URA's about about--face 永利街保育大轉彎莫非有政策神偷？

THE Urban Renewal Authority (URA) has donean about about--face. It has proposed that Wing LeeStreet (Sheung Wan) be preserved as it is. Bydoing so, it has defused a conservation time bomb.However, the authorities' conservation criteria haveblurred. What sorts of buildings and streets should bepreserved with money from the public purse? Thegovernment must clearly answer this question.Wing Lee Street is where EEcchhooeess ooff tthhee RRaaiinnbbooww(a Hong Kong film that has won an award in Berlin)was shot. After it had won the award, Alex Law, whohad directed it, said streets with old buildings like WingLee Street should be preserved because they werereplete with Hong Kong people's collective memory.Therefore, there is a growing body of opinion for itsconservation.

When he announced the about about--face yesterday,URA chairman Barry Cheung mentioned no specificreasons. However, clues to it are discernible from aninterview of Secretary for Development Carrie Lam thatappeared in some newspapers last Monday. She saidit was necessary to see if the view that the buildingsthere were beyond repair and had to be demolishedshould be abandoned. It is thus abundantly clear whohas initiated the about about--face.

The proposal to preserve Wing Lee Street as it isdoes not sit well with the URA's objective criteria forcarrying out redevelopment projects. The street boastsno monuments monuments, nor do any of the buildings there, seem special. As James To, a legislator, has said,when the authorities decide whether to conserve abuilding, they ought to take into account expertassessments of its conservation value. If thegovernment preserves whatever buildings citizenswant it to preserve instead of relying on experts'advice, the situation will be simple. It will be all right ifcitizens are agreed that they should be conserved withmoney from the public purse.

The point James To has raised is noteworthy. Thegovernment used to emphasise development at theexpense of conservation. It has altered its policy. Nowit seeks to strike a proper balance betweendevelopment and conservation. The URA's originalplan for redeveloping Wing Lee Street is in keepingwith the principle of balancing development againstconservation. However, the government has asked theURA to keep Wing Lee Street as it is. If it has done sojust to preserve the atmosphere there, one may doubtit is worthwhile to spend large sums of public moneyon the project. The URA has acquired about 50% ofthe interests in the twelve buildings there. Theirmaintenance will cost much money. As the URA willnot "revitalise" them, they will in all probability remainleased. In that event, their tenants will effectivelyreceive subsidies from the public purse. Suchconservation would seem a bit strange. If the Wing LeeStreet case becomes a precedent, most similar caseswill be similarly handled. Would the public think that isall right? This is why we think the government owesthe public an explanation.

Should Wing Lee Street be preserved as it is? Ifthis question is a subject of public discussion, differingopinions will surely emerge. What the authorities havenow chosen to do may please those who likereminiscing about the past and want to preservecollective memory. However, it is not necessary toattach tremendous importance to Wing Lee Street, nordoes it deserve it. As the affair has cost and willcontinue to cost much public money, we want to knowif the authorities had scientifically considered the prosand cons before it did the about about--face. Was thedecision made in accordance with establishedprocedures? Or is it just an official's will? Thegovernment is supposed to run Hong Kong by thebook. Therefore, though Hong Kong is not highlydemocratic, its government is relatively reasonable.

This is one of the strengths Hong Kong has. It is notacceptable for any official to put himself above thesystems and just do his own will however right andproper his object may be.

明報社評 2010.03.17

永利街保育大轉彎莫非有政策神偷？

市建局打倒昨日之我，建議全面保育上環永利街，這個急轉彎，雖然拆解了一個潛在保育新戰場，但是當局保育政策的準則卻有點模糊了，到底什麼建築物、怎樣的街道才符合條件，值得耗用公帑保育，當局有必要釐清。

港產電影《歲月神偷》在柏林影展獲獎，永利街是電影拍攝主要場地，電影得獎後，導演羅啟銳表示類似永利街的舊樓街道，盛載着港人的集體回憶，他認為應予保留。因此近日回應保留永利街的聲音漸多。

市建局主席張震遠昨日宣布原汁原味保育永利街時，並無什麼特別理由。不過，市建局的轉變，其實本周一傳媒刋登林鄭月娥的專訪已經露出端倪，她說「要看看『不能復修、只適宜拆卸』的看法是否需要修改」。永利街的原汁原味保育轉變，由哪一方主導，昭然若揭。

永利街全面保育，不但打破了市建局啟動重建的客觀準則。永利街並無古蹟，那些舊樓建築也沒有什麼特色，立法會議員涂謹申說，保育決定，原要參考專家對建築物保育價值的評估，若政府不再倚賴專家，改為「市民感情鍾意就保育」，那也很簡單，只要大家接受用公帑補貼保育就行。

涂謹申提出這一點，值得注意。近年政府調整側重發展、忽略保育的政策，謀求平衡發展，原本重建永利街，已經符合發展與保育均衡原則，政府現在促使市建局保育永利街，若只為保留那裏的氣氛，是否值得耗用大筆公帑，值得商榷。另外， 市建局已經購買了永利街12 幢樓宇約一半業權，日後這些樓宇的維修保養費用不菲，而市建局又不會活化這些舊樓，最可能只會繼續出租，變成公帑津貼租樓人士。這樣的保育就有些奇怪了。若永利街屬先例，日後將普遍實施，公衆會否同意？這是我們認為政府應該交代的原因。

是否應該全面保育永利街，若經社會充分討論，相信會見仁見智，現在當局的選擇，滿足了集體回憶的懷舊心態，對永利街賦予太多價值，無必要，它也承受不起。不過，由於此事已經、而且還會繼續耗費大筆公帑，我們想知道：當局作此政策大轉彎時，有否經過科學論證？是經過既定程序抑或是長官意志的結果？香港一貫經由制度管治，因此雖然民主程度不高，但是具體管治上仍然相對合理的原因，此乃香港的優勢，若出現個人凌駕制度，憑長官意志辦事，則無論所做的事多正當，這樣的手法都不能接受。

Glossary

replete /rI'pli:t/

To be replete with something is to be full of it.monument

a building that has special historical importance.reminisce /rImII'nIs/

To reminisce about the past is to think, talk orwrite about it.