REHOUSING AND COMPENSATION


There are divided views on the current compensation policy. Some affected property owners consider it insufficient, while others consider it over-generous.

Compensation for domestic owner-occupiers is equivalent to the market value of their properties plus an of ex-gratia allowance (namely Home Purchase Allowance), so as to enable the owner-occupiers to purchase a flat of better conditions to live. The unit rate of acquisition offer is based on a national replacement flat of seven years old similar size in a similar locality. The same compensation principle is applied to owners of vacant and tenanted domestic units yet at a comparatively lower rate of allowance due to differences in the use of property. Some property owners claim this is unfair, and think that the URA should compensate them with the same allowance.

Some affected property owners complained of being forced to leave the community where they used to live. In response to this concern, the URA offers a Flat-for-Flat (FFF) option, as an alternative to cash compensation, to domestic owner-occupiers affected by the URA's redevelopment projects after the promulgation of the new Urban Renewal Strategy promulgated in February 2011.

Moreover, as it usually takes time for planning and soliciting approval for implementing a redevelopment project, the current compensation arrangements may lead to eviction of some tenants by landlords before the property is acquired and hence losing their eligibility for compensation or rehousing.


Questions

  1. Should the affected residents be re-housed in the same district? Is it feasible?
    (Remarks: The public housing units in urban areas are limited in supply.)
  1. The pros and cons of the “Flat-for-Flat” Scheme?
  1. Is a “Shop-for-Shop” arrangement practical and feasible?
    (Remarks: Some businesses running in the old districts, such as garages, funerary shops and hardware shops, These business have specific requirements for locations and operation.)
  1. How can the URA help the affected tenants being evicted by their landlords, without the risk of being abused by those defraud public money intentionally?
  1. Should the compensation for the owner-occupiers and the owners of vacant and tenanted domestic units be the same?
    (Remarks: Both of them are already entitled to a compensation equivalent to the market value of their properties some owners tenanted properties are investor.)
  1. Is the current compensation policy based on the market value of a notional replacement flat of seven-year-old appropriate?
    (Remarks: Will it be a financial burden to public money?)