These are not facts - they are plans.

And the plans do not explain why an EVA, promenade or new sea wall are necessary or desirable.

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

Yes - they are plans laying out the facts of what the government intends to do - whether you believe them or not they have far more basis in fact than making up tales of verticle concrete slab walls that in this case only exist in the world of the imagination

Again you are running away from addressing these issues.

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

I don't think anyone is running away from these issues. These are actually important and should be raised. No one seems to know the answer and it would be government's reasoning, not Xerxes' - you're asking the wrong person. It's a moot point from my perspective though since the assumption (or so it seems) that this is required will lead to the proposed works which in their current form, I am in favour of.

The "facts" as Xerxes points has pointed out to you are all contained in the 11 page tender document. Evidently this is not where you and Alan are getting your "facts" from seeing as neither of you have demonstrated any understanding of it.

If you're right about the overwhelming majority of Lamma being in favour of no action taken to the shorefront, then you may stand a chance of bringing about a change to the plans. I feel sorry that the community feels this way but so be it - I am only one person. I highly doubt however the government will give any credence to a Lamma organisation that starts plucking out unsubstantiated facts out of the air. Please just address the issues in hand. The one you mentioned just now is a good one.

Alan - I am embarrassed for you with that response: you could have stepped up and made whichever admission was correct and people would have respected that (well, I would have anyway), but, fine. I won't press you if you're not ready to do it. Like I said, no hard feelings. Passionate people (as I think you are on this topic) sometimes say and do irrational things. They just need to take responsibility for them. The offer of a beer still stands.

A rubble mound sea wall,

You can see one that will be the same as the planned one over on Hunters Beach, which is perpendicularly across from the end of the ferry pier. There is a batching plant there now.

Alan - you're too aggressive and you try and dominate these forums with your own opinions .

Practically every contentious issue you end up in an argument - your meant to be a moderator, no?

Then try some moderation yourself.

I discuss issues. I don't call people liars unless I can prove it.
I've explained exactly what I think and why. I have stated what is fact and what supposition and the evidence and experience that supports it.

Keep your advice to yourself.


Tautology and ad hominem in one. Good going.

Finally, a crack of light. This is what we should be discussing.

Coming back to the FACTS, we don't have many to go on. Those we do have a pretty simple to understand:

The government intends to reclaim 0.4ha (about 1 acre) of the harbour to build an EVA, a public promemade and a new sea wall. This will take about two years of construction work. If/when the job is finished, the Lamma waterfront restaurants will no longer be on the waterfront - they will be looking across the concrete of the EVA and promenade. Whether or not they're also staring at a sea wall is another issue.

I don't think anyone is saying that nothing should be done - but it should be discussed and alternative proposals should also be considered rather than a government fait accompli, which is what we have at the moment.

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

First it was the 'Lilly Pond Saga" A cause, fought and at first won, on the Nobelist of convictions. To save further loss of a natural habitat from the encroaching development under way in YSW. Fought predominately by well meaning ex pats.

Then one morning it was gone, disappeared beneath a mound of construction rubble topped out with a toilet bowl!

The authorities were powerless to act and not a thing could be done against the families who allowed the destruction of the 'lily pond' on land they probably hold some sort of title to, or interest in, and, they or their descendants would benefit, somewhere down the line should the valley ever be re zoned for residential development For sure it was payback, destroyed because it could be destroyed with impunity by the local families making a living out of construction on the island and lost the income from extending the drainage channel further into the valley.

Done out of this potential development bonanza by a tiny group of overwhelmingly non voting, but well meaning ex pat residents objecting to the loss of a frogs breading ground. Individuals with local interest in their heart it seems, felt strongly enough to dump their building waste just where the 'lily pond' was. The minor problem of the increased risk of flooding the rubble waste would cause was ironed out by the interested parties (sans,well meaning ex pats) by installing a pipe beneath the waste wall to ensure the outfall from the vally reaches the bay.

The moral - try and reach a comprise with local interest.

The scores were level again.


You don't believe this? - There's plenty of construction going on right now in YSL valley where it can, and this will continue for as long as there is money to be made from it and there's plenty of money to made now. It's the premier land bank in YSW requiring the least restructuring to facilitate development eg. a drainage channel reaching to the farthest ends of the valley floor will create work and income for the local interested parties.

Local Interest 1 - Well meaning ex pats 1

Not long after this came 'The Spoof Drug Bust' The action centered on Island Bar and Diesels, bars frequented by a predominately ex pat clientele The operation involved an expat under cover police officer being able to openly buy drugs from and involving predominatly ex pat residents selling drugs to other predominately ex pat residents and the occasional undercover police officer! Small time it all turned out to be for sure, but local local interest was served. No local Chinese resident wad caught up in the operation. The case against all but a few ex pat residents were dropped and those few incured the judges displeasure.

Local interest encourages development - the more tourists come to eat, shop, and use the facilities, the more it will prosper and the economy will grow. The open use and sale of drugs was in the face of local interest and local interest acted. The agents of the Law stepped in and put a stop to it!

Moral - don't do it like that - keep it at home or out on a walk in the hills and local interest will turn a blind eye.

Local Interest 2 - Well meaning ex pats 2

Soon after this the 'Ugly Clock' appeared. Why oh why, would the local interested parties want to build such a thing? Taking up valuable seating space in Island Bars - oh, sorry - YSWs premier and only beach side public sitting out area!.

The only business effected would be Island Bar which uses this public space as its illegal outdoor seating area. The very same establishment at the center of the recent 'Spoof Drug Bust' The well meaning ex pats, caught off balance, failed to halt the erection of this 'Ugly Clock' and now many of them now enjoy their tipple, over shadowed by the 'Ugly Clock", the Public conveniences and a Rubbish collection point! Local interest, expressing its displeasure at the open flouting of the law by the tiny, non voting minority of predominately well meaning ex pats found a place to site the 'Ugly Clock ' that would be in the face of the well meaning ex pats

Moral - don't piss off the local interested parties.
Locals 3 - Well meaning ex pats 1

And then there's the 'Democracy Wall'. Another cause supported by the well meaning ex pats who represent the overwhelming number of contributors to this mess. Local interest want's the wall cleaned up - well meanings ex pats want an open forum. The compromise is the 'Democracy Fence' - a structure as temporary as you can get - set to disappear beneath the coming development of the harbor.

Moral - do as your told by interested parties.

Local interest 4 - Well meaning ex pats 1

Now the Harbor reclamation catches the attention of the well meaning ex pats. Have the lessons from past run in's with the local interested parties been learned? Time will tell

What an entertaining conspiracy theory.

I however don't think of the interest groups involved as so simply delineated by race. And I doubt any of the destruction of the environment is actually deliberate payback; it's just collateral damage.

With regard to the EVA rd and promenade - I have no issue at all with them - As iliketurtles said, it will give access to all directly to the new shoreline and beach - plus I find it strange that the current restaurant and bar owners would have an issue with having traffic passing both sides of their business, surely that is a good business opportiunity ?- spend a few dollars on making the sea facing sides of their restaurants look enticing and you will get some extra trade. Perhaps the issue could be the fact that they may have to shell out cash to refurbish the rear or their premises which would be understandable as it would be a kind of forced & unplanned expenditure.

The current stretch running from behind B&B to Deli Lamma is, lets face it, a rat run and could do with cleaning up - our local business owners are enterprising people and I think the construction when completed will get them to up their game a bit to entice new business - I know some people dont believe this will happen but personally i think that would be an inevitable positive outcome of the EVA road and promenade.

Getting away from the sniping, is it correct to state that if the CEED do anything in YSW harbour that they're duty bound to build a 3.5m seawall.

It would be interesting to see the results of an opinion poll of the voting grannies who head down to Sampan seafood for Yam Chat early in the morning. I wonder how many of them know that their elected officials want to drive a 4.5m+ EVA/promenade through there?

For the record, I don't object to the plans particularly, but they are not detailed enough at the moment to understand the actual impact on the harbour. (eg, no heights indicated)

My starting point is:

- Current "sea wall" a mess.
- Current beach embarrassing, made worse by CEED concrete nullah.
- Path from ferry pier too narrow underneath Man Lai Wah hotel, and other points further down.
- Only the clock-tower seating area offers a sea view without having to pay for it.
(it also offers a garbage area view, nice)
- Phase one reclamation sterile and under used.
- Tourist trade supports the local businesses that we, as lamma residents, rely on.


I'd like a plan for development that addressed those concerns.

Any more?

We've asked them that, they have yet to respond, let alone say just what such a seawall would look like.

Actually, in most of the issues you raise there were as many HK Chinese as "expats" involved in the protests. The ability of New Territories peasantry to flout HK's rule of law is legendary but evolution (and the law) will catch up with them in the end.

As for "expats", this term is largely redundant as most of the people you're referring to are long-term residents - many or most of them permanent residents - and as such will be able to vote in the upcoming elections. There's a gweilo local councillor on Lantau - maybe there will soon be one on Lamma.

Back to the post, I expect that there will be many local Chinese residents up in arms against the harbour redevelopment, not just "expats".

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

oh my god !! while the plans have no height they do in fact show a rubble mound sea wall - this seems to be being selectively ignored - why ?


If - as people seem to be insisting - the the govt always have to build sea walls 3.5 m - then surely that means that the proposed rubble mound sea wall will be 3.5 m !!or do you think that they are planning to put a 3.5 meter sea wall on top of that ?

I haven't ignored it. If you like you can find out more about sea walls at http://civcal.media.hku.hk/reclamation/seawall/default.htm They're thrilling.

I was asking if anyone had been able to confirm the 3.5m as being a legal health and safety requirement for *any* development in YSW harbour.
Alan responded that CEED have been question about this and have yet to respond.

You can be sure that in the event of a major typhoon or swell that those businesses and residents along the harbour front will be suing the government for /not/ having built one

No need to apologise.


No idea. As has been stated numerous times earlier.

It's sort of a vital fact, but they haven't shared that with us.

The plans do have some numbers on them that look like heights to me. Look closely at the values next to the + marks. (15.5 and 14.8 at the top left, between 3 and 4 along the present main street).

If they *do* indicate height (and I'm not a civil engineer) then a 3.5m sea defence wouldn't be significantly any higher than what's there now.

It does say what the wall will look like Alan - it will look like a rubble mound sea wall, look near hunters beach if you have trouble envisioning what a rubble mound sea wall looks like - is this really so difficult for you to grasp ?

I think the risk lays also in the design&build project type, as someone mentioned on this forum, is likely to be the way the Govt. will put the project for tender. It looks like the public consultation is/will be on some conceptual design only, while the construction design provided later by the contractor may be dramatically different from aesthetics point of view. I am not sure the Govt. procedures ensures the public consultations on construction design stage.