Hong Kong's secret strength

[Chris Burford]

At 10:20 PM 8/3/98 -0400, Michael Hoover wrote:
>> presumably without
>> the major housing programme, many more of the population
>> would be living in the equivalent of barrios. 
>> Chris Burford
>
>probably so, but since the early 1980s, the government started to
>change its housing strategy from providing low cost, cheap rent
>flats (poor quality units with high maintenance costs & low
>rental revenues) to creating high cost housing with high rents or
>purchase prices...also, through administrative measures, low-income
>earners were pushed out of central urban districts to remote areass
>& new towns to accomodate expansion of the financial, service, and
>commercial sectors...in other words, a large profit-oriented public 
>housing redevelopment and urban renewal scheme unresponsive to the 
>needs of the poorest groups...
>
>HK housing authority has not expanded public housing, in fact, the 
>opposite has occurred...the registered waiting list is over 150,000 
>persons for fewer than 15,000 units available each year...rather than
>make public rental housing available (or even provide rental subsidies), 
>the government has built flats which it sells for 60-70% of the market 
>price...moreover, an increasing proportion of the housing authority's
>existing dwellings are allocated for public sale...Michael Hoover

Sounds like neo-liberal short term principles have been eating into a
policy of state control of land. While Hong Kong is pledged to remain
capitalist for 50 years, it will be interesting to hear how they manage
urban planning over the next few years. Possibly not very differently.

My main point, on behalf of my friend, is that public ownership of land,
with rent providing a signficant degree of income to the state, is quite
compatible with a resilient capitalist economy.

Chris Burford