Most aspiring homebuyers have pinned high hopes on the Long-Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee to come up with housing remedies that help them realize their dream of "home sweet home". But to their dismay, the long-awaited consultation document released last week proved to be disappointing more than anything else. On the contrary, with the conservative housing target of supplying an average of 47,000 housing units per year for the next decade, developers can now sneak a smile that the housing market will remain robust.

Indeed, the consultation document only lays out the basics of the people's housing needs without any feasible suggestions or innovative ways to fulfill their needs and to resolve the plight facing the government, namely the supply of land. The Steering Committee's housing target of supplying 470,000 units for the next decade is certainly prudent. One might even wonder whether this is overly prudent. The calculation is based on the city's housing needs within the period, covering the needs of overseas students and buyers as well as the four percent vacancy rate in the private property market. The supply of public (including Home Ownership Scheme units) and private housing will be in the ratio of 6:4. On this basis, about 28,000 public housing units as opposed to less than 19,000 private housing units will be supplied every year in the next 10 years.

For the private housing supply, the target of less than 19,000 units every year is even worse than the 20,000-odd target in former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's era. Based on the number of property transactions in the past decade, this projection of private housing demand for the next 10 years is far from realistic. In 2010 alone, the number of transactions in the private residential market already exceeded 135,000. True, the draconian stamp duty measures have been effective in suppressing property speculation and dampening mainlanders' home purchase. But these punitive stamp duties are just temporary desperate measures for desperate times. When the time comes, they will be back pouncing on the city's property market again. Coupled with the growing population, it is hard to imagine how the supply of 188,000 private housing units can meet the demand of homebuyers as well as investors. We shall always remember the actual supply of private housing is in the hands of the developers, not the government. In other words, this private housing target is nothing more than a mirage.

For public housing, things are even tougher. The document does not give out the detailed ratio of rental and HOS units within public housing so as to allow the government to make adjustments. However, there will be an estimated 410,000 applicants for public rental housing in the next decade while at present some 230,000 applicants are on queue. Needless to say the target of 28,000 units a year is far from enough. What is more, if the supply of HOS flats only stands at the present 5,000 units a year, it would definitely fall far short of the committee's goal of building an "effective housing ladder" for aspiring buyers to get on the home-owning ladder. However, if the number of HOS flats is increased at the expense of the number of public rental units, it means those who are on the waiting list will need to wait for who knows how much longer before they can have a proper shelter.

What is worse is that even with this humble figure of 470,000 units for the next 10 years, the government is still having a problem with the supply of land that can accommodate 100,000 homes. So, after all the talking the fundamental problem is not whether the public is happy with this projection or whether this supply can resolve the problem of affordable housing, but whether the government can find sufficient land for the supply of these flats. Without land all the suggestions and debate are only empty talk.

To ease the present housing shortage, the Steering Committee even goes for the far-fetched idea of introducing a licensing scheme for subdivided flats so they can serve as temporary homes for those waiting for public housing. This only gives an impression that the government is burying its head in the sand to avoid the real housing issue. The Steering Committee is only inviting the public to fill in the gaps about the viable options that will resolve the problem of supplying sufficient and affordable housing. But what are the viable options in developing more land for residential housing? Land reclamation, developing country park land, urban redevelopment, changing land use or reclaiming the Fanling golf course site and other sites leased out to private clubs? Unfortunately there is none on the table. Then how can the city's people engage in constructive debate exploring ways for the sufficient supply of housing? This is the fundamental question that the committee needs to consider before gauging views from the public.

The author is a current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 09/12/2013 page9)