,改出租又扣賠償,花了8萬裝修首期、二期又冇得賠償,簡直浪費市民資源。希望市建局劃一賠償,減少爭議。

市建局叫重建通洲街超過3年,3年來花了很多時間找証据証明本來自住意圖。堂堂一個小業主被市建局攪到好似伸請公援、災區居民!

George
發表於:
2009-08-06 09:36

URA is in fact very unfair to the public.
 
Take an example in the Wedding Street (Lee Tung Street). URA resumed the land at $1.5b from the market.
Then they sold the land the Hopewell at $6b. So they gain a profit at $4.5b.

acca
發表於:
2009-08-06 13:00

香港為自由經濟社會,出租開公司合法合理,不少業主在舊區三至四代,對原區不離不棄。好似利東街、觀塘市中心,不少業主用了40-50年,儲了錢買了多個物業收租,又願意花錢保養物業,建立人情味社區,他們對舊區的人氣功不可沒。為什麼他們所得賠償要比自住者少呢?

銅鑼灣物業代理
發表於:
2009-08-06 14:17

我在銅鑼灣的物業代理,近日好人都討論市建局,印象好差。其實市建局做了不少大厦維修,對香港都有貢獻,但賠償手法確實有問題,好有揾笨味道,結果功不補過,受盡千夫所指。

出租同空置的業主好慘,他們應該明白市場怎樣收購,所以要求接受好似市場的賠法,平等機會。

用市場原則提出意見,在香港這片土地應無可厚非。

希望政府從自由市場原則出從,一視同仁。

業主所收賠償金額至少可以買類似物業。這樣,公眾評論都認為客觀呢。

不少投資者都不想在銅鑼灣、灣仔買樓收租,怕碰上市建局,告上法庭。我覺得政府好好檢討一套公平大家接受的賠償方案。我擔心市建局會映响市民做生意開公司。

海壇街商舖業主
發表於:
2009-08-06 14:29

我是商舖業主, 對於重建局收購我的物業我認為好有問題而且好唔公平:

1. 所提出的收購價實在太低, 根本不是市場價, 無可能以同等的價錢買回同等的物業。

2. 計算呎數亦有問題, 以實用面積計算收購價, 但我們就要用建築面積去另買物業。 

3. 每個業主的收購都不同, 存在不公平, 而且與各業主討價時透明度不夠, 好像關埋門講數咁。

4. 如果重建局認為自己的做法公平, 咁我建議佢唔洗賠錢比我, 你淨係比返一個同地區相同呎數的舖頭比我算啦,唔好講咁多。

重建局應該要知道, 而家唔係我要你買我物業呀! 而係你要我賣個物業比你, 你有嘜嘢理由仲要我哋有損失, 如果係咁不如去搶啦。 

Wong
發表於:
2009-08-06 14:42

It is important to have a fair compensation system applicable to all owners. Owners in the old districts have very good bond. They know each other for generations. The compensation amount is open and transparent. If they find that they are not respected with the same amount, they will not agree with the compensation offer. This will affect the redevelopment timing. One solution is to review the policy and make the compensation equal and same to all.

abs
發表於:
2009-08-06 15:25

有這樣多業主也與我面對同樣的逼害,市建局真的要好好反省一下.

Ka Yee
發表於:
2009-08-06 17:22

The government should review current compensation methods for redevelopment and preservation according to the following principles:

[1] Free market approach

[2] Fairness

[3] Everyone should be equal in compensation.

[4] Consideration of the best interests of affected owners.

WH
發表於:
2009-08-06 18:26

你地既收購價不能夠在同區做到樓換樓、鋪換鋪,同埋你地都做唔到以民為本,希望市建局要好好檢討一下.

物業代理
發表於:
2009-08-06 19:02

我在土瓜灣做代理,由浙江街收購公佈後,天天都有街坊走來批評市建局賠錢原則,好不合理。

市建局身為政府機構,應該一視同仁,避免分化出租空置街坊,政策好奇怪。

現在舊區買樓做套房業主不再活躍,市建局令我生意越來越差。

希望下年政府可以收善,叫市民可以安心做生意,鼓勵企業公平競爭,基本法都是這樣保証。

The public should be respected by URA.
發表於:
2009-08-06 22:54

I urge Development Bureau should conduct an investigation if David C Lee had told in the Apple Daily on his impression on the affected owner in Sham Shui Po as follows:

「好鬼慢,啱啱先搬走咗條友,楊家聲(現任房協主席)都就嚟卸任,只係因為一戶人家,成個項目就咁拖咗一年。」

條友 is not a pleasant word to describe the member of the public. David C Lee should make a clarification. He is a key committee member of URA. Is he speaking for URA publicly? URS is still on going. He should be neutral on his position. His news on Apple Daily is heart-breaking.

marco wong
發表於:
2009-08-07 10:35

Hi there!

I think URA is unfair to the existing owners of the premises / properties. The compensation scheme should have regard to the market price.

ricky lee
發表於:
2009-08-07 10:38

Dear URA

Your organisation is not a profit making organisation and should take into consideration the public interest. You should explain how you are going to do with the profit whilst safeguarding the public interest.

Thanks,

Ricky Lee

erica lee
發表於:
2009-08-07 10:39

URA都需要问责!!!!

進步要訣
發表於:
2009-08-07 13:05

近日,很多網民表達其不滿。官員們不知會怎樣看待這些不滿呢?其實,這可以是一個進步的機會,使市區重建更為理想。

聽一聽市民的心聲好嗎?只不過希望被一視同仁吧了!若市建局出價五千元一尺,就一視同仁五千元一尺吧了!不要分出租或自住,也一視同仁,相信這對市民怨氣,有很大平息作用。

其次,小心那些左扣右扣的規則,很多業主也為此苦惱。

最後,還是市建局官員們的態度。使心裏感到不舒服的市民怨氣更深,其實,市民的訴求又不是不合理,只要稍微改善就可以了!

同意
發表於:
2009-08-07 13:09

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

  • 以上八點都是很多網民所同意,支持的八大項。本人也同意,希望市建局留心。

通州街苦業主
發表於:
2009-08-07 15:34

本人支持:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

John Yeung
發表於:
2009-08-08 01:08

香港政府做事不好, 無事行得通是眾所周知!

現在竟然欺騙公眾, 重建中獲益!!!!如果無私利、無私心,為何可以會激起公眾反對URA?!

如果URA對重建project無意義和無作用, 或者間接對公眾生活構成影響,我建議和我贊成重建project由公眾與Developer自己安排, 抵制URA繼續黑箱作業!!!!!!!

通洲街業主
發表於:
2009-08-08 09:47

我在通洲街有一個地鋪,是我和我先生在十幾年前買來自己做生意,靠夫婦二人努力養活一家。這個物業是我和我先生一生的驕傲。雖然我談不上大富大貴,但總算自力更新,安居樂業。幾年前,我先生走了,我年過七十,子女都成家立室。由於老了,再不能獨力一人做生意,而生意每月亦不到五千。和仔女商量後,最後决定出租,希望多一點收入。可惜,三年前市建局來收購,因出租只賠了五百多萬。眼見其他老街坊有七百至八百萬,我心裡好不舒服,三年前來天天失眠,市建局說自用者才可以賠七百至八百萬,這叫政策,不能收。我不服,心有不甘,我自用多年,因年老才出租,為什麼有這種不公平政策。最可怕市建局常常寄來的信件都強調強制收樓及日後可能賠得更少,我好抑鬱,悶悶不樂。最後我患上大病,用了仔女幾十萬,現在整個人都黑了瘦了。仔女因怕我死,便幫我用這個五百萬找一個舊鋪再收租,但市價已起過一千萬。仔女說一家人一齊出多五百萬,我拒絕了。

 

我希望林鄭月娥局長明白,一個女人在這種情況下的苦況。這個物業好有紀念價值,做母親又不想為仔女加重負擔。

 

我已決定,如果政府沒有認真提出一個一視同仁,至少可買入一個類似地鋪的賠償建議,否則,我一定不會接受收購。

 

我知道我身體情況,這些錢我都不能用,但人生到了這個階段,最重要是心裡舒服。

 

[謝謝幫我發言的街坊。]

FOK
發表於:
2009-08-08 09:57

市建局用啱啱先搬走咗條友來形用重建區市民,我認為操守品行好有問題。市建局要澄清,好難聽。

 

 

Omega
發表於:
2009-08-08 12:29

I wish the Government to do something to clam down the public. There are lots of complaints, tears, hardships and pains. It is definitely contrary to the original intention of the Authority.

金鐘罩,鐵布衫
發表於:
2009-08-08 12:42

近日有網民對市建局的言行有意見,希望他們澄清。但是,根據我對他們的認識,他們是不會走出來澄清的。正如有一位市民在市區重建的一個研討會上表示,市建局的官員已經練就一身金鐘罩,鐵布衫,任何說話也刀槍不入,更何況我們的言行呢?

他們有尚方寶劍在手,那還需要聆聽我們聲音呢?

Mrs. Carrie Lam, please come out to explain to us NOW!!
發表於:
2009-08-08 22:23

At first, I don't understand why the owners' compensation are reduced.  Now I realize why and I highly disagree with what URA is doing! 

Listen folks! It's how URA calculates the compensation.  For example:

URA said to give OWNER A $3,000,000 for compensation.  But this $3,000,000 includes TENANT's compensation says $1,800,000. In this case, OWNER A actually got $1,200,000; however, his TENANT got $100,000 only.  So, where the $1,100,000 has gone?!

In fact, URA uses this $1,100,000 to buy a government housing for the TENANT but the flat is owned by URA.  Since then, URA can have a never ending income from the TENANT and URA can own the property without paying any money!  Moreover, URA sold the piece of land to the developer in which URA can receive a big profit in return!!!!!

I wonder:

1) how come URA can use OWNER A's compensation?

2) why URA can hold the flat but not OWNER A?

3) if URA says the owners are greedy, URA is just like us - doing rental business! But URA is more greedy because URA never needs to pay a dollar; yet URA can hold a property and receive a long term rental income (and land sale profit too)!!!!

URA is a liar!! And the staff there are disappointing, useless, rude, not professional and cold blooded.  They don't have heart to make the city a better place. We, the public, don't need URA!!!!!!!!!!  We need a FAIR compensation policy & staff!!

I would like to ask Mrs. Carrie Lam why she can allow URA to keep doing bad things to the public!!!? I wonder whether or not she is involved too!!!! Please come out to explain to the public NOW!!!

We want a CLEAN & FREE & OPEN market! Does she understand??!!

Just one word --- Support
發表於:
2009-08-08 22:51

本人支持:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

 

張小姐
發表於:
2009-08-08 23:32

當市民都不停發表意見

便代表市建局真有問題

請你們再自我檢討一下

也請聽聽我們業主心聲意見

我們只要一個公平的對待

 

海壇街業主之一
發表於:
2009-08-08 23:49

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

有良心的人
發表於:
2009-08-09 00:43

有没有天理!连一个70几岁的亚婆钱都呃,市建局真的没有人性!!人家不懂与你力争,人家相信你,你就呃多人家两三百万。害到亚婆不欢到得了大病,你们于心何忍!!??!!

林太,你身为局长,为什么可以纵容市建局为害人间??!!有请你快点做事!别再懒懒闲!别再对我们说废话

本人对你对市建局都没有期望只希望重建政策及赔偿方案公平及一视同仁如有万个不能,本人恳请你废掉市建局给我们小业主自己作主导,我们并不需要市建局钱褡我们产权、自尊我们不要他们托慢重建进度亦不希望市建局继续黑箱作业!!!!!!!

REVIEW the POLICY is a MUST!
發表於:
2009-08-09 01:00

REVIEW the POLICY is a MUST!

If URA's self-financing model means taking our properties to generate more profit by selling our properties to the developer, we don't need URA at all!  Please stop STEALING our properties!

北帝街
發表於:
2009-08-10 09:35

我在北帝街有兩個出租物業,市建局話用公司名及出租單位要扣錢.....唔公道.....冇可能...我同市政局開會解釋我的個別情況,他們只是笑笑口,什麼都不回應,根本就是例行公事,唔理你。今時今日這種商談態度,我講你唔理,好差!之後再多次想開會,了解市政局有冇考慮我的要求,他們說不開會,追問考慮了什麼,他們好似失憶了。

有強制性收樓特權就不再見面開會跟進,林局長要為這批人問責,好唔值得。

九點訴求
發表於:
2009-08-10 16:21

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

公眾心
發表於:
2009-08-10 17:11

我相信發展局都有心收善市區重建政策,如果唔喺,發展局唔會推行這次檢討,又擺形象唔靚的市建局出嚟,成為市民大鬧目標。

不過,要改善啲嘜就唔知,睇民意就好清楚。

希望新的賠償政策可以一視同仁,不要強將市建局用來利益輸送。

 

 

 

撐起公眾
發表於:
2009-08-10 18:28

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

Tired owner
發表於:
2009-08-10 22:47

I don't know what to say. I just want to let URA know that I feel so tired.  It's really very tiring and frustrating whenever I need to liaise with you.  You seem that you are playing a mind game with me!  But I really don't know why my compensation must be deducted.  Where the deducted money will go? Don't force me to sign any unconscionable contract! Why the price cannot be disclosed?

深水埗地產代理
發表於:
2009-08-11 09:09

好多街坊天天走來大鬧市建局賠償,日日都有,一日幾組,不論業主租客都不滿,覺得唔公平,好嬲!

自住業主雖然賠得多少少,但他們都知道比市場賠少10-20%,因自住業主知道時間就是金錢才不與市建局爭論。自住業主和其他業主相識幾十年,街坊關係好難同其他人比,什麼事都互相分享,自住業主都好同情出租空置業主。

市建局如果不走入民間,有一日一定弄到好大事件。香港人好得意,好多政治權利都可以慢慢等,但政府要強搶他們的一生積畜就十萬個不可能。

Dick
發表於:
2009-08-11 10:38

I support URA to use the normal practice of compensation adopted in the market. The invisible hand can do compensation well. There is no need to have different levels of compensation between self-occupiers and tenanted property owners.

Jon
發表於:
2009-08-11 10:40

I agree URA should take a one-price policy in resuming properties.

Yik
發表於:
2009-08-11 13:42

URA is taking a buy time approach that they keep not to respond to the public! They said they are collecting our comments but on the other hand, they keep stealing our properties, forcing us to follow their rules and signing unfair contracts! Why we have to keep everything in secret?!

wong
發表於:
2009-08-11 13:45

建議政府可按下列原則優化市建局賠償政策:

1) 時間成本(Time Cost) – 反對收購業主絕大部份屬於收租、空置業主,他們反對立場強硬,甚至告上法庭及拒絕收樓。如果告上法庭,市建局要花上一、二年時間;如果有二至三成拒絕收樓,強制收樓將會引發廣大市民反對,最終又是拖慢收購,製造民怨。如果收購越長,已發放賠償金額就會造成更大時間成本。市建局可評估20012009所付出的時間成本和要一口價所增加的成本的差額,便知收購劃一價是否可行。

2)    市建局業主夥伴精神 (URA-Owner Partnership) – 目前賠償政策把業主分類,各有不同賠償金額。不同金額引來極大爭議,最終市建局社會齊聲批評,破壞合作精。其實,業權從舊區業主交到發展商手中,市場上出現了不同收購形式。簡單來說,業主參與越多,風險越大,但回報越大。市建局目前根本上只有強制性收購,業主沒有任何業主直接參與機會,包括業主聯合招標、業主重建合作公司等。市建局需要放棄過去定位,積極開放業主參與機會,提供更多專業協助,讓業主可取得更多利益。這樣,市建局就真的變成業主合作夥伴,真心爭取業主最大利益,並非強制收購業主最大利益。最重要的,市建局可以加快重建速度,收善市建局形象,共創雙贏。

3)    大經濟、小政府 --香港有一個大經濟、小政府共識,就是政府在經濟的基本角色,是為市場提供一個有效運作架構,並在市場運作明顯失調時採取行動。公營部門決不可以無止境地增佔社會資源,因為其直接結果,就是削弱市場面對急速變化的國際經濟環境的應變能力。換言之,當市場不能獨力做收市區重建,市場失衡,政府才需要適當干預。必須強調,強制性收購屬於極端干預,不是適當干預。回顧過去十年,市建局所推行的項目,有不少市場或原區業主可以直接參與,市場沒有失衡,但市建局堅持干預,破壞了大經濟、小政府的香港共識。試舉一例,港島市丹頓街不少業主可自行花費千萬,翻新舊區,活化社區,反對市建區干預,請問市建區強制收購重建,是不是大經濟、小政府呢?

4) 尊重自由經濟 -- 《基本法》訂明,香港須要維持資本主義的經濟體系,確保貿易和金融服務的巿場自由。巿場自由一個重要精神,就是鼓勵企業精神和公平競爭。出租業主、公司業主、地鋪業主、工厰業主都在市場中自由買賣,公平競爭。目前賠償政策,由於自住自用私人名取得實際最大賠償金額,而出租業主、公司業主就少了,這種做法,是否鼓勵企業精神和公平競爭呢?

海壇街業主
發表於:
2009-08-11 16:21

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

 

 

 

SAM
發表於:
2009-08-11 16:26

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

劉先生(讚同各業主)
發表於:
2009-08-11 16:28

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

發表於:
2009-08-11 16:33

市建區只要統一賠償

不要做那麼多小動作

便是大眾市民的心聲

 

莫遲延
發表於:
2009-08-11 20:00

開始有網民要求廢除市建局,這絕對是當局面對群眾聲音時,遲了很多拍的結果。莫遲延,真的莫遲延,當局若不再回應群眾,恐怕民怨更深。

特首問責
發表於:
2009-08-11 20:03

本人支持:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

10.強烈要求曾特首問責。他縱容市建局,胡胡鬧鬧,搶小業主的畢生積蓄。若要廢除市建局,也要曾特首負責。

誓不低頭
發表於:
2009-08-11 20:13

想為大家打打氣,送上鄭少秋的一首歌曲,鼓勵一班小業主,加油!

誓不低頭 - 鄭少秋
     曲︰林敏怡
     詞︰鄭國江

   *誰人迫我 屈我辱我
     早慣面對災禍
     窮途坎坷 慷慨高歌
     打開黑暗封鎖

   #強權高壓 想折服我
     堅決面對不怯懦
     為何蒼天 繼續降禍
     可會是有心想來考考我

   +面對那厄運未退後
     今天的伙伴是拳頭
     每段人生亦戰鬥 歡笑會是前奏

   %施捨的恩慰未接受
     未報以笑面做小丑
     時運作弄仍然苦鬥
     甘心承受困憂 不為玩偶〔利誘〕

香港命運
發表於:
2009-08-12 11:27

香港人的命運,很多都與自己的物業有關。政府實有需要留心,不要使香港人的命運滅亡。

King of VCD
發表於:
2009-08-12 13:33

URA sets up a tricky trap in Hong Kong. Owners have no choice and no right on negotiation. They have no right to refuse selling their properties. Those compensation and rehousing guidelines have no basis of public consultation and URA has been using them for years and years. Many owners suffer from a huge loss. This is the real "contribution" of URA to HK for the last 9 years.   

深水埗代理蘭姐
發表於:
2009-08-12 14:28

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

我不要扶貧振災!
發表於:
2009-08-12 14:49

市建局和業主應該互相幫助,平起平坐。

市建局現在做市區重建,好似做扶貧、振災 ... 扶貧振災好唔同,市民單一方面接受政府幫,但市區重建市民要將業權賣出,舊區業權可能是市民一生所有。

市建局話與民為合作夥伴,但有強收特權 ...

市建局根本冇心尊重私人產權及用心裝載,否則,為什麼市民要廢除市建局 ... 好好反省吧!

King of Hong Kong
發表於:
2009-08-12 15:24

Is URA king of Honk Kong?

繼續要求
發表於:
2009-08-12 15:27

本人繼續要求市建局在賠償方面,劃一賠償。不要分自住/出租/空置,劃一賠償。

業主
發表於:
2009-08-12 16:00

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

 

 

KT HKR
發表於:
2009-08-12 16:06

Stop URA to assist, if not make big money, in Hong Kong.  
 
If the Government does not want to make any change, please at least change the name of URA, which means something bad already.

Ming
發表於:
2009-08-12 17:06

I don't understand why the government wants to intervene the market to do urban renewal. The market is perfect in the sale and purchase of property right. The market does not give any discount to self-occupiers. All properties are bought and sold on fair and reasonable negotiation.

URA is wrong as they don't give an impression to be honest, fair and reasonable in negotiation. The compulsory power of resumption is totally not acceptable in the market.

Owners do not need sympathy. They just need a fair and reasonable negotiation as if they bought in their property right.

It is obvious that URA wants to make very complicated guidelines to deduct certain % of the acquisition price as they want to pay less.

To conclude, URA cannot understand the market mechanism in property acquisition. They may just pretend they don't understand. The actual intention of URA is one word - GREED. They are greedy to get the most benefits from property rights of owners. All guidelines just help them pay less eventually.

 

 

 

Joyce
發表於:
2009-08-12 21:55

贊成:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。

 

此外,

香港是一個公平競爭的社會,怎麼會變成一個剝削的社會?就是政府引致重建局所造成的。

我們全香港每一個業主都有交差餉、地稅、出租稅,香港政府都是分平收稅。為什麼市建局以購舊樓卻不是公平賠償呢?這個又是一個什麼的社會?希望政府快點修改條例,使人人都能得到一個公平的結果。

我個人意見希望香港政府要真正做到一個小政府大市場的政府!

Shelly
發表於:
2009-08-13 00:51

Most of the comments above are very good! Good because the comments are really the public voice! Frankly speaking, I don’t see that there is any negotiation given by URA. They never can come out with a clean, transparent, fair, open, up-to-date and comprehensive option!  When you ask more, they just say that they have a compulsory power of resumption.  Sounds that they only know the compulsory power of resumption but nothing else!  I don’t want to have the irresponsible and not knowledgeable people to look after the redevelopment project.  I don’t want to see our community is controlled by outdated policy.  Please make a change!    

 

I would like URA to pay more attention on public’s view.

l          市建局和業主應該互相幫助,平起平坐。BUT 市建局現在做市區重建,好似做扶貧、振災 ...

l          市建區只要統一賠償 不要做那麼多小動作

l          尊重自由經濟

l          市建局話用公司名及出租單位要扣錢.....唔公道.....冇可能...我同市政局開會解釋我的個別情況,他們只是笑笑口,什麼都不回應,根本就是例行公事,唔理你。今時今日這種商談態度,我講你唔理,好差!之後再多次想開會,了解市政局有冇考慮我的要求,他們說不開會,追問考慮了什麼,他們好似失憶了

l          REVIEW the POLICY is a MUST!

l          只希望重建政策及赔偿方案公平及一视同仁如有万个不能,本人恳请你废掉市建局给我们小业主自己作主导,我们并不需要市建局钱褡我们产权、自尊我们不要他们托慢重建进度亦不希望市建局继续黑箱作业

l          有没有天理!连一个70几岁的亚婆钱都呃,市建局真的没有人性!!

l          1) how come URA can use OWNER A's compensation? 2) why URA can hold the flat but not OWNER A?

l          市建局用啱啱先搬走咗條友來形用重建區市民,我認為操守品行好有問題。市建局要澄清,好難聽。

l          4個分別不同門牌編號的地舖,每個都有圖則的呎數,平均每個為仟餘呎,市建局給我的收購價格加加埋埋都不足5,000/呎,這是收購合理價格嗎?簡直笑死人.......簡直是荒謬.........簡直是一個無知兼且不懂計數的市政區重建局。

l          要真正做到一個小政府大市場的政府!

l          1.政策面前人人平等;2. 一視同仁;3. 前後一致;4. 尊重及配合市場做法

David
發表於:
2009-08-13 02:38

Fight for the best interests of the flat owners.
 
Listen to their sad stories.
 
Don't take out the money from the poor and autopay to the big developers.
 

以民為先
發表於:
2009-08-13 10:46

但願政府以民為先,市民希望賠償劃一價,不分出租自住、不分公司名自己名,公平競爭。

苦主
發表於:
2009-08-13 13:58

香港是一個公平公正的資本主義社會嗎?
為什麼賠償不一致?
難道出租的是用比較少的錢把房子買回來?
難道出租的沒有成本?
難道出租的沒有交稅?
出租屋只有約50%賠償,那50%賠償根本不能在市場上買到同樣大小的單位.市局真沒人性,自己豬籠入水,重建區市民就慘不忍睹,血本無歸.
URA強制性收購權=強搶市民財產
"斷人衣食,尤如殺人父母" ,天理可在?


本人極度贊成:

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求。




一句到尾
發表於:
2009-08-13 16:59

一價

極度贊成一句到尾
發表於:
2009-08-13 21:35

一價

 

 

chase
發表於:
2009-08-13 23:54

我是土瓜灣淅江街業主,我有三個單位,一個自住,兩個空置。本來兩個空置用來給我個仔及父親住,後來阿仔結婚搬走,父親又走了。兩個單位就吉了出來,慢慢安排。市建局收購淅江街,空置單位比自住賠少好多錢。我用一生血汗在街市工作,買了三個單位,為什麼空置單位要比自住單位少?我問市建局,市建局話法例,政策不能改,如果不買收樓,我好慘。

craz
發表於:
2009-08-13 23:55

我希望政府可以公平劃一賠償。田生都是一口價,在深水埗南昌街最新收購償住宅業主賠6000,地舖最少950萬。

virtue
發表於:
2009-08-13 23:56

市建局要好好聽取業主聲,檢討為什麼社會對市建局認受性好低。一定要學其他私人收購理念,做好業權利益保障。
 
香港為國際大都會,一切制度應該最先進最市場!

chun
發表於:
2009-08-14 07:55

市建局賠償方案只得一個錢字,市民要求更多賠償選擇(options),例市樓換樓、鋪換鋪,業主參與等,力求保持社區網絡,但市建局的回覆只得一個''字。就算在公眾檢討階段,高舉公開討論,沒有預設議題(pre-determined agenda),但市建局"已研究、不能改"立場巳十分明顯。(參巧市建局於2009.7.16之回覆)

不公平!
發表於:
2009-08-14 12:42

A real negotiation is wanted! I infer to having communication that URA answers my questions! I had been waiting and waiting for about 6-8 months but URA had never given me any feedbacks.  Now, they come to tell me that it's a final offer?! Is it a negotiation?! They have never consulted me! They have never tried to solve my concerns!  Their approach is very unreasonable!  I can't accept that!

劃一賠償
發表於:
2009-08-14 12:48

絕對同意要求市建局一價

記著是賠償,是業主應得!

Kelvin
發表於:
2009-08-15 18:33

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

Free market fans
發表於:
2009-08-15 18:36

I support the free market system in Hong Kong. URA should compensate the public as if they purchase the property from the willing vendor. The existing system is unfair as most owners cannot get the money and buy a similar property within the same district or other areas in HK.

苦主
發表於:
2009-08-15 18:38

求市建局一價

劃一賠償
發表於:
2009-08-15 18:40

以民為先,

劃一賠償,

公平競爭。

通州街苦業主
發表於:
2009-08-15 19:15

The government shoudl work fairly and respectfully with the public. URA has a lot of special right which makes the public feels bad.

I agree ONE PRICE POLICY.

業主
發表於:
2009-08-15 19:16

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

不滿市建局
發表於:
2009-08-15 19:20

有4方面不滿市建局:

1. 市建局不少官員態度官僚,沒有做出一個與民為友的形象。市建局民望低、認受性弱。

2. 賠償政策不倫不類,和市場收購方法差距太大。

3. 收購後土地全部給大發展商建超高大厦。市建局和市場爭城市寶地。

4. 市建局有強制性收地條例保護,完全不用發揮市場智慧收購業權。

潑冷水
發表於:
2009-08-17 12:35

本人絕對同情各苦業主,但是,我們這些網上留言是沒有用處,市建局或發展局若是關心我們,就不會莫視我們的聲音。

Michael
發表於:
2009-08-17 14:58

URA owes a duty of care to the public for a good negotiation on compensation amount. URA should be patient and ensure that all property owners can buy a similar property. No doubt, a property transaction would not take place unless a reasonably attractive price were offered by the purchaser.  The public will refuse for resumption when they do not have a reasonably attractive price.
 They will fight for long if they cannot even buy a similar flat.

小業主
發表於:
2009-08-17 15:14

市建市建如土匪
苦主議價話貪心
物業多過三層後
猶如購物三送一
層層物業付足疑
交足差餉與地租
物業稅同利得稅
無話唔交同卸膊
為何市建虎狼吞
梗要業主苦痛心
統一賠償最合理
苦業主可鬆口氣

AU YEUNG
發表於:
2009-08-17 15:32

其實點解要分出租和自住
個間屋巳經係個果業主便OK?
D業主用來自住和出租係佢自己的權利
佢地每年都有交一堆稅給政府
市建局無權干涉人哋的用處
賠償更應劃一去賠

海壇街業主
發表於:
2009-08-17 15:51

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

Au Yeung
發表於:
2009-08-17 15:54

市建局一價

 

 

驚世預言
發表於:
2009-08-17 17:24

本人一直留心網民對賠償方法的不滿。不過,我敢肯定一句,更作出預言,市建局不會理會你們,更會運用尚方寶劍,以所謂合法的方法逼害小業主。

我另一驚世預言,就是市建局不會對網民的意見作出回應。他們沒有道理,又怎會回應我們呢?

Cidar
發表於:
2009-08-17 23:38

局長林鄭月娥,我唔相信URA所做既野,URA都需要收支平衡,they of course will think about their benefit first! 如果URA所做的跟private developer差唔多,但URA業主賠償補貼tenant,变相自己做業主。等同剝削我产权。所以我要求廢除URA!免得日后有人同我同一遭遇!

And I think no matter how hard we fight against URA, you would just pretend that you can’t hear our voice.  In this case, 你到期就快D退休PLEASE! 我唔想香港人产权日后都慢慢被人剝削!

Same view
發表於:
2009-08-18 13:34

I thought what was the 驚世預言 . Actually, you are talking about the compulsory power of resumption and the "URA's no response".  Ha ha ha! So funny but it's true!

And I agree if there is no URA, no more arguements on compensation policy, URA's approach, URA's staff attitude towards the public.  Everything must be settled quickily.

Owner
發表於:
2009-08-18 14:35

We understand the Government is doing the review now and it's OK to await for a little bit longer for a real comfort to our pain.

We wish our pain will not end up with a heart attack.

WE SUFFER TOO MUCH FROM THE UNFAIR POLICY BY URA.

Shop Owner in Tung Chau Street
發表於:
2009-08-18 14:41

I am the owner of a shop in Tung Chau Street. I refuse to accept the offer by URA as the amount is too low to find a new shop in Shamshuipo. The compensation amount is only at 4.9m. Most shops in Shamshuipo ask for at least 10m. It is totally unacceptable to know that some domestic owners can get nearly 6m. So, shops are cheaper than flats in Tung Chau Street.

It is the second time my property needs to be resumed by URA. I sold my first property to URA as I can use the money to buy a new shop in Yee Kuk Street. I can still get some rental income. However, the offer this time in Tung Chau Street is very unreasonable as no owners can buy a similar one.

 

 

世聯顧問
發表於:
2009-08-18 14:50

謝謝各位的意見,現就各有關意見回覆如下:

 

1) eforum回應的語言: 發展局、市建局及世聯顧問自731日開始,已採取中英對照的回覆,以便參考。再次謝謝各位的意見。

 

2) 公眾論壇及專題討論中的公眾簡報人數: 鼓勵/促進公眾暢欲言,是大家認可的目標,當中相信大家都希望平衡公眾簡報和自由發言/討論的時段。如報名參與簡報的人數稍多於原定的六人,我們會盡量配合,例如於81日舉行的專題討論,有七位朋友作簡報。未能作簡報的朋友,也可在自由發言/討論時段暢所欲言,而我們舉辦的五場公眾論壇,八場專題討論,八個巡迴展覽,二十五個伙伴機構活動計劃及網上討論等,都非常歡迎各位參與並提出意見。

 

3) 專題討論中的小組主持(facilitator): 小組主持都是義務協助的獨立專業人士,例如81日的專題討論的小組主持是來自香港測量師學會的會員; 小組主持的工作是協助討論順利進行,他們的言論與觀察員的一樣不會被視為「有效意見」。每組的紀錄員與報告員均由組員自行推選,但如無人願意負責,小組主持只好予以協助。

 

4) 如何處理收集的意見: 所有從不同渠道收集到的意見,都會轉交中大亞太研究所進行分析研究,並作出歸納,編寫成「公眾參與」階段報告,並會上載於《市區重建策略》檢討網站。

 

5) 觀察員: 公眾論壇及專題討論中,出席的觀察員都會掛上名牌,其上標示姓名及「觀察員」以資識別。他們出席目的是要聆聽意見,並在被邀或必須的情況下提供資料與澄清事實,而其發言不會被納入公眾參與的「有效意見」內

~ 世聯顧問

English version to follow.

謝謝林鄭、世聯顧問
發表於:
2009-08-18 17:15

I have to say that we are not dissatisfied with the Consultants (世聯顧問 ) and the Secretary for Development who did not participate in the policy making process in 2001.  They are only somebody who wants to solve / correct problems. In fact, I think the Consultants and the Secretary for Development are more than well-done.

 

We are only upset with the existing compensation policy which is loss-loss-loss-loss to all parties. It is a loss to URA as they don’t win the hearts of public. It is a loss to the Government as they are perceived by the public to be “greedy”. It is a loss to society as it creates a lot of unfairness in society. It is definitely a loss to owners as they lose their property rights.  Perhaps, there are two gains. Gain 1 is to the private developer. Gain 2 is to staff of URA who have job stability.

 

We are also disappointed with the way URA treats the public. I seriously see no sincere intention for URA to partner with owners in urban redevelopment. Most participants in this Review will see and witness how enemious the URA responds to the public queries. The Consultants and the representatives from the Development Bureau are only fire-fighters to clam down the public.

 

The word "compulsory" means a lot of lazy and bureaucratic people.

Really look forward to reading the final proposal of this Review and a new page of URA.

同意劃一賠償價
發表於:
2009-08-18 18:04

同意

sheung lee
發表於:
2009-08-19 01:24

The give and take of private property right should be restricted to the free market principles. The principles which underlies the right of individual are effective to make sure that owners not to be deprived of their property without fair and reasonable compensation amount. 

wing2009
發表於:
2009-08-19 10:14

市建局所謂七年樓價賠償原則,根本上只適用於自住業主,其他業主如出租業主、空置業主有機會只得樓殼價。從觀塘重建區例子可見,約20-30%業主都屬於出租業主、空置業主這種情況。現行政策根本上不能一視同仁、機會平等。

Gabriel
發表於:
2009-08-19 12:13

同意

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

 

 

業主
發表於:
2009-08-19 12:46

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Owner
發表於:
2009-08-19 17:01

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Support the public
發表於:
2009-08-19 17:04

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Kin
發表於:
2009-08-19 17:06

I hope the govenment to do the same money refund to all people. We deserve ga ma.

Paul Smith
發表於:
2009-08-19 22:13

要求一口價 + 合理公平 + 聆聽業主情況 + 一視同仁

 
= 市民希望出現的市建局

C.c.y
發表於:
2009-08-19 22:14

I want compensation to be fair, reasonable and equal to all.

Yip
發表於:
2009-08-19 22:15

The Government should listen to the actual problems of those owners. Why do they complain so much? It is not just about $$$ but also about the system.

KT guy
發表於:
2009-08-20 01:10

The Government should not abuse the power of compulsory resumption. They should stick religiously to the principles of proper negotiation, consideration of all circumstances, fairness and equalness to all.

黃小姐
發表於:
2009-08-20 11:55

要求劃一賠償!
要求市建聽取意見!

One member of the public
發表於:
2009-08-20 14:07

If the URA does not negotiate or take any steps to talk to the victims (owners), it is clear that they have no good intention to discuss with the compensation amount.

I am the owner of one flat in Tokwawan. I request for meetings with URA. But, URA appears to have no interest to arrange one meeting with me. I keep calling and they say they will discuss our request.

See, it is the real face of the URA. They don't want to face the public and any owners. They prefer to go to compulsory resumption.

On no .. are you kidding?
發表於:
2009-08-20 14:09

Am I reading something wrong? Are you kidding?

Somebody will say thankyou to the Consultant and the Secretary for the Development. I think they don't know the real picture. 

Respect the market
發表於:
2009-08-20 14:12

I don't understand why it is so difficult for the public to ask for a fair compensation system as if they can get from the private developer.

Hong Kong is a free market society. It's always right for them to refer to the market compensation amount.

 

 

Good to say this ...
發表於:
2009-08-20 14:13

一視同仁= 市民希望出現的市建局

Support the public view
發表於:
2009-08-20 17:45

要求劃一賠償!
要求市建聽取意見!

一視同仁
發表於:
2009-08-20 17:46

絕對同意要求市建局一價

Cindy
發表於:
2009-08-20 17:47

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Agreed by Cindy
發表於:
2009-08-20 17:48

有4方面不滿市建局:

1. 市建局不少官員態度官僚,沒有做出一個與民為友的形象。市建局民望低、認受性弱。

2. 賠償政策不倫不類,和市場收購方法差距太大。

3. 收購後土地全部給大發展商建超高大厦。市建局和市場爭城市寶地。

4. 市建局有強制性收地條例保護,完全不用發揮市場智慧收購業權。

Ms. WONG
發表於:
2009-08-20 17:50

I hope the Government will listen to the public as it is important to many people.

Angela
發表於:
2009-08-20 17:51

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Owner
發表於:
2009-08-20 19:24

Dead flies can make bad smell in the perfume. One bad policy outweighs the original good intention of urban renewal.

No doubt, the original intention of urban renewal is good as it wants to do something good to society. However, most owners feel being unfair and unreasonable. Some even cannot use the compensation to pay up the costs to buy a replacement premises.

I support the new policy can cancel all measures to deduct compensation amount to owners. All should be equal. There will be no punishment to those owners with tenancy and vacant units. There will be no punishment to those owners with properties held by companies. There will be no punishment if the flats are occupied by relatives which are not immediate family members.

Alfa
發表於:
2009-08-21 11:15

支持...支持

...

發表於:
2009-08-21 11:28

市建局話分租要賠少D
我問何解
市建局話以人為本,業主喺人租客都喺人
我不奇怪
租客話只賠2萬蚊
但我賠少200萬

 


 

同一價
發表於:
2009-08-21 12:16

希望政府認真考慮市民訴求!

究竟市場賠償價、以民為本、一視同仁等政策原則是否可行?

市建局未來應怎樣走,應否積極與市場爭項目或小政府大市場呢?

同一價

少怨氣

重建快

官民笑

發表於:
2009-08-21 14:42

 我支持同一價所講:

 同一價

 少怨氣

 重建快

 官民笑

她是个良民,无奈这个社会。
發表於:
2009-08-21 17:41

Hate URA because they force my aunt to sell her property. 

Hate URA because their offer is much lower than the market value and it comes with many different unreasonable restrictions. 

Hate URA because their action is slow.  I don't know how long do I have to wait to get the compensation whislt I need to help my aunt to look for a new flat and pay for the down payment first.

Hate URA because they make my aunt worry as she is afraid of a new environment.

Hate URA because their attitude makes me feel that they don't care us at all.  They care whether or not they can acquire all the flats.  There is no negotiation between us! They just yelled at us saying that '你要就要,唔要就把。我就系出甘多。到出强制令,我唔包你可以收唔收得到this offer'.  Threatening me?!

Hate URA because even if I complained about their work and attitude, they just give you a 'no reply' reply! Very irresponsible!  I feel being insulted!

I don't want to get involved in this entire redevelopment thing! It's you, URA, force me to get involved! How come the Hong Kong Government can allow such governmental body to tolerate the public! If you want this piece of land, please have a good plan before taking the action!

完全感同身受
發表於:
2009-08-22 04:19

她是个良民本人完全感同身受

要求市建局公開帳目,為何市建局不肯公開帳目,是否有貪污? 是否花紅與盈利掛鉤?

支持
發表於:
2009-08-22 08:11

支持

業主
發表於:
2009-08-22 08:55

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

URA是否花紅與盈利掛鉤
發表於:
2009-08-22 12:03

 

要求市建局公開帳目,為何市建局不肯公開帳目,

 

是否有貪污? 是否花紅與盈利掛鉤?

不甘被URA愚弄的業主
發表於:
2009-08-22 12:17

一般發展商收樓.,都是希望早日收齊,早日動工。重建局是不一樣,重建局只著眼收購價錢,即如何以最低的價錢收到樓,至於地盤要拖多久,似乎關係並不大。重建局用種種方法去留難業主,包括要求提供這樣那樣的証明,到所有的資料齊備,重建局仍然隨便就否決。市建局要求提供資料是假的,找藉口壓價是真的,業主被市建局帶兜了大圈後,發現原來市建局根本不是要証明,實際想借機找藉口壓價。就算你的資料及証明有幾充分,市建局都會否決。市建局根本是蠻無理。這不禁令人覺得市建局內部是以剝削業主的物業價錢來取得利益,而且利益很大以致他們不惜以民為敵。政府審計署應看看重建局盤數。(市建局盤數不能對公眾公開,總可以俾審計署看一看)

業主
發表於:
2009-08-22 12:26

市建局正在收購我的物業, 該局聘請了一大班所謂獨立的測量師行為收購作估價,為什麼他們估樓殼價全部低於市價? 為什麼每次開業主諮詢大會這班測量師行總是一面倒地為市建局說話?

為甚麼
發表於:
2009-08-22 12:39

為什麼我的收租物業少了一半賠償?

 

為什麼我的自住物業被無理當空置?

 

為什麼收購價市建局講了算?

 

為什麼沒有上訴機?

 

為什麼沒有監管?

 

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

為什麼會有免責權的強盜!

我係業主
發表於:
2009-08-22 13:05

 

說重建局的官員態度官僚,講得太好聽,

重建局官員態度囂張,以民為敵,一心為錢,

不公開賬目,心虛是嗎?

是否拿克扣業主的錢去分紅?

支持廢除URA

 

業主
發表於:
2009-08-22 17:15

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

業主John
發表於:
2009-08-22 17:16

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Why why tell me why
發表於:
2009-08-22 21:12

為什麼我的收租物業少了一半賠償?

 

為什麼我的自住物業被無理當空置?

 

為什麼收購價市建局講了算?

 

為什麼沒有上訴機?

 

為什麼沒有監管?

 

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

為什麼會有免責權的強盜!

ocean
發表於:
2009-08-22 21:36

I suggest to make everyone the same. There are a lot of complaints on the compensation principles of URA.

Less than 1% of the public comments are happy with URA compensation system.

All should have the same compensation amount if they are proven to be owners. They are the same when they buy their flats.

Johan
發表於:
2009-08-22 21:37

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Joseph
發表於:
2009-08-22 21:40

There might be reasons to make a difference on the level of money for different owners in 2001. However, 9 years have been over. URA and the public do know the problems for offering differently to different types of owners.

The public cries for equalness and most are unhappy with URA because of different level of money for different owners.

Good to make some changes.

Peter
發表於:
2009-08-22 21:49

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

支持
發表於:
2009-08-22 21:57

我支持:

 同一價

 少怨氣

 重建快

 官民笑

Faith N
發表於:
2009-08-22 21:58

支持...支持

...

WOOG
發表於:
2009-08-22 21:59

one price policy please

不滿市建局
發表於:
2009-08-23 11:52

有4方面不滿市建局:

1. 市建局不少官員態度官僚,沒有做出一個與民為友的形象。市建局民望低、認受性弱。

2. 賠償政策不倫不類,和市場收購方法差距太大。

3. 收購後土地全部給大發展商建超高大厦。市建局和市場爭城市寶地。

4. 市建局有強制性收地條例保護,完全不用發揮市場智慧收購業權。

Carol
發表於:
2009-08-23 11:53

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Michelle
發表於:
2009-08-23 11:55

I don't have all reasons to support the policy reasons in 2001. I can only see many people turn out to be the victims of the system. Please change.

劃一賠償價
發表於:
2009-08-23 11:56

Tsui
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:02

空置、出租及自用的自置居所計算方法應統一處理,而不應因不因使用物業情況而作出扣減。

Prince
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:06

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Prince 2
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:07

支持...支持

...

WONG CHI
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:14

I grew up in Shamshuipo. The environment is old. But people are all friendly. Then I moved to stay in Taiwan. Buildings are modern. But people are cold. Many want to stay in Shamshuipo because people are nice and kind. The government likes to change the warm home to cold buildings.

Many owners leave their warm home. The government gets their homes and give them some money to buy a new flat. But, many can not buy new homes. New homes is expensive.

It is also very unfair to rent out homes in Shamshuipo. People will get less money. They also need to go long time to discuss with the government. They may go to the Court and Police Station. It is very unfair. They will finally get even less.

Private ownership right is not protected in Hong Kong this way. Good people can not get good return.

Stephen
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:17

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Law
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:18

支持...支持

...

Zhang
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:50

支持...支持

...

Bosco
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:51

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

我支持同一價所講
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:53

 

 同一價

 少怨氣

 重建快

 官民笑

Summer
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:56

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Breeze
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:57

支持...支持

...

Something good to HK
發表於:
2009-08-23 12:58

Do something good, fair and reasonable to Hong Kong by offering one price compensation to owners.

民怨
發表於:
2009-08-24 01:15

市建局收樓民怨多

 

田生收樓十幾周

市建收樓幾年頭

民怨出價不公平

不少半價來收購

拖延發展誰之過

浪費公帑難辭詬

黑箱作業不可再

扶正驅邪迎中秋

 ----------------

民怨
發表於:
2009-08-24 01:15

市建局收樓民怨多 田生收樓十幾周市建收樓幾年頭民怨出價不公平不少半價來收購拖延發展誰之過浪費公帑難辭詬黑箱作業不可再扶正驅邪迎中秋 ----------------

市民
發表於:
2009-08-24 02:37

局長,

請將版面改回原來的模樣,現時看起來很麻煩,因要左右兩邊移。

版面設定應為只須上下移動就可以看完所有的文章,而不須左右

兩邊移。現時要花多幾倍時間才看清楚。

User
發表於:
2009-08-24 11:55

the e-forum interface is very user unfriendly...just turn it to the original format

it is just like ura, the original intention is good. but it suddenly changes to bad.

 

寫實
發表於:
2009-08-24 12:29

      以人為本 vs 以錢為本

        作詩兩首反映實況

 

詩一     市建職員以拖壓價

         

          市局職員花樣多

藉索資料進度拖

收購手法為壓價

激發街坊生怒火   

 

詩二      市建職員為奬壓價

 

         市局職員為奬賞

         層出不窮耍花樣

         妄顧事實出半價

         眾怒投稿民主牆

          .

        

 

 

 

 

Do & Don't
發表於:
2009-08-24 13:27

Do it when redevelopment is needed.

Don't do it when redevelopment is not necessary.

Do it with a fair fit-to-case approach.

Don't do it with the outdated policy.

Do it with heart.

Don't do it as if it's not your business.

What's wrong with e-forum
發表於:
2009-08-24 14:22

The eforum is very difficult to read.

To Consultant:

Are you under pressure to change the structure of e-forum?

It is the only place indeed for the public to share their views.

However, you game to change the structure suddenly. It makes posting comments very diffcult.

Two problems:

1. Don't change one paragraph into one line. We have no time to leave comments.

2. Do squeeze 2 to 3 sentences in one line.

I am sure some technical errors, if not political errors here.

Besides, the Consultant still fails to keep their promise to provide all responses by both Chinese and English.

 

 

 

 

我支持 ... 寫實
發表於:
2009-08-24 14:33

支持...支持 

支持...支持

寫實

發表於:
2009-08-24 12:2

作詩兩首

 

Tropical
發表於:
2009-08-24 20:39

出租業主用錢裝修做生意,為什麼沒有營商津貼呢?基本法不是鼓勵企業精神嗎?

Phoebe
發表於:
2009-08-24 21:18

The purpose of the compensation guidelines of URA is to provide fair compensation for an owner whose property has been compulsorily taken from him. This is sometimes described as the principle of equivalence. It is important that the property is to be valued at the price it might be expected to realize if sold by a willing seller, not an unwilling seller. But subject to these qualifications, an owner is entitled to be compensated fairly and fully for his loss.

国宝想美白
發表於:
2009-08-25 00:31

 

According to Article 105 of the Basic Law, this provides:

"105. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, in accordance with law, protect the rights of individuals and legal persons to the acquisition, use, disposal and inheritance of property and their right to compensation for lawful deprivation of their property.

Such compensation shall correspond to the real value of the property concerned at the time and shall be freely convertible and paid without undue delay."

The real value of the property should be protected and determined by the market. URA positions itself to be higher than the market. It is the major challenge.

不要津貼,不要施捨,給我應得價
發表於:
2009-08-25 04:16

今天無意之中在一張紙上看到這樣的說法,i.e. 應否以納稅人的金錢去津貼投資者。這是市建局一直的論調。事實上,這個論點的是誤導公眾的。這個論點是錯誤的。

 

市建局賠償給自住業主的價錢,即所謂物業的市價及加上所有所謂津貼的金額,等於同區七年樓齡的樓價。這個價錢是反映該物業的潜在重建價值,即是該唐樓連地皮的價值。這是業主應得的價錢。私人發展商亦是按該物業的潜在重建價值來收購全幅地段的物業的。這並不存在任何津貼的味道,這就是業主應得的物業價值。收購全幅地段的物業的價錢不能與單一物業買賣混為一談,因為收購全幅土地可以用盡地積比率建高樓賺取豐厚的利潤。故此私人發展商都很樂意高價收購唐樓。

 

市建局的做法是將樓殼價估得很低,遠低於該樓實際的市值,而其他賠償用津貼來體現。

 

市建局用津貼的做法作為賠償手段有以下的好處﹕

 

1. 令公眾以為用納稅人的金錢去津貼唐樓業主。

 

2. “津貼”有恩恤的意思,即可給可不給,給多少隨意。 故有所謂自住居所津貼,特恵津貼等,給予自住業主或收租業主。

 

3. 由於津貼是恩恤,故此市建局可以對業主提出多種要求,搞到業主好像申請社會福利一樣。

 

4. 在土地註冊處登記時,只顯示樓殼價,至於收購總價是多少,不得而知了。完全沒有透明度。

 

5. 到市建局利用收回土地條例收回土地時,向土地審裁處申請是以樓殼價作計算樓價的基準。(這是本人的guess,在座有沒有人可以回答這個問題 ? 如果不是這樣,我收回這一小標題所講。

 

故此,應廢除津貼的賠償做法,劃一價收購。

 

世聯顧問 -- 可否加快改善版面?
發表於:
2009-08-25 10:37

這個版面在近5天好有問題,要左移右拉,三行字變成一行字,市民分享心聲吐吐苦水,就給你一招打成一團!可否加快改善版面?


眼見市民用不同方法語氣表達意見,這不是你本來意願嗎?市民要求一視同仁,這個意見就要打作一團嗎?我知道電腦只要幾分鐘便可以返回原本面目。


如果根本格式看不見,文字變成一團糟,這個eforum就失敗了。

 

君子
發表於:
2009-08-25 14:31

私人=私人發展商

市建=市建局

私人收樓價錢高,業主彷如在天堂

市建收樓價錢低,業主彷如在地獄

舊樓業主恨市建,舊樓業主愛私人

私人價格貼民心,市建價格倒民心

市建請勿再害人,快快閉門得民心

賠償劃一業主願,勿再拖延快實拖

回應君子
發表於:
2009-08-25 14:54

如果市建局不能回應民意

不如多讓私人發展商在市場收購

反正市建局都將業權高價賣給私人發展商

總結: 市建局干預越少越多,市場自己運作最好

Max
發表於:
2009-08-25 15:32

If owners are using the properties to carry on a business, the value of the properties to owners will include the value of its being able to conduct his business there without disturbance.  Compensation should cover this disturbance loss as well as the market value of the land itself. This principle should apply to owners with tenanted properties and shop owners.

 

URA is very strict now. The compensation amount cannot reflect business loss for tenanted property owners. People can run a business even if the use is for domestic. Why aren’t they entitled to get an allowance to recover their loss of business?

似水年华
發表於:
2009-08-25 20:49

在住宅單位出租做生意,不少香港人都是這樣,為什麽出租業主不能取得適當營商損失呢?總之,實報實消,合情合理就得啦!

let it be
發表於:
2009-08-25 21:01

It is common ground that owners are entitled to compensation calculated under law. By law and in practical terms, owners are entitled to reimbursement that would restore them to the business position where they would be had there been no resumption. Owners with tenanted properties are doing business. They should be entitled to compensation for business restoration. This compensation should be equal to an amount not 1 dollar more and not 1 dollar less.

老人与猫
發表於:
2009-08-26 00:27

不少街坊朋友住在舊區多年,因為個人努力,可以由租客變成業主。這批業主買了樓都不放賣。如果適合,便自住。如果家人太多,就搬走放租。

 

香港買樓,可攻可守。業主可按自己情況需要,决定自住或出租,市場及法律都完全容許業主自行决定物業合法用途。

 

例如,業主如果經濟有問題,不能再租較貴單位,他可以向法庭申請收回出租物業,用作自住。市建局賠償政策的問題,就忘記了業主在這方面的權利。市建局只按三天人口凍結時間决定出租或自住或空置情況,但這種快餐式做法,便是把業主應有决定物業合法用途權利奪去。

 

請發展局化繁為簡,學像自由經濟做法,賠償一口價!

Good to say ...
發表於:
2009-08-26 12:37

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

JOAN
發表於:
2009-08-26 15:59

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

 

金生
發表於:
2009-08-26 17:32

有買樓業主如果田生找你收購

一定要跟佢地聯絡

因為如果市建睇中你棟樓所賠的價錢一定低賤

起碼田生個價比市建高且合理

不會當你棟樓垃圾價收購

 

 

 

張小姐
發表於:
2009-08-26 17:34

求市建局一價

支持
發表於:
2009-08-26 19:01

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Mr. YYT
發表於:
2009-08-27 03:59

I agree to make compensation the same to all people. There should be no limit on the number of properties owned and no deduction to tenancy / empty properties.

世聯顧問 -- 可否加快改善版面?
發表於:
2009-08-27 10:10

 

所有用英文打的意見仍然有問題,自己睇一睇

部份中文打的意見幾行叠成一行,睇唔到

最好收過之後自己試一試,再開放給公眾

繼續支持
發表於:
2009-08-27 16:20

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责!

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求!

9.廢除URA

Efen
發表於:
2009-08-27 22:52

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA

Sucks
發表於:
2009-08-28 08:51

URA sucks! Changing the existing compensation policy is a must, understand?! 

Don't just REVIEW it! Do CHANGE it!

Agree
發表於:
2009-08-28 08:52

1.政策面前人人平等;

2. 一視同仁;

3. 前後一致;

4. 尊重及配合市場做法;

5.增强制度、收购过程等透明度;

6.对外公开检讨结果及对应操施;

7.URA都需要问责

8.廢除URA強制性收購權,要求最少80%收購業權份數要求

9.廢除URA