愚者曾分別著文批評，以後或再分享文章。今先在這先簡單討論其事。
首先論到「波鞋街重建」，這是以偏蓋全。因為實則重建範圍連一個地段(Street Block)也沒有。其時在坊間流傳一份所謂老戶的申訴文章，不少保育人士也十分關注。縱觀所謂保育理由不過有二；一曰地區特色，二曰民生民心。地區特色者，波鞋街也，或說是舊式建築。然而，其範圍不過是所謂「波鞋街」之一小段，在「波鞋街」已發展成一網狀商店群的同時，受影響地段的運動用品公司並不算多。
若論舊式建築，重建地段之建築在附近地段比比皆是。似乎也不成理由。
二論民生，多以店鋪關門，職位盡失為據。但時人總是很少討論在該地段的住戶權益，環境之改善。愚者曾造訪多座大廈，昏暗得伸手不見五指的樓梯，嚴重失修的後梯，此等環境應否改善？有人以銀彈提出反收購建議，討價還價，卻沒錢收復大廈的設施，是何道理？有請讀者自是衡量。
麥花臣室內館重建之事更見時人所謂「保育」的反智。業主遊樂場協會早已提出重建，但欠缺資金。眼下只剩向政府和私人發展商融資。這幾年來，大家都沒有討論此事太多；但當落實重建，反對聲音四起。一說「屏風樓」，但實在是該地段沒風可擋，因為四周所建大廈不少比計劃中的新大樓還高。二說「集體回憶」，愚者認同這裡有很多人的回憶，包括愚者和太太拍拖時的美好片段。但說是「集體」，不敢苟同。網上有所討論，說這說那，但卻是一個回覆說最近有到麥花臣室內館的人也沒有。何其怪矣？
再說行人專用區，時人喜將「公民抗命」之政治理念夾雜其中。是以一個劇團阻塞通道是「抗命」不是「擾民」，政黨以此大作宣傳。但住戶商鋪的權益何在？易拉架推銷攤位無法無天，擺得滿街都是，推銷保險的妙齡女郎追逐男士，何其苦矣？
有人說，當以民間協商，更有人說政府不當政治干預。但在奉行政府政治中立的香江，執法者執法掃蕩是政治干預嗎？民間協商之路不只是成就了群眾聚而爭論卻分亳不改的局面嗎？甚或是政黨的宣傳口號而已。
生於斯，長於斯。對區內之事實在關心不已。當在網上遇到「社區保育」的知名人士(或純粹同名而不得而知)說：「住在旺角的居民未必知道社區需要甚麼！」的豪語，或者只可一笑置之。但實在想說：「可怒也！吾長居此地而不知，彼等外人何足以知耶！」
愚者
零八年一月十四日
There are a lot of discussions in Mong Kok these few months. The "Sportshoe Street Renewal" (, official K28 Sai Yee Street Renewal Project); "Macpherson Renewal" and "Pedestrian Area Suspension" issues had been discussed noisely over the internet. However, there were some rumors and comments that were not precise, even some just tried to make loud noise between people. Some stakeholders hid their benifical conflicts behind the scene.
"The Stupid", me, had written several articles on theses issues before. I would share them here later, but let's have a brief summary of my opinion.
First, let's discuss about the "Sportshoe Street Renewal" issue. Quite a lot of discussion of the renewal project saying that this harm the local speciality and community harmony. But these seem not true. Conservation campaign always mentioned that it would break the "Sportshoe Street" down, and pull a lot of "valuable" old buildings. But not many people mentioned that the renewal project even not covers a whole street block, and what we called "Sportshoe Street" is no longer along a street, but like a web spreading over street network.
Even the argument of preservation of old building is not sound. Similar buildings can easily be found just nearby.
Some people claimed that renewing the area may close a lot of shops and people get losing jobs. Little people discussed about the living standard of local tenants. I've been visited and camcorded the situation of living environment of the affected buildings. Dark staircase with no vision and danger staircase without repair were what I found. Is that a good environment for living? It it right to propose counter-acquisition by landlord alliance, but not using these money to do the maintenance work?
On the Macpherson Indoor Stadium issue, what so called "Preservation" seems even worse. The landlord HKPA proposed for a renewal for years, without sufficient financial support. So HKPA decided to redevelop the land with URA and private developer. Voices against the renewal plan were not heard before it was finalized, but over-discussed after it was confirmed.
Arguments said that it would become a "barrier" and affected the local air condition. But actually buildings nearby are somehow taller that the proposal. Another argument said that there are a lot "collective memories." I have a lot of personal memory of dating my wife there, but I don't think it can be called as "collective". When I asked people talking about "collective memory" on the indoor stadium how frequent they visited the place, no answer had been given. Does not it strange that people talking about "collective memory" without visiting a place?
Pedestrian Area was abused in the year 2008. People always say something like "community negotiation" or "revolution against big government", mixing up a community issue with political idealogy. In this logic, a road-blocking drama group is "revolutionary", not "disturbing" in some politicians' speech. Who cares about the right of local tenants and shops? Illegal promotion boothes over the street, insurance sales girls tracing young men, isn't it a poor area of poor people?
I just cannot say it is a political influence from the government that Hong Kong Government follows the "politically neutral" policy. Is police and inspectors doing their job to clear up the area a kind of political influence? Or those slogans of political parties? From the result that "Community Negotiation"
brought to the area of a large-scale conflict happened, instead of harmony.
There is a Chinese slang "Born here, Grow here." I have great concern about the local issues. When I met a famous preservation proclaimer (or just share the same name) online, she said "people living in Mong Kok may not know what this community needs!".
"Anger I have! I live here knowing nothing, who can say anything!"
The Stupid
14 Jan 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment