K_Chan

中學時期宿營的好地方，30年未有踏足。個人名義的反對或贊成，都需要一個基礎/視界，不是規劃/法律/歷史/生態/地產/環境的人員，也非村民，唯有多聼多看，到底凴什麽去反對/贊成。以下踫到一則新聞，提到“客家村”(未有刪改）作參考之一：Was there for camping decades ago. But basing on what we file our yes or no? The notion of "Hakka village" below may serve as a reference (unedited), given I am no expert in the topic:

Hong Kong planners must take a close look at plans for historic Hakka village
Legitimate questions should have been raised by the planning department over the Pak Sha O plan, and those involved in the transactions should answer them in a forthright manner
courtesy Alex Lo / SCM Post / 2 February 2016

People who care about our country parks and cultural heritage should pay attention to an obscure but suspicious outline zoning plan.
The draft plan was published in December by the Town Planning Board for public consultation to develop large swathes of Pak Sha O, a historic Hakka village.
Zoning maps pinpoint areas where future small houses will be built. Intriguingly, most of those places have already been sold to a single developer called Xinhua Bookstore Xiang Jiang Group Ltd.
Despite its name, the privately registered company has no ties with the official Chinese news agency. But I digress.
Records unearthed by activists show that villagers sold their agricultural land five years ago to the developer. Xinhua recently sold back the land to villagers who have so-called ding rights to build small houses. In applying for the zoning, the Planning Department said villagers claim a large area is needed to build their small houses.
Are the villagers working as a front for the developer? Or have they suddenly changed their mind and decided to build houses for themselves? Who knows?
But Designing Hong Kong and the Conservancy Association are opposing the zoning plan, whose consultation ends this Thursday. Designing Hong Kong has called it a “blatant development scheme”.
I don’t know whether it’s an outright development scheme but there seem to be enough questions about this zoning plan that it should be put on hold, subject to further investigation.
But the department not only declines to probe the matter more deeply, it is actively helping those behind this zoning plan.
Haven’t the department heard about the jailing of a developer and 11 indigenous villagers in December for a scam in which they sold their land rights under the small house policy for profit?
We are not saying the villagers in Pak Sha O are acting in any way other than realising their legally sanctioned ding rights. But they are requesting a lot of land for zoning in excess of the actual plots they need to build their houses.
Given the purchase records between the villagers and the developer, legitimate questions should have been raised by the department in the public interest. And those involved in the transactions should answer them in a forthright manner.
ENDS