香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "民間的多贏方案---為何堅拒考慮？"

睇下立法文件同報紙啦

P2路已經刊咗憲, 而一直的討論是重新刊憲改窄P2就可以原址保留.

錢方面立法會文件都有, 重置與原址保留的差別只是一兩億, 熊永達方案(即整個碼頭重置)與政府方案(如果政府選擇拆散原址重置), 係錢方面係幾乎沒有差別的.

P1 road and more

P1 is main Central Wanchai bypass which is a tunnel lay along the seafront under where claimed to be seafront plaza , and the military pier outside of Queen's Pier (not touching QP at all.)

P2 was never said a temp-road , as on the other side of the road, there will be hotels and shops. I don't see any reason why road is not need in order to feed those hotels and shops. So I don't believe P2 is temp-road.

In order to preserve QP, there need to modify current reclamation conctract to leave the pier area either un-finished or allow open tender to commence preservation structure along the reclamation if they insist to complete the reclamation within the target time.

Or government can also pay current contractor the full payment without finishing the job. This is the best solution for all. As Planning for CRIII development did not complete the social impact study when the project was being planned. Government only plan time, money and technique required to imply the reclamation. The project did not study the social cost for the reclamation.

For the time being, there need only budget to preserve the Pier in situ, which can be as little as less than 1billion( the HK$50,000 budget to cut the pier apart, it should be spent on keeping the pier in situ.Money and Technical is not a problem in QP's case.)or as much as we want to spend depending how far we want to go. IF we want to build the lagoon around it. There might need a bit more. But if it is only for preserving the pier in situ. It doesn't cost. The most difficult thing for government to do is to propose land exchange for the PLA pier to be built else where to China.

P2路

// 而是４０米闊的行車路．闊過干諾道三份之一，搞到咁闊，我地估係日後回歸節日，要來檢閱三軍用的，所以要夠闊，方便放飛機大炮坦克車．//

P2路明明是臨時路﹐一就是政府的圖劃騙人﹐一就是你們順口開河騙人。我很懷疑檢閱三軍的說法﹐要檢閱三軍P2路太短了﹐再者在可見的將來﹐香港人也會對市中心出現軍隊十分反感﹐政府不會這樣做的。

//我地的方案係縮窄條p2路，原地保留碼頭，移走解放軍碼頭．可以建商場，但不是４００米長的摩地．//

為什麼不用同意移碼頭作還價﹐移走解放軍碼頭﹖反對摩地更是違反大部份香港市港的意願﹐民意不是站在你們那邊。你地想多人些支持﹐就最好唔好高舉什麼基層價值﹐基層二字很turn off香港人的。

//保留灣仔街市１４億，政府／市建都在考慮了//

點同呢。灣仔街市有歷史價值嘛。

// 完地保留皇后，立法局文件都話幾億搞掂晒，重置與原地保留，連政府條數都係差一兩億 //

有沒有什麼可靠的消息來源可以引證原地保留的成本﹖ 若果真係只差一兩億﹐而不是七八億﹐那麼我的立場可能會從支持清拆變成拆不拆也所謂。

P1路

我地從來無反對過P1路，保留碼頭對P1完全沒有影響．問題根本唔係錢，保留灣仔街市１４億，政府／市建都在考慮了，完地保留皇后，立法局文件都話幾億搞掂晒，重置與原地保留，連政府條數都係差一兩億！

P2路不是臨時路

而是４０米闊的行車路．闊過干諾道三份之一，搞到咁闊，我地估係日後回歸節日，要來檢閱三軍用的，所以要夠闊，方便放飛機大炮坦克車．

我地的方案係縮窄條p2路，原地保留碼頭，移走解放軍碼頭．可以建商場，但不是４００米長的摩地．

P1路

寫文章時細看政府的發展計劃﹐才發現你們本土行動的設計是完全行不通的﹐因為你們忘記了P1路。P2路只是臨時路﹐用幾年就會拆變回公園﹐在地底下的P1路才是發展的核心。起P1又要原地保育皇后﹐不知又要花多幾錢。

另外我發現原來市中心重建計劃中﹐包括一幅解放軍總部的用地﹐所以才會有解放軍碼頭。本土行動的朋友不要打摩地大廈這集紙老虎了﹐反對興建解放軍總部這集真老虎吧﹗

本土行動又為何堅拒考慮第三方案呢﹖

老實說﹐我幾欣賞人工湖的題議﹐有創意又好看。若果皇后變成陸上涼亭咁醜樣﹐不如拆了好過留下來獻世。

這個建議在紙上看起來的確不錯﹐可是納稅人要多花幾多錢呢﹖政府又會從可能的賣地收入捐失多少錢呢﹖八億還是十億﹖ 若果支持原地保留皇后的人士出錢興建新計劃﹐填補政府在金錢上的捐失﹐我絕對讚成這個建議。

全港市民也不喜歡解放軍碼頭﹐可以直接把皇后重置在那裏﹐保留原本的發展計劃。這方案最簡單﹐既可保留皇后的歷史價值﹐不用耗巨費改動原來的發展計劃﹐又不影響政府的賣地收入。為什麼本土行動堅拒考慮這個方案呢﹖

說起來把皇后上蓋切開再重置的費用﹐絕對比在原地保留填海便宜。你知不知道填海時要保護皇后水面的structure不受損傷﹐要額外多花幾錢﹖ 就算政府最終接納你們方案﹐也是把皇后切件在原地重建最省錢。