|
Does our government have a split personality? This
is the question that springs to mind most often if one has been
closely following the controversy over the development of the
Central Police Station site, a collection of 18 buildings which also
includes the former Central Magistracy and Victoria Prison.
There is no dispute about the historical significance of the
complex. The government has vowed to preserve the compound, saying
it is an invaluable part of Hong Kong's heritage. Logically, one
would expect the government to hold on to the property, as a trustee
for the public. But instead, the administration proposes to transfer
it to the private sector using a 50-year land lease.
Is there a good justification for the action? Having owned the
property for the past 163 years, the government says there is an
urgent need to develop it as a heritage tourism project. This begs a
fundamental question: is this a heritage project with tourism
benefits, or a tourism project under heritage constraints? When one
realises that the champion of the project is the Tourism Commission,
under the Economic and Labour Affairs Bureau, and not the Home
Affairs Bureau - the heritage authority in the bureaucracy - it is
easy to guess the answer.
To be fair to the commission, it does intend to make it mandatory
for any chosen developer to preserve the buildings in accordance
with the requirements laid down by the Antiquities Advisory Board.
Yet this is exactly where the problem lies: meeting minimum
preservation requirements is essentially what it takes to get full
marks for the heritage section under the tender marking scheme; the
real test is how much land premium a developer is prepared to offer.
There is a public consensus that the project should be conducted
with the help of private expertise and private capital, be they
commercial developers or charity trusts, and that the selection
process should be transparent and competitive. Yet three fundamental
changes are required.
The first is to adopt a concession model similar to a
build-operate-transfer scheme used in many infrastructure projects.
The successful bidder will enter into a 30-year concession contract
with the government, along the lines of a public-private
partnership. The government will retain the property title but the
successful bidder will have operational and management rights, under
strict conditions. This will allow the government tighter control
and more authority to intervene, if necessary. Full control will
revert back to the public at the end of the concession period.
Second, the selection mechanism needs to be changed from a
pro-development to a pro-heritage process. Bidders will compete on
how best they can enhance the site's heritage value, for example.
They should be required to demonstrate the financial sustainability
of their proposals so that no long-term public subsidy is needed.
But the tender marking scheme should be revised so that land
premiums paid to the government carry the same weight as broader
economic benefits.
Third, continuous public participation should be allowed in the
planning, assessment and operational stages. It is absurd to exclude
members of the community from the project - so far, the public has
been barred from visiting the site - when it is claimed to be in the
name of public interest.
An independent heritage trust with broad-based participation should
be set up to monitor the project and manage the concession contract
on behalf of the public. If Hong Kong is to go down the path of
sustainable development, we need more than new models for heritage
projects - we need new institutions as guardian angels.
|
