The proportion of public housing and private buildings can not solve the problem of supply shortage

Continue to quote the 9uphero article of the distinguished member of the Hong Kong discussion forum yesterday

He said at the conclusion: “To maintain the stability of the community in Hong Kong, it is very simple. As long as the construction of public housing is stopped, the public housing estates will be converted into private flats/home ownership flats, so that the supply of private flats will be greatly increased. Property speculation. Normalize the building market in Hong Kong! Young people have goals and motivation, and their confidence in the government will increase, so they will not be unrest. And normalization of building prices = normal rents = reduced business pressure on businesses, encouraging young people to start businesses, It will also help Hong Kong’s long-term economic development!"

The problem with this idea is: First, the ratio of public housing to private housing is only a matter of distribution

Turning public housing into HOS flats and private flats can indeed cause property prices to fall. This has benefited potential private property buyers who have not boarded the trains, but has caused the poorest public housing applicants and existing owners to suffer.

Undoubtedly, as long as the supply is increased, the existing owners must be victims. This is a necessary evil, and it will not be discussed. However, unless communism is implemented, Li Ka-shing’s mansions in Deep Water Bay and all houses larger than 1,000 square feet are all evenly distributed. Otherwise, it is impossible to solve the problem of insufficient supply by means of distribution.

The objective fact is that Singapore’s per capita living area is twice that of Hong Kong

Regardless of the existing area and the increase in potential supply, Hong Kong is far lower than all neighboring big cities. In the long run, we can only use the increase in supply to solve the problem of insufficient supply.

Second, the property market’s spicy tax does reduce the speculation, but it also hinders the public to upgrade. It is straightforward to say that the spicy tax is not normalized, but it is not normal. However, I do not oppose the spicy tax like other economists. It is only because of the anti-economic method in the extraordinary period, but it is not a last resort, but it is not It is normal to represent this method.

This is like agreeing to use rations when there is a serious shortage of supply, such as the supply of food and daily necessities in wartime, but this does not mean that the ration is normal. Spicy tax is harmful, just like the side effects of food, normal people do not need to take medicine.

Thirdly, when it comes to opening private buildings and HOS flats, it is a departure from the business. I have said many times. Since 2000, the biggest increase has not been private buildings, but commercial units. Today, office workers have no private office desks. The space for eating is getting narrower and narrower, and everyone is affected. However, the public’s attention is only focused on the price of private buildings. The so-called private think tanks such as the local research institutes calculate the land demand only for private buildings and not for business. This is the manifestation of collective mental retardation.


Main page                                                                                                 Next page

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *