香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "市建局清拆利東街街坊May姐無限期絕食 "

廿四日的行動及與張震遠會面的報導

提提讀者，已補充在內文。大家閱讀、思考、行動。

Art Action tonite - to support May and spread out the urgent msg

tonite christmas eve, i will do a performance art at the gathering area. plz come, plz stay, plz join, plz support, plz protect, and plz make sounds; for the street, for the resisdents, for May, and to hk ppl~!!

有沒有片段？

請問在場人事有沒有拍到張到場的片段，放上這個post上？這個時段上班族都來不了聲援，而沒法知道現場情況。

謝謝﹗

絕食宣言英譯本

Dear citizens,

Being Cheated and Oppressed Once Again!

I am May Yip Mee-Yung. I have been living in Wanchai old district for 3 generations. I used to live in Ship Street, which was then re-developed and I was forced to move out. Yet, I still had a stair-corner stall selling hand-made crystallite jeweleries in Lee Tung Street, co-existing with the printing and wedding-card industries there. Unfortunately, another re-development project is forcing me to move out of this street.

Since 1997, I have been very concerned about the district's redevelopment. I witnessed how senior government officials cheated LegCo members and citizens alike with the so-called 7 principle promises when the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) was founded. These promises never materialised. More damaging is the fact that the LegCo has given the URA entitlement to make use of Lands Resumption Ordinance; that is to say when the URA fails to come into terms with the affected parties, the Ordinance can be used to rob the people's properties.

10 Years of Fruitless Communication

I have been concerned with issues of urban re-development, and for many years I have been seeing government officials, trying to communicate with them. The concerns and problems faced by the community have never been dealt with sincerely. I felt so angry and hopeless. Fortunately in 2003, H15 Concern Group was founded by some enthusiastic community members. With the help of professionals and people from other sectors, we submitted the first ever bottom-up, people's planning proposal to the Town Planning Board (TPB). The proposal addresses the interests and benefits of both the community members, who may choose to leave or stay, and even the developers. Indeed, most community members want only a flat for a flat, and a shop for a shop. In other words, that is to urge the URA to observe its own principle objectives of preserving community network and local characteristics. Unfortunately, the TPB rejected our proposal by some technical reasons hitherto unprecedented in its dealings with proposals submitted by developers. What makes one indignant is that TPB gave a green light to the URA's proposal on Lee Tung Street, despite the gross number of 192 objections out of 196 representations received during public consultation. At this point, I can see clearly how the government policy has always been biased towards developers' interest.

The Secretary of Development had arranged a meeting with H15 Concern Group earlier in 2007, we thought there was still a chance to make things right. Yet, the meeting made no difference at all in terms of outcome. During the meeting, the Secretary of Development kept pointing back to some technical issues concerning not demolishing the buildings. To address these issues, we have drafted yet another proposal which aims to revise the proposal presently submitting to TPB by URA. This submission is now waiting to be put on TPB meeting scheduled on Jan 12, 2008. In the mean time, we are also making appointment with the new URA chairman, Barry Cheung Chun-Yuen. Although we have been pursuiting for several months and I have been even phoning him daily, we hear no reply yet.

Fake preservation, Takeover by substance

URA announced its pseudo preservation proposal just about time with Christmas approaching, I am utterly shocked by its ingenious pretense to cover up its interested schemes. I have been running about with the owners of printing firms and wedding cards shops who are forced by URA to move out. Without the very clustering of shops, most owners have been losing 50-90% of their business. In fact, many wedding card shop owners have spoken openly in the last few days. Should Lee Tung Street, a place of production, turned into some sort of wholesale area as proposed by URA, these small shops will not survive. They have been co-existing and mutually relying on each others' expertise and specialties. Such a proposal by URA is considered by many shop owners as ruthless and ungrateful. This is to say the shops in question have moved to the outskirt of the project area and they have been enduring drastic drop in business and revenues. Such clearly goes against URA's goal of “livelihood improvement”. Worse, whoever wishes to enter the industry in the future will have to move in the project's theme arcade. With the rent rise foreseeable with the completion of project, shop owners will be reduced to merely working for the government like wage employees. Should they decided not to move in, they will be forced to go out of business by the hectic competition imposed by the theme arcade. The renown status of Lee Tung Street is in fact the fruitful outcome of all of these shops, residents and practitioners' decades long effort, URA is shameful in breaking down the cluster and to threaten the shop owners' livelihood in such unbecoming manner.

The Powerless' Resistance

Today, URA is making the matter worse in launching a structural demolition of Lee Tung Street. As an ordinary citizen who is powerless and without resources, I have run out of all possible means. I have done all I could have done, and what the government and URA have offered us in turn?. I have no other means and measures but to fight my last fight with my own body. I am now going on a hunger strike at the crossing of Lee Tung Street and Queen's Road East, so as to express my unbounded sadness and fury.

Stop Demolishing Lee Tung Street!
Barry Cheung Chun-Yuen (Chairman of the Board of the URA) Come meet the Concern Group immediately at Lee Tung Street!

May Yip Mee-Yung 92542017

H15關注組回應市建局新聞稿

反對無知無恥無良無賴無聊市建局 — 雀巢鳩佔式假保育

「我們是先有印刷，後有喜帖，這條街原本的運作，就是互相協助，做喜帖的如果沒有做印刷的幫忙某些工序，根本就不能經營，根本舊有的街坊就做不到。」－－原利東街全發印刷。
「我們以前是靠互相協助，成本大大減低，才可以接到某些生意，如果只有喜帖，沒有印刷，我們是無法經營的。」－－原利東街志成燙金印刷。

對於市建局昨日發表對利東街的「姻園」發展計劃，我們認為全然是一個商業邏輯賺到盡的態度，以一個「主題商場」來企圖假扮喜帖街社區網絡。H15 關注組認為這種規劃完全偏離[市區重建策略 ]中所列明的市區重建的主要目標：保存社區網絡和地區特色，還想透過這種假保育去蒙混過關，贏得公眾掌聲，實在是欺騙公眾的行為。

「主題商場」企圖假扮喜帖街社區特色
上述原利東街的印刷和喜帖舖戶的引言，已經濟楚解析了我們這條街原本運作的方式，市建局當初全然不顧街坊聚沙成塔的經濟成果，和互相協助的社區生態，打散了原有的社區經濟網絡，令到各印刷和喜帖戶和成本大增，故有的舖戶已挨不住而在新租約未滿就已結業。至於搬去別處仍在營業的街坊，大家在失去了原有的互助網絡和成行成市的效應後，生意大跌五至九成。這種情況完全背離了「市區重建改善生活」的口號。

是「保存」社區網絡，不是「重新打造」社區網絡
同時，現今的計劃，聲稱以「社會企業」來打造社區網絡──我們想指出，社區網絡不是靠社會服務「做」出來的，而是靠一個自然的生活環境慢慢形成的，更何況，從現今市建局提出的社會服務中，完全看不到和原居民的社區網絡有任何關係，如此則如何「保存」社區網絡呢？

扼殺小本經營業者搶掠文化資本

街坊數十年來小本經營，辛苦建立的地區特色，市建局一手破壞，面對街坊慘痛後果，絲毫不思補救之餘，更連街坊所建立這些文化資本也一併掠奪來自抬身價，叫原有街坊被害慘後，還要回來為颷升的高租金打工。而租金颷升後，其他印刷業又不能回來，小本業者如何經營？這實是扼殺原本的社區網絡和地區特色，此種行為實是雀巢鳩佔無疑！

基於以上原因，我們認為市建局此舉實是「五無」：無知、無恥、無良、無賴、無聊：

一﹑以為憑空偽作一個主題公園式的「姻園」，便可以與有機自發根植社區的「喜帖街」作比較，是對城市發展理論和規劃理念的無知。

二﹑街坊多次提出有效保留「喜帖街」的方法，包括集體遷往船街重建項目，和後來的原街分期重建復修的「啞鈴方案」，市建局一一拒絕。而今，倒把街坊數十年來辛苦建立的地區特色盜作市建局商場的綽頭賣點，是為無恥。

三﹑原商戶經歷這幾年來分散各個角落的慘淡經營，現在市建局說歡迎他們以「市值租金」回來為他的綽頭主題撑場，全無保障安撫之意，是為無良。

四﹑市建局還要以此計劃向公眾邀功，是為無賴。

五﹑整個重建計劃，原來袛是打碎真的，併湊假的，是為無聊。

其實，在利東街和波鞋街，都有民間的另類規劃方案，更能實踐市區重建局的成立目標，而至今市建局都不解釋為何不採納，罔顧民間參與規劃的意願，卻一意孤行只用賺到盡的規劃方案，令人憤怒。

事到如今，市建局和發展局新領導層若要真心檢視如何做好灣仔市區更新，便應認真採納H15關注組近日向城規會提出的最新方案。利東街中段唐樓仍未清拆，街坊商戶人己遷出，但心仍未冷，有心做，未遲！

二零零七年十二月廿二日