I apologize for jumping in at the middle of a continuing subject, but Enzo Michelangeli only rcently pointed me toward lbo-talk. The HK government, (the Crown before July 1, 1997, and now SAR,) derives most of its revenue from land leases: new, renewals, changes or intensification of use. With the exception of the British Labour years, the HK government did not do any social planning. Physical planning was carried out essentially to serve only economic development purposes. Witness the dire shortage of parks and the vast land reclamation for container terminals. During theThatcher/Reagan decade, HK benefitted from the social infrastructure put in place earlier by young Labourites who were often ideologically at odds, to a limited degree, with the Colonial Office. Thatcher built up HK's image as a free market mecca to please American ideology. Until Thatcher, British goods enjoyed unquestioned preference in HK. This new image required a heavy reliance on land revenue in lieu of taxes, and locked the government into the role of a culprit in support of runaway asset inflation.
Henry C.K. Liu
Chris Burford wrote:
> I have checked with my source. He says that although some leases lasted as
> long as 99 or 75 years, from the 1950's leases became shorter.
>
> But the point is that even existing leases have to come before the auctions
> if there is to be a change of usage. This system picks up revenue for the
> government from property prices which rise with economic development, and
> puts the government* in a stronger position for further social urban planning.
>
> Chris Burford
> London.
>
> * For LP's continued shock, in this case a capitalist government. But not
> necessarily and not always.