Family Group Camping Reservation Form: Fill & Download for Free

I grew up on in the east part of Bangalore. I still reside here. While most of the answers here complain about the traffic situation, rising costs etc…I will tell you what it was like to grow up in Bangalore and what it feels like now.I come from an era when there was no outer ring road at all (the road connecting from Hebbal - Silk Board - Jayadeva - Banashankari).I also come from a time when the inner ring road was not yet built (the road connecting Domlur-EGL & Koramangala)I used to reside in Marathalli. Back then, the near-by area, Bellandur, was a place with dense shrubbery around a beautiful lake. Every Ganesh Chaturthi visarjan (send-off) was undertaken there. (Below is a Before & After picture of the area in and around Bellandur lake)My friend and I cycled all the way to the railway tracks emerging from Kundanahalli gate (now called Munnekolalu). We used to have our own races under the hot sun. I was perpetually tanned round the year.I came from an era where we had double-decker buses plying in and around Bangalore. They were so cool!There was also these beige coloured buses called “Pushpak” which had more number of seats compared to the usual BMTC buses.Marathalli, back then, had only empty plots with dense eucalyptus plantation. We were always warned by the HAL police not to venture out into them after 5 in the evening. Due to these dense trees around, it used to get very cold during the winters. I used to have difficulty setting my foot on my marble flooring.I used to spend countless hours on my terrace watching the landing & taking off of flights at then HAL airport. Once the Devanahalli airport base was in operation, they stopped routing flights towards HAL. It later got converted to a HAL airforce hanger. You could see all the Jets flying above my home with earth-shattering jet speed. The cracks on the wall can still be seen in my maternal home.My dad and I always drove up to the Sunday santhe (market/fair) at Varthur to get fresh vegetables & fruits.There used to be huge paddy fields in and around my home. Although I was not allowed to venture into one, my friend and I once snuck in to walk across the mud ridge between the field. We found many millipedes and water snakes along the way. (Below is Marathalli Before and After a decade)We had many farmers passing by my home with their flock of ducks. They were super cute.My mom and I would venture into a nearby field early in the morning to find abandoned Weaver bird’s nests. We had many of them hung around our house.We had so many sparrows around. My mom put out food for them in our back yard.Availability of just-weaned fresh cow’s milk was easily available.I spent a lot of my childhood learning Bharatnatyam and performed during every Ganesh Chaturthi festival at those Ganpati Pandals. I also learned swimming at Basvangudi Aquatic Center where I occasionally saw Nisha Millet and the likes. After every swimming session, I was treated by my dad to the famous VB bakery bun-butter-jam. I was a fat kid.Every Ganpati pandal compulsorily played those catchy movie songs of famed Kannada actor Upendra namely A & H2O or Vishnuvardhan’s Yajamana.Most Sunday evenings were spent eating out at Jayanagar 4th block Dosa camps. I always ordered the same open masala dosa with grape juice.Post that, my dad took me to Lalbagh for evening walks and enjoy cotton candies and bhel puriAll my school picnics were spent in Nandi hills. It was cleaner and had lesser people back then.A lot of movies were seen in single screen theatres such as Galaxy (Opposite Communiti on MG road) and Plaza (Opposite MG road Metro station). They do not exist anymore. Cinema halls in Bangalore – A lost legacyThe only 5 star hotels were Windsor Manor & Le Meridian. Leela Palace was still upcoming. Below that was Woodlands (near Richmond road) & Ramanashree group of hotels.We went for regular boating sessions at Ulsoor lake. It had so many beautiful birds that it was a treat.I knew a time when the Total mall on the Old airport road, Murugeshpalya was not even built. Every time you passed by the road, you could see the gigantic Shiva statue behind it. Before the mall was built and taken over as a franchise of Total retail group, it was called “Kemp Fort”. It was something very similar to Hanleys and had the best toys for kids.Since I was from CBSE, all my school books were brought from the famous Hema stores at Vivek Nagar.There were a lot of silk weaving units across Chickpette & Nagarathpette. Most families (including my maternal side) weaved silk in their own houses. Every time we walked by the small little streets, you could hear the tugging of machines. They still exist to this day, but the frequency of it is less compared to a decade back.There used to be a popular joint called Casa Piccola in Indiranagar that served the best chicken/beef steaks in Bangalore. They shut down just a few years back.I remember the time when Late Dr. Rajkumar, famed Kannada actor being kidnapped by Veerappan. It outraged a lot of Kanadathi people that there were bandhs (Strikes) and hartals every other day. So, we had extended periods of bandh. I had 2 months of sporadic school days depending on the civil safety conditions.Silk board was never as busy as it is today. There was hardly anything around that office except for dense shrubs and trees. People rendered it unsafe back then.The road leading to Majestic/Kempegowda Bus Station after you cross Corporation circle was two-way. Only recently they turned it as a one-way and diverted the oncoming traffic to Nrupatanga road.The bus stand at Majestic & KR market had many boys selling Prajavaani Kannada newspaper for INR 2 in the afternoon. Not sure if that still happens now.A few years back St Joseph’s high school rented out their playground for weddings and receptions in the evening. I do not think they do that anymore.We knew where Late Dr. Rajkumar, Late Ambaressh, Rahul Dravid & Javagal Srinath stayed in Bangalore.The only place to buy books was at Gangarams & Higginbothams. The only place to listen to music was Planet M & Music World. The only place to buy awesome cakes was Nilgiris.The first shopping complex like structure was Mota Royale located at the start of brigade road opp St Patricks church. We had no malls then.The first ever theme park or amusement park was Fun World at JC road. My parents took me there thrice. Wonderla was something that came up just a decade back.When I was young I stayed at Domlur in one of those ISRO quarters. All my afternoon was spent trying to pop tar bubbles between large cement tiles laid out on the ground with my friends. The bubbles formed late in the afternoon, as the trapped heat got released through them. We all kept count on how many we got to burst.Temperatures of 34 to 35 degree Celsius was considered “too hot” a decade back.Laptops were considered fancy. The only people who had it were the IT professionals. The first signs of IT crowd were those professionals who put on their ID card tags around their necks and sat in those fancy dedicated company buses which were air-conditioned passing by Marathalli. Few of the initial companies that opened out their base in Bangalore included Patni, Intel, Texas Instruments, Infosys & Perot Systems.There were Internet cafes in every nook and corner of the city. They cost about INR 30- 45 per hour two decades back.Indiranagar was a replica of Mysore. It was dedicated to old people who have been retired and liked to live a quiet life. Now it is a hot destination for fine dining and pubs.Everybody was allowed inside the ISRO campus once upon a time. It was so green and beautiful inside. I literally walked that way to my school every day. Only recently they restricted access with tight & strict security.Every year during Vanamahotsava, we planted saplings on the road divider of Old airport road sponsored by my school.The only international school that existed was Ryan International. We always assumed that anybody who studied from that school was snooty.I studied in the same school for 12 years of my life. I had the same friends from class 1 until class 12. I studied in the same school as Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, but I do not recall his face at all from back then.Since I was covered under ISRO medical family scheme through my dad, I have had just one family doctor since I was a 3-year-old kid. I still go to him when I am sick.Bangalore had a huge fan base for rock music. Every Friday evening at Brigade road, Church Street, there used to be this cafe called Java city, which hosted a local rock band consisting of senior talented musicians. Even if people did not come into the cafe, they were allowed to sit outside on the steps and enjoy tracks from Led Zepellin, Dire Straits, The Police, Uriah Heep & CCR played by them.Most pubs in Bangalore played classic rock or heavy metal. I literally grew up listening to all of them. Very few pubs have that feeling except for Pecos chain of pubs in Bangalore (Mojos, Elongos, Pecos, Stones). There were a huge set of headbangers that came by only to trip on heavy metal music wearing those baggy T ’Shirts of Ramstein, Led Zepellin or Pink Floyd.There was this awesome pub next to Deepam Silks on MG road (a little ahead of Mayo hall) called Styx. It was quite popular back then. They had this wooden flooring and big ass woofers. One section of the floor had subwoofers beneath the floor. Every time the DJ played something heavy, the floors literally vibrated hard. It was so much fun!A decade back we had bands such as Iron Maiden, Guns and Roses, Bryan Adams & Metallica perform in Bangalore until Delhi people ruined the experience for international bands by being rowdy. So, Indian/Karnataka Govt decided not to hold anymore large crowd pulling international music concerts anymore. Bummer!I craved for those mutton cutlets of Bengaluru Coffee house.If you meet a Bangalore-born lad from the East Bangalore ask him/her about Sarathi & BJP (Beer Joint Party)! :)Bangalore has been amazing…and is on its way to being a sought after city.There are few things that make me sad such as dwindling importance given to Kannada language, intolerable rude Delhi-Mumbai-Chennai culture being brought in by immigrants. I see most immigrants do not even respect the culture & language and conveniently get by with “Kannada gothila” phrase. Some of them are my dear friends.There are sprawling apartment complexes that house more than 500 families with multiplexes and shopping complexes inside. Feels like they are running some kind of eugenics program, cut-off from the outside world. In the name of safety, people keep complaining about little things such as friendly Indian gipsy dogs or “non-muddy” areas for kids to play. Mud is not the most dangerous thing in the world.While Bangalore has always been a cherished home, it is now a strange place that is at the brink of disaster due to the mismanagement of Govt, looming water crisis, extreme levels of air & noise pollution, over-crowding, flimsy infrastructure, corruption, land mafia and uncontrolled & unplanned development.Sometimes it feels like enough is enough. The city has lost its charm. The accommodating nature of people has been taken for granted time and again. The Govt has truly and desperately let us down in a big way.I see many older generation people native to Bangalore deal with insensitive immigrants all the time. I remember one young lady call a senior citizen in a metro rail “Idiot” because he went ahead of her to occupy a priority seat specially reserved for senior citizens.I also know my friend's house owner at an upscale place, explicitly mention in his rent agreement that the occupants need to greet the owner with a smile every time they meet. A little too much I agree, but the school of thought behind that is a general code of conduct and politeness which was the trademark of Bangaloreans.The city has garbage problem, pollution problem, housing problem, traffic problem, road infrastructure problem, water problem, inflation problem, unhealthy lifestyle, drugs problem, civil safety problem and just about every problem that exist in the book. I sometimes wonder if it is even worth living here.But, when you walk into the arms of these historical pockets and go back in time. All of a sudden it seems nostalgic and feels like home.In future, when even that feeling truly fades out, I think it would be a good idea to leave Bangalore.Until then macha, just put one Donne Biryani and Kaal soup from Shivaji military hotel and bloody go home!Bangalore in the year 2000 and Bangalore Now:Bangalore - Now (2012) and Then (2000) - Part 1Bangalore - Now (2012) and Then (2000) - Part 2

Yes, Beijing is pushing Hong Kong tycoons to do more.But no, contrary to popular belief, Hong Kong tycoons are unable to resolve the city chronic housing shortage.A really long writing is needed to properly explain my view.Hong Kong Tycoons — from heroes to villainsHong Kong people used to idolize their super-rich. Their role model was this guy, dubbed “superman”, a shrewd, hard-working self-made billionaire. This was a time when Hong Kong was growing fast and its people was optimistic. Books revealing the secrets of Li Ka-shing’s success were best sellers.The Asian Financial Crisis struck shortly after 1997 Handover from British rule to China. Hong Kong suffered a deflation which lasted for 6 years. Residential property price plunged 66% from its height. The number of negative equity breached 100,000 in a city of about 1 million private houses (then). SARS in 2003 marked the low point of Hong Kong fortune.In contrast most of the Hong Kong tycoons, Li included, survived the downturn unscratched. Politically they enjoyed cozy relationship with China top leadership. Financially their businesses were conservatively managed and diversified. It was during this time of economic hardship that Hong Kong citizens’ attitude towards their billionaires started to change.The book shown below, Land And The Ruling Class In Hong Kong, marked the turning point. The author Alice Poon described how just six families in Hong Kong controlled a third of Hong Kong economy. The six families used their dominance in property development to break into transport, public utilities, supermarkets and other businesses, enjoying quasi monopoly status and restricting competition.According to Milton Friedman Hong Kong was the ideal of a free market economy.[1] But in Alice Poon’s Hong Kong the city is just a rent seeking economy. (Note: Follow this hyperlink for articles on land policy written by Alice Poon 潘慧嫻 )Government Housing Policy U-turnThere was a complete U-turn in housing policy. The first Chief Executive Tung Chee-wah started his term with a well intended policy to expand housing supply. But the policy was unfairly blamed for exacerbating house price downturn during Asian Financial Crisis. Under pressure by middle class who suffered significant loss of wealth and even in negative equity, Tung’s policy was quietly abandoned.When Donald Tsang succeeded Tung in 2005, his government continued to tighten housing supply and stopped building up land bank, a mistake he admitted in later years.[2]However, with the influx of mainland China capital after SARS, and the easy money thanks to central bank quantitative easing after 2008 Global Financial Crisis, lots of money were chasing a very limited supply of Hong Kong houses. House price quadrupled in the next decade.Li Ka-shing the devilHave tycoons like Li Ka-shing exploited the system? Definitely. But is it fair to blame Hong Kong ills solely on billionaires like Li Ka-Shing? I have reservation about that.My analysis will focus on the Li Ka-shing since he is the embodiment of Hong Kong super-riches.Li Ka-Shing has been vilified by both sides — initially by the Hong Kong pan-Democrat opposition; and lately by mainland China.During 1990’s and 2000’s Li Ka-shing was known to have enjoyed strong support from then China leader Jiang Ze-min. The closeness to China top leadership was seen by Hong Kong opposition as Li’s original sin.Pan-Democrat opposition politicians accused government officials of colluding with business interests. One example cited was Li’s son Richard exploited the Cyberport technology hub project by turning it into a residential project in disguise.[3]Another notable incident was in 2005 Li Ka-shing donated HK$ 1 billion to Hong Kong University medical faculty. The university decided to name the faculty after Li as sign of gratitude. The pan-Democrat medical-sector legislator Kwok Ka-ki organized alumni protest against the renaming.[4]Interestingly Li Ka-shing was also loathed by some Christian groups in Hong Kong (by the way Li is a devoted Buddhist). A priest even compared Li to the devil.[5] And I cannot fail to notice that many notable Christians are staunch supporters of 2014 Occupy Movement and current protest movement.[6]Li Ka-shing no longer the devilBut the hatred toward Li slowly dissipated when CY Leung took over as third Chief Executive in 2012. It was rumored that the city property tycoons were against CY and had supported CY’s opponent Henry Tang.(Note: the pro-establishment or pro-Beijing forces can be loosely grouped into two camps – CY is associated with the “leftist” camp, and Henry is linked to the “businessmen” camp consisting of many tycoons.)And this is merely my speculation — perhaps to the pan-Democrat opposition, the enemy’s (new Chief Executive CY’s) enemies (tycoons like Li) are best treated as allies.CY Leung made it his top priority to resolve housing issue and to expand housing land supply. The biggest resistance did not come from property developers. CY was vehemently opposed by pan-Democrats and environmental groups under various pretexts.This is logical. An artificial housing shortage will benefit just a few property developers — i.e. companies with large land bank and huge housing stock for rental market. May be Henderson Land and Sun Hung Kai will benefit. However developers like Li’s CK Asset has much smaller land bank; not to mention mid tier developers and newcomers from mainland China who are starve of land.For this group of developers, if government can roll out more housing land, more houses can be built and sold to the mass market.A frequent cited analogy that describes the price relationship of housing land to house is that of flour to bread. Developers are like bakers. If cheaper land (flour) is available, more bakers (developers) can turn them into affordable bread (houses); more affordable bread (houses) means a larger market since more customers can afford to buy bread houses). Therefore for most of the developers, especially among second tier and newcomers, more housing land supply is good for business.The oft-repeated assertion that Hong Kong property developers oppose more housing does not make economic sense — at least the theory does not work for many developers.Don’t let Li Ka-shing run awayAt a time when Hong Kong opposition and media were dialing down their attack on Li Ka-shing, Li was facing increasing attack in mainland China.Li’s perceived protector Jiang Ze-min was seen to be losing influence after Xi Jin-ping took over in 2012. Xi’s relentless anti-corruption drive fell many Jiang appointed officials. The period coincided a time when Li’s company was divesting from Hong Kong and mainland China to expand in Europe.[7]In 2015 a China think-tank published an article that caused a furore. The article written in Chinese was titled “Don’t Let Li Ka-Shing run away”. This is the link to the article → https://www.backchina.com/news/2015/09/14/384158.htmlhttps://blog.mimvp.com/article/24630.htmlThe article was unusual as it accused property tycoons such as Li prospered through collusion with (past) power, for otherwise Li wouldn’t be allowed to enter strategic sectors such as ports in China. The implication was since the tycoons’ wealth was never acquired in a fair manner, they had immense social responsibility. Tycoons had no right to move significant capital out of China. The article further opined that these vested interests had caused deep rooted social economic issues in Hong Kong. It called for drastic reform and wealth redistribution to regain confidence of ordinary Hong Kong people.Overall, I think the article’s opinion is fair. But it has underestimated the challenges of Hong Kong housing issue by assuming the problem can be fixed by getting rid of property tycoons’ privileges (more on this at the end of my answer).For a more balance view, I have included a very well written response from Li (also written in Chinese) → 李嘉诚三页纸正式回应“撤资”指控：我身本无乡，心安是归处_财经上下游_澎湃新闻The essence of Li’s response is a quote from a Chinese classical poem “我身本无乡，心安是归处”. The phrase can be roughly translated into English as “home’s where my heart is”. Such cryptic response is typical of Li and leaves a lot to imagination.[8]The battle line has shiftedAs late as in 2013 pan-Democrat politicians and their media were still attacking Li Ka-Shing, for example over the Hong Kong dock strike at Li’s port.[9]By 2015, however, when Beijing started showing impatience towards tycoons like Li, pan-Democrats stopped criticizing Li. instead their media ridiculed and condemned China central government for “fighting the landlord” (鬥地主) as diversion, a practice pan-Democrats used to indulge in. Christian groups also no longer call Li the devil.At the risk of over-simplification, I try to explain this shift in the context of a class battle.In the simplest form, Hong Kong society can be divided into three classes:The 1% – Refer to the table below. The 1% are a small part of the 6.5% household whose monthly household income exceeds HK$ 100,000. Tycoons, successful business person and their families fall within the 1% group.The middle class – My definition assumes a middle-class household has monthly income exceeding HK$ 25,000. The HK$ 25,000 cut-off line would qualify a young couple of recent university graduates as middle class. This group is about 50% of household.The grassroots – Any household below HK$ 25,000 belongs to the grassroots. The majority do not have tertiary education. They are the other 50% household.Traditionally the middle class predominantly supports pan-Democrat opposition. On the other hand the grassroots are dominated by pro-establishment (pro-Beijing) parties. Although the 1% cannot provide the votes, they provide necessary resources to pro-establishment camp.In a broad brush, Hong Kong government rules with the legislative support from the grassroots supported pro-establishment parties, and through cooperation from the 1%. Pro-Beijing camp has about 42% popular support (based on 2016 LegCo election for district council second FC).[10] It wields disproportionate power as the electoral system is tilted to their favor – which is the root of discontent among pan-Democrats.The 2012 Chief Executive election has witnessed the split between the pro-Beijing leftist camp (representing grassroots’ interest) and the 1% group.The now withdrawn Extradition Bill amendment has also caused a lot of anguish among the 1%. Many Hong Kong tycoons knowingly or unknowingly may have been on the wrong side of the laws when operating in mainland China.Sensing that some tycoons like Li are increasingly being sidelined by Beijing, I suspect pan-Democrats are trying to woo the 1% by toning down their attack on the rich.We now have a very strange situation.The middle class supporters of pan-Democrat are unhappy about the dominance of tycoons in Hong Kong economy. In the past pan-Democrat politicians blame both the government and the tycoons. But to maintain tactical truce with tycoons, the pan-Democrats now prefer to down play their disdain for tycoons, and insist the root cause of Hong Kong problem is the lack of democracy.Of course the tycoons cannot and will not openly support the opposition. However most of them are taking a neutral stance in current unrest. They only provide halfhearted support to Hong Kong government when pressed by Beijing.In defense of the devilCompared to other tycoons, Li Ka-shing has taken a bolder stance. He has appealed to Hong Kong government to show leniency towards protesters. His action has earned him the displeasure of Beijing.[11] While I somewhat disagree with Li’s position, I feel at least Li is willing to speak out, and is prepared to pay a price for speaking out.In Li Ka-shing’s defense, while he has certainly prospered from Hong Kong oligopoly economic structure, the main responsibility lie with British colonial government and Beijing at the early years of handover. Both the British colonial and Beijing governments have placated the tycoons to buy their support. They have shied away from promoting more competition.Among the tycoons Li Ka-shing has proven to be the most far sighted and competitive minded. His success cannot be explained by rent seeking, given he has successful port operation around the world; competitive retail and telecommunication operation in Europe and Asia; and energy business in Canada. They are all exposed to and excel in the face of global competition.Li has also pledged one third of his assets to support philanthropic projects. To date Li Ka Shing Foundation has already granted about HK$ 14.5 billion in charitable donations.[12] In his latest charitable act, he has donated HK$ 600 million to small and medium-sized Hong Kong businesses which suffer from ongoing unrest.[13]Li is a shrewd businessman and a kindhearted philanthropist. But devil? No.Why tycoons cannot resolve Hong Kong housing problemAs I’ve explained earlier, most property companies do not profit from housing shortage. Instead they benefit from a vibrant housing market.A few property developers, the larger one, may have benefited from their larger land bank and hoarded properties which fetch higher price/ rent if housing shortage persists.However for the majority of developers, especially those with limited or no land bank, and also newcomers made up of mainland Chinese property firms, they do not benefit from limited housing/ housing land supply.For them, a better business model is to ensure they can get hold of land. Only by getting land they can build houses to generate more revenue and more profit.If these developers can buy sufficient housing land at reasonable price, they can convert into flats that are affordable by the mass market without sacrificing margin. In other words their market can be much larger than today.But who own the land in Hong Kong? The four major developers own a total of 53 million square feet (about 500 hectares or 5 km2) of land bank. This is less than 0.5% of Hong Kong land mass of about 1,110 km2.Over the years property companies have also amassed another 1,000 hectares (10km2) of agricultural land, which is less than 1% of Hong Kong landmass.[14] However agricultural land cannot be easily converted into housing land. The lands are mostly located at remote locations and lack infrastructure to support high density housing. They also have to pay the government for land conversion premium.It is the Hong Kong government that owns most of the land. The chart below shows a total failure of Hong Kong in addressing its housing woe:[15]Hong Kong has a lot of land! But a good 70% of them, or 774 km2 are woodland, grassland or barren land. Of which 443 km3, which is about 40% of Hong Kong land mass, is designated as Country Park which is untouchable for development.Its 7.4 million population is squeezed into a mere 6.9% or 77 km2 of Hong Kong. More than 200,000 live in a sub-divided flat like this:Recently in response to Beijing pressure, New World Development has donated 3 million square feet or a fifth of its farm land to government.[16] Henderson Land has also loaned 0.43 million square feet of its land.[17]Now we have top tier developers returning land to government. Can it resolve the housing shortage and bring down the house prices? Judging by the latest housing price, the market does not think so.Why? Just look at how Hong Kong government plans to use the donated or loaned land. It plans to build several thousand units of low-rise transitional housing! It is baffling why can’t the government build high rise flats. The press has reported local neighborhood opposition on concern of infrastructure stress, a typical syndrome of NIMBY (not in my backyard).[18]But it is beyond me why can’t the government plan and spend on the necessary infrastructure. Are the various government departments working in silos? Or is it because flat-owning government bureaucrats do not want to expand housing supply due to personal interest? I’m confused.However the main point I’ve tried to make here is, even as property developers return their land to the government, the government still cannot resolve the housing shortage!That is the reason why I say we cannot expect Hong Kong property tycoons to resolve the housing problem. The problem is not (entirely) due to them and the solution is beyond them!Who are the true obstructionists?I’ve argued earlier that Hong Kong property tycoons have gamed the system. They have used their advantage to compete legally but unfairly in other economic sectors in Hong Kong, in areas like retail, utilities, transport etc. However it is unfair to blame the housing shortage solely on property tycoons.At the risk of simplification/ generalization again, in my opinion, the greater culprits, especially in recent years are:Pan-Democrat politicians – While they do not deny there is a housing issue, pan-Democrats have repeatedly obstructed past efforts by CY Leung and current effort by Carrie Lam to increase housing land supply. It is as if by preventing the government from solving housing issue, pan-Democrats could win more support from disgruntled voters who will only blame the government due to ideological bias. (However pan-Democrats never openly say that they oppose more housing. They say they are against the government wasteful spending; collusion with business; or a range of other reasons/ excuses)Independence leaning radical opposition – At least the pan-Democrats acknowledge there is a housing issue. In contrast the radicals deny there is a housing shortage. They believe (1) houses are hoarded by mainland Chinese; or (2) there will be enough houses for Hong Kongers if government could stop the influx of mainland Chinese.Environmental groups – They say no to reclamation; no to developing the fringe of country parks; and even no to developing unused agricultural land. They are more concerned about animal welfare than human welfare. But I suspect some environmental groups are actually the fronts for other groups.The golf loving elites – The 172 hectare (1.72 km2, or 0.15% of Hong Kong landmass) Fanling Golf Course (FGC) is an easy political target for opposition politicians. The 2,000 members of FGC are part of the city 1% that nobody sympathize. While they may have a point on FGC preservation, these members showed zero political sensitivity by fighting tooth and nail to preserve their privileges. Eventually Carrie’s government made a compromised decision by acquiring 32 hectare for housing.Civil servants – Everyone complains the endless bureaucratic nightmare to go through. How can a highly educated group of civil servants manage to tie themselves into knots? I suspect it’s due to the fear of being blamed that drive them into inaction. Civil servants are afraid of being labelled as colluding with business interests(官商勾結). Every minor decision making requires prolonged public consultations where it only takes a minority vocal opposition to derail the plan.Government finance – Since British colonial government time Hong Kong has adopted a high land price strategy to compensate for its low taxation. The chart below shows between a quarter to a third of government revenue is derived from land sales, land usage alteration or other property related revenue. Even though Hong Kong government has a huge reserve (its foreign exchange reserve of US$ 439 billion ranks No 7 in the world), a switch to permanent low land price policy will not be sustainable without new sources of revenue.(Note 1: To be specific, when I name above groups, I don’t mean each member in the groups should be held responsible. However there is no doubt a large numbers of them are responsible to varying degrees, consciously or otherwise. The same applies to what I’m going to say in the next section.Note 2: There are actually two housing markets — public and private. The victims of public housing shortage are the grass root where average waiting time has risen to 5.4 years.[19] The main victims of private housing shortage are people whose income and/or wealth are marginally above the public housing qualification threshold, yet private houses are beyond their reach. For simplification purpose I do not differentiate the two markets.)Big elephant in the roomThere are more to the above list. But all the challenges listed above can still be overcome, except this last group – the private flat owning middle class!Recall during first CE Tung Chee-wah’s term more than 100,000 of them became negative equity when house value fell 66%. This middle class house owners stopped Tung’s expansionary housing policy. They made up the half a million protesters who demanded Tung’s resignation in 2003 (a protest held in the name of opposing a security bill, but actually over many issues, just like today).As of Sep 2019, the outstanding residential mortgage loan in Hong Kong is HK$ 1,415.2 billion.[20] The average loan size as of Apr 2018 (the latest data I can find) is HK$ 4.3 million.[21] Assuming the average is unchanged, it implies 1,415,200/4.3 = 329,116 mortgages are still being paid down. I believe most of them are mortgages from individual households. That is about 13% of Hong Kong household, or about 26% of middle income families.No Hong Kong leader would like to be (unfairly) blamed again for causing a property crash when the next downturn comes, sending another 100,000 of these households to negative equity.As mentioned earlier, the main support of pan-Democrat parties comes from the middle class. This is the other unspoken reason why pan-Democrats do not push for massive housing supply. The issue will drive a wedge between their supporters who cannot afford a house, and those who already own their home and are paying down their mortgages. To fudge the conflicting interests pan-Democrat politicians will rather beat about the bush and blame the government.I don’t see how Hong Kong housing problem can be truly resolved until someone has come up with a bright idea of reassuring and even bailing out (private) flat owning middle class.Like the murder on the Orient Express, everyone played a part. However property tycoons have been made the convenient scapegoats as if they are the only murderer.Edit: Some clarification in response to comments:Q1: Don’t property tycoons benefit from housing shortage?My response: A property developer may adopt one of these two strategies:(A) Hoard the properties. Sell at high price due to the scarcity premium. But the total revenue and profit are low because most of the potential buyers are priced out of the market; or(B) By selling at reasonable price, most buyers can afford. The resulting sales volume will be high. Total revenue and profit are higher.The limited housing and housing land supply in HK gives the impression that all developers follow strategy (A). That is not true.Many more developers will benefit from strategy (B).More and cheaper housing land means more affordable “flour” for developers, who are like bakers. → Bakers can then make more bread and sell at affordable price without sacrificing margin (since flour price is low) → More customers can afford to buy bread → Total bread sales and total profit grow.Q2: Why don’t you blame the Beijing government that has allowed the tycoons to make unfair profits?My response:HK tycoons benefit from limited competition in other economic fields like transport, utilities, telco, retail … The unfair deal already happened during the British colonial days. It was carried over after handover as Beijing government then wanted HK tycoons to provide stability. Hence no change to the unfair system. The 1 country 2 systems design means bad aspects of Hong Kong system is preserved too!The bonanza reaped by tycoons in other fields due to limited competition is NOT the same as housing shortage is caused by tycoons or Beijing government. Unfortunately most people can’t see the difference, and have channeled their anger on housing shortage at the tycoons. This is unhelpful to get to the real solution.Many property developers will prefer more, not less, chances to build house and sell to the mass market. Their growth is restricted by the lack of housing land. Limited land supply is bad for business.Who benefit from limited land supply? The biggest beneficiary are none other than those private flat owners who have already owned properties and are serving their mortgages. Their self interest is reflected in the political parties that represent their interest.But they never claim to oppose more housing or housing land. Instead they oppose more housing land by citing environmental reasons; or are against “wasteful spending” on reclamation.Footnotes[1] Milton Friedman Describes Hong Kong as an Example of the Free Market System[2] ‘I could have done better’: Hong Kong former chief executive Donald Tsang reflects on his housing policies[3] Cyberport - Wikipedia[4] Doctors refuse to bow to Li Ka-shing faculty[5] Priest in Li Ka-shing devil jibe unrepentant[6] Hong Kong churches struggle to find a place between religion and politics[7] Li Ka-shing to offload more Hong Kong assets for Europe telecom purchases[8] 論李嘉誠的文學修養[9] 2013 Hong Kong dock strike - Wikipedia[10] Elections in Hong Kong - Wikipedia[11] Li Ka-shing’s appeal for leniency for Hong Kong protesters gets cool reception[12] Li Ka Shing Foundation - Wikipedia[13] Tycoon Li Ka-shing donates HK$1 billion to help Hong Kong businesses[14] Major developers own 20pc farmland[15] https://www.cedd.gov.hk/filemanager/eng/content_954/Info_Sheet2.pdf[16] Hong Kong developer gifts a fifth of farmland to build public homes[17] Henderson donates more land to help Hong Kong ease housing shortage[18] Henderson Land to donate land to house 40,000 people for HK$1[19] allocation_status[20] Hong Kong Monetary Authority - Residential Mortgage Survey Results for September 2019[21] Hongkongers will feel the squeeze as mortgage rates gain momentum

I tend to dislike any statement that uses the term “Native Americans”. It’s like you took a look at Poland and used this example to state generalities about “Indo-Europeans”, whether they live in Portugal or are Indians. As if worshippers of Ganesh were Catholics!Also people tend to project fantasies on ancient indigenous societies and want to find in them the lost Paradise of Eden, “primitive communism”, or “anarcho-primitivism”, or whatever… But the more I read about them, the less pleasant I find these societies, and the XXIst century still is probably more comfortable in many ways.I don’t think any indigenous society had a total absence of property or territorialism, even in the nomadic societies, it’s just that they had very different priorities, that were the product of a different lifestyle.In nomadic cultures speaking Algonquian languages (this is what I will discuss, don’t generalize outside of these cultures), French missionaries would notice that indigenous were often « chapardeurs » (pilferers). In French it would usually imply you’re a petty thief, but that’s not what it means here. They meant that when they left their own personal possessions around, it was likely an indigenous would just pick it up, pass it to someone else, it would circulate among them and they would not have any inhibition thinking that the item belonged to the missionary. This is usually where the notions that they did not have a notion of private property is from and that they shared everything. Several of these nomadic Algonquian-speakers found simply offensive that missionaries would consider certain items were their exclusive possessions, it was regarded as an anti-social behavior; you liked objects more than people. Also, it was common that when a missionary gifted something, the indigenous that received it requested the missionary to keep custody of it, because otherwise he would lose the exclusivity over the object (eventually, indigenous accepted that the French did not like their items to be passed around without their permission).(Map of the Algonquian family of languages, named from the Algonquin nation. This is not a political map and a lot of indigenous polities are missing.)« […] quand vous refusez quelque chose à un Sauvage, aussitôt il vous dit Khisakhitan : Tu aimes cela, sakhita, sakhita, aime-le, aime-le, comme s’ils voulaient dire qu’on est attaché à ce qu’on aime. »“[…] when you refuse something to a Savage, right then he tells you Khisakhitan: You like this, sakhita, sakhita, like it, like it, as if they wanted to say one is attached to what one likes.”(Relations des Jésuites)Paradoxically, this propensity to share everything was the cornerstone of inequality in those nations: social prestige was derived from the ability to gift a lot of wealth to everyone. Europeans had a similar concept, called with the Greek word evergetism, when rich bourgeois were expected, as good Christians, to donate a lot to their city, as compensation for being rich. For the French in America, you have an example of this when the rich bourgeois Charles Aubert de La Chesnaye donated money to relieve people that lost their homes in a fire in Québec City. I would also find a similarity with Soviet bureaucracy: a Soviet official was not supposed to own anything, he had to temporarily use a car or an house issued by the State during his lifetime, but not formally owning those did not mean that their way of life was not superior to most people because in the end the exclusive right to use something can resemble a lot to property when it’s reserved to the elite. Wealth, in many indigenous cultures, was to give every wealth you could capture to the entire nation, as a mean to strenghten political bonds and assert your political power, which would put you in an unequal position as you would have more influence.Because no, these societies were not completely equal. And missionaries paid a lot of attention to how power worked because a common evangelization strategy was to target the most influential people, convert them, and use their influence to convert everyone else, so they were actively looking for powerful figures. While, for example, the offices of what we tend to call “chiefs” in our languages (it can be military chiefs, political chiefs, who are rarely the same people), or as the French said “captains”, were not hereditary, in reality some families were capable to reproduce themselves in these positions and create a quasi-heredity. For example, among the Odawa ogimaag (“chiefs”), you had a chief called Nissowaquet, and the name was transmitted to another individual when the former one died, and it tended to remain in the same family. In short, some people had better contacts, and could achieve more, obtain more wealth for their clans trough warfare or trade, and be more politically influential, despite there was no power as concentrated as anything the Europeans were familiar with.Another factor of unequality was eloquence. If you had better rhetorics and could persuade others with seductive words, you could go far in life in these societies. It sounds awfully like the Roman politicans that cultivated the art of rhetorics precisely for the same goal. Some missionaries studied so well indigenous languages that they became truly eloquent and got the admiration of the nation, and were sometimes even given important responsibilities.(A French drawing of an Illinois nation, with a female Fox slave sat at the lower left corner of the picture. The standing man in the right is not Illinois but an Attakapa.)(An indigenous-crafted halter for slaves)Something leftists often like to overlook and forget is that there was in fact ONE private property in these societies: slaves. And yes, there was a slavery, but often its cultural peculiarities confuse people that grew with the European notions about slavery. First of all, indigenous slaves were pretty much never hereditary. You can’t be born a slave. This is a problem as it’s often part of the definition of slavery for Europeans. Another problem is that there is great variance in the treatment of slaves and so sometimes it can be so soft you wouldn’t want to use the word “slave”:The best-case scenario is that you are a kid captured in a raid, you are a prisoner of war that is enslaved, and you are tortured by cutting you a finger, but you impress the indigenous by remaining stoic. A family among your captors wants to replace one of their dead so you are adopted. Initially, you are a prisoner: you are not free to escape, you will be pursued if you try to escape. But over time, the nation trusts you, you become a full member of the nation, and you may even become someone important. This happened to a few French as well, like Guillaume Couture, who is the only European in history to become a member of the Iroquois Council. Due to this scenario, many historians considered that there was no indigenous slavery, merely adoption. [Yes, I know Iroquois are to be excluded from the Algonquian peoples, but I think that phenomenon may also happen among them.]Indigenous typically torture enemy warriors. It was in fact an honor, it was “manly” to remain stoic in front of pain and indigenous admired that quite a lot and even trained their children to be used to pain. Sometimes they even practiced ritual cannibalism with their enemies (which was otherwise a terrible crime within the nation). This is the fate of those who are not enslaved because they are killed right away.The French hated that custom, because they were from a culture in which officers moved around with their bed and tea set and enemy officers exchanged pleasant conversations before shooting at each other. (« Messieurs les Anglais, tirez les premiers. », Battle of Fontenoy) Despite this, they resolved to do it as well in Détroit, for example, because they found that if they did not torture enemy indigenous, they lost all respect and credibility and were not considered powerful. So the French reluctantly tolerated that sort of torture and would also let their allies burn indigenous enemies alive. The depiction in the series Barkskins that the French would hang Iroquois on a tree to spread terror is outrageously inaccurate and contrary to their entire culture of war of the time.Read more: the criticism of how New France is represented in Annie Proulx’s Barkskins (book and TV) by the Franco-Ontarian historian Joseph Gagné, Barkskins: Dud on Arrival (let’s just say it’s awfully inaccurate)Another possibility is that you are captured, but you resist too much. They kill you brutally and dishonorably, they are losing patience.Or you are too weak to walk, they lose patience, they kill you. Indigenous hate slaves that are slowing them down.You are forced to walk with an halter. When the band stops to sleep, you have to lie down and you are tied to poles so you can sleep while not being able to escape.Your social standing is that of a dog, and indigenous treat dogs very badly. In fact, the word for slave is the word for dog, or any other domestic animal. A dog is malnourished by definition, that’s what they consider good training for a dog. You may regularly be beaten.Their treatment of dogs shocked the French, at least the nobles among them, because for the French the dog was a prestigious noble animal used by the nobles in their hunts in the super prestigious chasse à courre, and there was an entire science of taking care of dogs, called vénerie, with detailed treatises explaining how to take care of dogs. French peasants however, not so much, they regarded them just as tools.Yes, indigenous that practiced agriculture would use you as forced labor for agriculture, but what differs from Europeans of the sugar colonies is that slaves were not really essential for that and their absence was not much of a problem.You would be used as a messenger, run errands.You could be a sexual slave. In the specific case of the Illinois, who were a patrilocal and patrilinear society as opposed to many of their northern cousins, a man could have four “wives”, several of which were slaves. The Illinois, unusually for the nations of their language group, were pretty patriarchal and female slaves had the tip of the nose cut off if they “cheated” on their “husband”.The French punishment for the same offense was to send the woman to a convent for some time and to ban the man she cheated with.As a slave, your life was disposable and you could be killed on a whim for no reason if one of your captors had a moment of anger.Slaves could be gifted to another nation as diplomatic present. For example, the father Marquette learned the illinois language by using a slave that the Illinois gifted to the Odawa, who in turn gifted him to Marquette.The Illinois considered that enslavement was an “ingurgitation” into the nation, and that manumission was “vomiting”.So to go back to private property, a slave was typically reserved to an individual, and you had to ask permission to borrow a slave. So this is totally unlike material possessions which were communal properties. So slaves are a big exception. In Illinois society, social prestige was proportional to the number of slaves you captured in war, and they got a tattoo for each slave they captured.Source for slavery : Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France, 2012.Algonquian-speaking nations didn’t really have a notion of obedience or chain of command. Military leaders were appointed by their peers for a campaign, and it was not a sense of obedience that bounded the people “under” them to them but mere admiration. Indigenous warriors could simply decide to leave a campaign and it was not considered “desertion”. What made a military leader followed was just admiration, and that admiration replaced quite well obedience. They would follow the commander everywhere and sometimes would prefer to die rather than admit to them they did a mistake. Indigenous stopped frequently to debate the next move, military decisions were collegial. So this is very different from Europe, where armies were very coercitive. A form of obedience was obtained but trough persuasion, which is why again rhetorics makes a huge difference. Class is the product of speech. Another difference is that indigenous do not observe “articles of capitulation”. There is no such thing as conditionnal surrender. You can’t capitulate to indigenous, they will take your belongings and kill anyone that resists and you can’t negociate anything, yet another offensive thing for Europeans.As for territory, it’s a difficult thing to address. Algonquian societies lived in a world in which there was no territorial stability for anything. Populations moved, even sedentary villages moved, game and fish moved, etc. Therefore a notion of border was not really possible, and anyways we tend to forget that Europe in the Middle Ages had not borders either but at best “marches” (sort of buffer zones). What complicates things even more is that there was a sort of “expanded territory” used for hunting, which was much bigger than the core territory they regarded their own, and often indigenous disputes are in these territories. Indigenous lived in a world in which spirits inhabited everything and you negociated with them to get meat or maple sap or corn.It’s difficult to understand what conquest means for them. My hunch is that conquest is more about dominating populations rather than territories, but even then I’m not sure. Indigenous did make war on the resources : they sometimes overhunted on purpose on their enemies’ territories just to disrupt their economy (especially once the beaver became a commodity to trade with the French). For the indigenous, it’s not possible to own “land” as for them, “land” is something that cannot be measured and quantified (much like the sea), therefore you can only be a caretaker of the land; there can be attribution but not possession in the sense Roman law understands it. Land is seen as infinite and boundless. So any use of land in the details is necessarily temporary, transitory; only vague regions can be claimed.Yes, there is territoriality. They did not consider that everyone could just pass through their territory and they even enforced “customs” for people that passed trough them for trade. The Algonquins for example watched the circulation of canoes at the île aux Allumettes to charge a toll on passing merchants.L'Isle-aux-AllumettesThere exists a fascinating French document that reveals a lot about how territoriality works between nomads. Let us remember that the French governor, known as Onontio to the indigenous, pretended to become the arbiter that would solve conflicts between all the nations. Some nations took that seriously and asked the French for arbitration in their disputes.In March 1705, a band of Innu indigenous [Montagnais in French] known to the French as Guillaume Chische, Joseph Marachualik and François ȣcachy [ȣ is a Latin ligature of letters that is an O topped with an U, making the sound [u], spelled OU in French], had a camp in the territory where they hunted beaver. They were somewhere around their summer quarters at the Lac Saint-Jean, and they were traveling west to reach their winter quarters. Then, they sighted numerous footprints in the snow. They suspected it was Abenakis, and they considered them trespassers that were “pillaging” their furs.Their suspicions proved correct : they encountered a band of 6 Abenakis led by François Thékȣérimat. The Innu were at a disadvantage, they had numerical inferiority. The Abenaki first sent to the Innu a delegation matching their numbers. They were warning the Innu that they were trespassing, and for now they would not resort to violence, but it was a warning. According to what the Innu told the French :“Thékȣérimat told us that the lands of Lac Saint-Jean belonged to the Abénaquis and that they had come to hunt on them”This claim meant that the Abenaki considered they could “pillage” what the Innu had hunted, as they considered that their property. It’s interesting to note that Innu and Abenaki were military allies. Nethertheless, there is a lot of tension in the situation. The Abenakis are not doing acts of war but they are forceful towards their allies.This Innu band could not resist as it was in inferiority and so gave in : they offered 6 moose hides to be spared from pillage. They also let the Abenaki sleep in their lodge and in the morning, they were intimidated enough to reveal the location of their food caches. They even gave the Abenakis a toboggan to carry their loot.The French were an interested party indirectly: the merchant François Hazeur sold things on credit to the Innu, and now the Innu were not able to pay their debt due to the Abenaki incursions. This is why Hazeur insisted that the French, as arbiters of the indigenous nations, obtain justice for the Innu. Hazeur also suspected that a rival French trader based in Trois-Rivières was backing the Abenakis.All of these people went to meet the French intendant, the highest magistrate for civilian matters, to begin an inquiry. The 3 Innu were interrogated with the help of an interpreter and a clerk recorded their words.The intendant summoned Louis Thékȣérimat, son of the Abenaki chief involved in the dispute, and held a separate interrogation. The Abenaki version said that the lands belonged to his father, and that they visited the Innu camp to lodge a protest.“They [the Abenaki] complained that the Montagnais were hunting on their lands, and that they had so thoroughly destroyed the animals on it, that they could find no food, to the point where they had had to make canoes in order to return [to Saint-François].”The Abenaki complained that the Innu were killing all the moose, even the ones that they had cared to “raise” and “conserve”. Even more scandalously, the Innu would have killed all the beavers.In the Innu testimony, the French asked: is it not a rule among them never to hunt without permission on the lands of another?The Innu answered :“it is a rule for us that each hunter hunts on his own lands.”The French asked to the Abenaki Louis Thékȣérimat : did the Abénaquis usually hunt in this area?“Replied that they go there whenever they want and that no one has ever opposed them. Being presently numerous, they have been obliged to go and seek their livelihood where they could and the land in question belonged to his grandfather who in turn gave it to his father. In killing all the animals that were in this place, the said Montagnais have, in effect, killed the Abénaquis themselves.”Interestingly, neither party uses any landmark and they are not trying to place a boundiary.In the end, the French were baffled, had no idea how to solve the issue, and so did not decide anything for the Innu and Abenaki (presuming both sides would have accepted their ruling) and left them to solve their issue, but ordered new regulations for the French King’s Posts in Innu territory in relation to this episode.So I would say nomadic territories are the hunting grounds used by a band (a hunting party, a fraction of a nomadic nation). They belong to a specific band in the nation. The animal resources on the territory belong to the band. Perhaps when they all meet in the summer, properties are communal, but in the winter it’s to the band. I guess the summer territory is the core territory, less prone to disputes between nations, but the winter territory (hunting grounds, with the nation dispersing) is much bigger and so more prone to disputes.Source for this episode : Allan Greer, Property and Dispossession: Natives, Empires and Land in Early Modern North America, 2018, pp. 298–305.So yes, there is inequality (but it’s rather light), there is private property (slaves), there is territoriality. It’s just really not similar to European notions.When I did not quote a specific source, I probably took it in Le Piège de la liberté and in Le Pays renversé. Both these books draw heavily on La Relation des jésuites. There may also be Masters of the Middle Waters as well.What I discussed here is entirely irrelevant to the Mexicas of Tenochtitlán. These people, who built an aggressive empire, had sort of notaries that recorded the information on who owned what, and the lands used for agriculture had boundiaries (in the form of agave plants). In their case you could almost say they had a cadastre, a land survey.EDIT : Since you may want to study the documents pertaining to the territorial conflicts between the nomadic Innu and Abenaki, I will put here what Allan Greer quoted exactly :France, Archives nationales d’outre-mer, colonies (shortened ANOM), C11A, vol. 25, fol. 27–36, Requête du Sr. Hazard [could it be a typo of Hazeur ?] à Jacques Raudot, 3 August 1706, plus attached documents.See also ibid., 25: 82–87v, Déclaration à Messieurs les directeurs general [directeurs généraux] de la Compagnie de la colonie de Canada, 19 June 1705; ibid., 25: 76v; Petition of Sr. Hazeur to Govr. Vaudreuil, 4 November 1705; ibid., 27: 55v, Hazeur to Pontchartrain, 5 November 1707.These were studied in Toby Morantz, “Colonial French Insights into Early 18th- Century Algonquians of Central Quebec,” in Papers of the Twenty-Second Algonquian Conference, ed. William Cowan (Ottawa: Carleton University, 1991), 213–24; Sylvie Savoie and Jean Tanguay, “Le nœud de l’ancienne amitié: La presence abénaquise sur la rive nord du Saint-Laurent aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles,” Recherches amérindiennes au Québec 33 (2003): 36–41; Nelson-Martin Dawson, Feu, fourrures, fléaux et foi foudroyèrent: les Montagnais: Histoire et destin de ces tribus nomades d’après les archives de l’époque coloniale (Sillery: Septentrion, 2005), 182–84.FR