Last edited by cheepo; 27-03-2013 at 09:46 AM.
Let's not forget that all these government officials likely have very large portfolios of 10-30 (maybe even more) properties. Building more apartments and risking decreasing the value of their portfolios is not in their interests.
They may also own a lot of land in NT? The people who own that land are set to earn A TON of money if they are allowed to build high rise building there.
I don't actually know the proportion that is owned by the locals v. the proportion owned by the government. Does anybody know?
Owned or leased? As The Brit and Proplus have noted above, the HK government owns essentially all of the land in HK. That means everyone else has only a leasehold for a term of years...
"New Towns" aren't needed...but bigger housing is. I would like to see more housing developments similar to Hong Lok Yuen and less block tower housing.
Total population in the pearl river delta is high enough that it is causing severe environmental problems.
More block towers = worse environment.
No. As I have noted above, a lot of land in the NT is owned by the "natives". How much exactly, of the total, I don't know. But I heard they have been selling it to developers, who are hoarding land for the day the government will allow them to build housing.
Does anybody know how much of the total land in the NT is/was owned by the natives, and not the government?
Cheepo, the do NOT own the land... they have the right to build on the land and own the house... the land is still owned by the gov't. the indigenous villagers hold leases and use of the land for building their houses...
but don't mind me.... my husband's family are only indigenous villagers....
as others have said, the ONLY freehold title in all of HK is St. John's Cathedral in Central.
Don't bother...He "knows" things that no one else in the world does. He seems to think tons of cheap, roomy affordable, beautiful and large properties could be built and that somehow the market would hardly be affected and everything would be rosy. His next thread will probably be about turning lead into gold
What is the difference really? If they own the right to build on the land and they own the house on the land...than really they own the land. The only way they give up the land is through being bought out. Of course it is technically the governments....but that is the case is everywhere.
Even in the USA there is this thing called eminent domain, where by the government, technically, could take your land back (a forced buy).