standard land-leases are 75 years and most are renewable...there also exist temporary land-leases that are not renewable...at the time leases expire, lease-holders negotiate with the government over the price of the new contract...'private owners' can develop whatever they like in line with lease conditions and statutory land use plans...
in theory, 'collective ownership' should allow a better built, planned, and designed place...but the HK system allows the government to earn lot together with private developers...because the gov't derives a major proportion of its revenue from land - property rates & taxes, stamp duties, lease modifications, premium on new land - it has a vested interest in creating new prime site properties...this explains HK government's enthusiasm for land reclamation despite public opposition to further destruction of the harbor (btw: the Chinese characters for Hong Kong mean Fragant Harbor - pronounced Heung Gong, the 'eu' resembling the syllable in French - an apparent reference to the area's one natural blessing that long ago lost any pleasant aroma that might have spawned the name, pollution having turned the deep blue water into brown sewage, the flotsam of industrial society)...
because the gov't land policy is used to raise revenue, it is taxation in the form of higher property prices and rents...the social & financial burdens of a high land price policy include declining home ownership opportunities, increasing cost of living, and growing wealth disparity...re: the latter, gov't land policy makes for an alliance between developers and banks who have an interest in keeping rices as high as possible...
in sum, there is no urban social planning if the 'social' is supposed to mean 'public good'...Michael Hoover