Zone 56 public housing depends on 20/6

[JEFF LAM YUET]

Dear Friends,

As we all aware of the plan of spot 56, housing department will attend the district council meeting on 20/6 the monday at 2pm. I have succussfully suduced some councilors to support us (oppose the plan), but since CIVIC party is supporting to build hig-rise building in front of CC, we still need more power to make influence to other councilors. I have organised a protest on the day then we enter the meeting room to see what happens there. I hereby invite any residents who cares our environment, seview, property value, mixture of community demography to join our action on 20/6. We should gather together downstairs of the council building in Central at 1:30pm. Please feel free to contact me for details on 66806067 anytime. I look forward to turning down the silly plan and working together with you all to achieve our common goal. Thanks.

Warm Regards,
Jeff Lam Yuet

[jenayds]

Hi Jeff,

What's the address of the council building in Central?

Thanks.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

Hi Jenayds, the address is Habour Building, 38 Connaught Road Central, Central, my mobile is 66806067 and please call me when arrived. I shall see you there at 1:30pm on next monday. Thanks.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

Just interviewed by Backchat of RTHK English station this morning about reclamation of land, and here is the record and link. Please keep supporting our action. Thanks

http://programme.rthk.hk/channel/radio/programme.php?name=radio3/backchat&d=2011-06-16&p=514&e=&m=episode

[JEFF LAM YUET]

By showing our unity with support from residents of different estates, and from CC OC1,2,3,6, SVC OC and TCCAG. We have successfully protested the zone 56 public housing plan and suduced the council to obect the plan too. It keeps our property value and living standard. Jeff has to thx for eeryone joined us and supported us here too.







I also object civic party's suggestion of building ownership scheme or rent-to-own scheme at zone 56, it is also kind of subsidised housing plan, it is also kind of high rise building, which we taxer payers paid tax to build high rise building to affact our own right and interest? This is silly and unfair to us! I ask politicians to really understand our needs, protect our rights instead of makig noise of nonsense. Thanks.

[Chejai]

Jeff - when you say "successfully protested" do you mean your points have been supported or are these still just under consideration?  With all the talk of HOS and land availability, surely it is only a matter of time before those lots are claimed for public housing units.

[garyhk]

Can I ask those who object to this public housing to explain exactly and precisely what are the issues?

[charles]

- jobless people wandering through cc (not my words!)
- seaview of flats B & C in tower 1 will suffer (top 10 floors or so)
but:
- bus routes might become viable for operators (I mean other routes than S56 and E31/21)
- more ppl in the area - we might get a choice of restaurants/bars/catering!!!
- more ppl in the area - seaside development ??
- a commercial plaza the housing units - more property agents!
- affordable car park space  - more squash courts under the phase II outdoor pool

heaven forbid: more and/or better service/choices

[JEFF LAM YUET]

plus

lack of extra job opportunity but 9900 more population here, what will they do then?
lack of social facility and transportation for them means more noise and traffic on the public space and roads around us
view and proeprty value affacted the whole svc,cs and cc units facing north
unfair practice to discourage people from hard working when they can pay a rent less than our management fee but cover our seaview with high value land also misused here
unfair to use us taxpayers' money to build subsidised housing to affact our on interest
a green light to it means non-stop of similar development around us here in the future, etc.
just name a few here. thanks.

[garyhk]

Jeff,

Where do you suggest these unworthy people live then - should they remain in their cages?  Should we force all such people to live in Tin Shui Wai, with its planned 360,000 population, 80% of whom are on some form of welfare? 

If there are objections to the public housing then there must be objections to the other building site which is actually in progress.  Where are those objections?  This is Hong Kong; we reclaim land and people lose sea views all the time.  Look at Mid Levels.

I find it wrong and distasteful to say public housing tenants can not live in TC.  People have to start somewhere on the long march of life; we should all be prepared to help our fellow citizens along their journey.

Are you proud to tell people that you come from a city that instead of providing some nice housing for the poor insists that the poor remain living in cages and partitioned small spaces and hidden away?  I suppose you also think that the farcically low minimum wage is too good for them also?  The wealth gap in this city is appalling.

Everybody here must be aware that TC's population is set to reach 250,000 more than doubling in the near future.  I am sure you have seen the plans, the huge reclamation and extra housing to the East of Plot 56 with the extra MTR stop there.  We need the extra people here to justify all the investments, such as the new hospital, the new bridge, more MTR stops, etc. Rather than be against it I think it should be welcomed.

As Charles properly observes more people will mean more infrastructure, more money in the area, more and better bus services, more affordable car parking and more people yes.  Perhaps with better local buses we could abandon the nonsense that is CC's bus tax and save everyone a lot of money on management fees.  Sorting out the bus mess would be worth worrying about much more than public housing which does not really impose on the vast majority of CC residents.

This NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude is just so bad and wrong.

[JEFF LAM YUET]

I support the development, but putting 220k people in TC is unafforable to us, and our raod, HKZM bridge's 50k cars, New runway' 140k jobs, + 220k population, our North LL road will bumper to bumper everyday, our coastal will dappeared by all the recallamationtoo, I support to seek a balance between development and living stadard of existing residents by having 150k population and keep and modify the planned developments. it is also wrong and distasteful if nobody looks after the existing residets here by misplanning the social demograhy of TC North, blocking or view and value, putting a lot more trffic to our quiet area, etc. Thank for understanding. Besides this, I suggest to further develop Yat Tung, when they need more population there for further development in terms of social facilities, there is a vacant caR park land between YT nd YMCA school. I also suggest to develop Sunny Bay area for public housing to make good use of current instracture like the MTR station there, then increase the frequency of Tung Chung Line MTR. I grow up from public housing too, just I think the planning should also consider the current existing residents and their interest before putting in new construction. Thx again.

[charles]

do you actually believe that? you've got your nice seaview flats and now urbanization of tung chung as a whole can stop?
 

[JEFF LAM YUET]

urbanization won't stop, we seek balance of development with about 150k population, and we seek the best way to urbanise TC wihtout affacting the existing residents, and that's why we have put Lot 56 plan stopped for now, then suggest development alternatives to the government. Seeing is believing. Thx.

[charles]

but you're affacting the previously existing residents, or does that not really matter?

[JEFF LAM YUET]

Who are the "previously existing residents"? Should we care current existing residents here in TC more than others given that we have limited time and resource to offer help? Should we help others including the future-to-be residents when we can ensure the current living standard here? Should we support the new plan in mind and money only if it is a fair practice and it won't affact us? We cannot help to solve the housing problem in HK as a whole but we can contribute a bit, the first concern is we can only do this "bit" if our residents are willing to do it, to be willing, it must affact us positively but not negatively. From 2 years ago we collected about 3000 signatures to against the silly government plan, this year we also collect about 1500, plus the district council objects the plan too, these are all voice of "current existing residents", should we also respect them? for those agree with the plan, please also speak up when it is being consulted but not argue after action is done, your voice can be counted too, fairly, and equally to everyone else. Thanks.