花辨直播官方版_花辨直播平台官方app下载_花辨直播免费版app下载

With the government whining about the lack of land to meet the city's mounting housing needs and even pondering over some far-fetched ideas such as developing country park land and its neighborhood or legitimizing sub-divided flats, one cannot help but feel particularly enraged at the latest Audit Commission report on the outrageously wasteful use of private recreation clubs.

The auditor examined 32 private recreation leases involving a total of 430 hectares of land granted to 27 private sports clubs and found that, because of the relevant authorities' lax supervision, 11 private clubs have abused their purported recreational use by letting third parties run businesses such as massage or sauna rooms and beauty salons. One example is a 3,400-member private club which has on its premises restaurants, a pub, 15 mahjong or private activity rooms, massage parlors and even a barber shop. What has incurred public disappointment is that all these private clubs are granted leases at zero or nominal premium, but they have been able to reap profits for their own gains for a total of HK$18 million.

In other words, the government has been subsidizing these private clubs with the city's precious land resources at the expense of public interests. Membership of the Hong Kong Golf Club in Fanling alone can fetch as high as over HK$10 million. They seem like money-grabbing private businesses rather than recreation clubs for the promotion of sports. The fundamental culprit is the government's failure to provide a clear definition of "recreation" and to specify the permitted site use in the lease.

What makes matters worse is the fact that most of the clubs seem to exist only for the enjoyment of the rich and the privileged, defying the policy objective of promoting sports in the city. One typical example is the controversial Hong Kong Golf Club that has a membership of only around 2,000, but it occupies 170 hectares of land in the northeastern New Territories. When many of our residents have to cram themselves into their small homes or sub-divided flats, the existence of this golf club built on public money that serves only 2,000 members seems particularly extravagant and ironic.

All the more, some clubs also did not throw open facilities as required for public use for a designated number of hours per month. In one instance, a club that committed itself to opening up its facilities for 656 hours reported zero usage. Obviously, the breaches of the land leases and terms have been in existence for a long time and quite a number of clubs have lost their social functions. There have been media reports on the prevalence of their underuse and non-compliance, with the Ombudsman also slamming the clubs last year for shutting their doors to the public.

We all know that this city is desperately in need of land for building decent homes to house its people. This explains why there have been mounting calls for the government to take back the clubhouse land for redevelopment upon the expiry of the leases involving a total of 73 plots of land at present. If the government is so desperate to scramble for land, it should not ditch this shortcut for the supply of land and go all out for some difficult and even far-fetched options at the risks of offending many villagers and farmers in the New Territories, not to mention the environmental crusaders.

Disappointingly, despite the government's awareness of the potential of redeveloping the clubhouse land, it failed to seize the opportunity to review and revamp this anachronistic colonial policy when the leases of 55 private clubs were due for renewal in 2011 and 2012. Insisting that the lease renewals should come before any review of their operations, the Home Affairs Bureau decided to renew 46 leases for another 15 years in May with added requirements, such as longer opening hours for public access. In other words, even if the bureau comes up with a review of the policy, it can only apply to nine clubs which still have their land lease renewal applications under the government's scrutiny.

Of course, many people are scratching their heads as to why the government has frivolously chosen to defy public opinion as well as logic to give lease renewals for such a long time. A lease of another 15 years for free or at a token fee is definitely a problem when many of the city's residents live in horrendous conditions.

Still, the government has its last trump card to play if it wants to take back the land from a particular private club. Under the existing lease terms, it has the power to resume specific sites, provided that an appropriate notification period like one year is given to the club in question. Therefore, the government should conduct a holistic review of the clubs, including the "prolonged hold-over arrangement" for the PCCW staff club and examine whether their sites should be put to better use or whether some clubs should pay rents at market rates that will do justice to the distribution of land.

The author is a current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 11/22/2013 page9)