Wednesday, September 8, 2010

If You Build It, They Will Come

however, will enough money always follow?

這幾年台北市巨蛋興建的呼聲由於棒球的沒落而小了一些。雖然年底有選舉,不過看起來國民黨和民進黨雙方的候選人到目前為止也都沒有拿巨蛋來當作重要政見訴求。

我自己從來不贊成在台灣蓋巨蛋型的棒球場,一方面我對於封閉型的棒球場以及人工草皮極端厭惡,另外一方面也對於這類工程的自償能力完全沒有信心。

New York Times, 9/8/2010, "As Stadiums Vanish, Their Debt Lives On" by KEN BELSON

這篇文章提到許多球場即使在拆除之後,市民仍然還在付當年興建時的所欠下的債務。

雖然聲音不大,不過巨蛋這個建設計畫似乎還沒有胎死腹中。我 Google 了一下,發現就在半個月之前,還有這樣一個都市設計審議簡報。在這個簡報中,業者提到了財務以及永續經營的問題,不過可能是因為簡報對象為都計專家,在這方面並未多加著墨。但是就在有限的內容中,業者也提到了政府在 BOT 建設前往往提出過度樂觀的預測以吸引業者,我們必須要更謹慎對待這一部份的問題。

在財務預測中,政府和業者是否考慮到台灣職棒目前的經營困境。他們能不能付出合理的租金?支撐這樣一座球場需要一年多少場、每場多少錢的租金。這樣的租金是不是目前的職棒球團可以支付的?在沒有新的賭博醜聞之前,他們付不付的出來?如果再發生一個醜聞,情況又會如何?

在沒有足夠的職業棒球比賽支撐的情況下,這個場地是否能夠得到足夠的展覽、演唱會等活動支持?棒球場往往並不適合辦理演唱會這類活動 (我有一張 Billy Joel 在 Yankee Stadium 的演唱會的 DVD,效果並不好,不過當然這裡還有室內室外的差別),這一點也必須在興建以前先考慮好。至於其他的商店是否能夠有足夠的人潮,也必須要考慮如果在缺乏大量人潮聚集的職棒比賽或其他活動之下,是否仍然能夠有足夠的商機生存下去。

雖然這是 BOT 案,不過我們這些年看多了失敗的 BOT 案最後仍然要政府收爛攤子的例子。看到美國這麼多失敗前例,如果這個 BOT 案沒有辦法提供可信的財務計畫,就算在其他交通、環境等議題能夠得到都計審議過關,作為市民仍然不應該輕信這個案子可以帶給我們更好的台北市。作為台灣的首都和金融中心,台北市已經佔了很大的便宜,擁有比例上較其他縣市更多的資源了。在中央到地方政府財政都很拮据的現在,我們更應該要謹慎盯緊目前以及未來的政府支出,讓有限的經費做最有效的運用。

5 comments:

小弟姓黑名貓 said...

Hi,

About ECFA, I read an article from American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei(http://tinyurl.com/29enn6y) weights in pros and cons of the agreement. Kho wrotes benefits to Taiwan includes:

1. It creates a platform for trade disputes resolution.

2.Taiwan may be able to engage with rest of the world which includes the chance of reengaging of the U.S.-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement.

Kho also states the the limits of the agreement and urges for further trade liberalization negotiations.

However, our IO expert at Evilcapitalismheroes writes almost no merit about the agreement. What's your take on ECFA?

埃西亞商會 said...

那顆蛋丟出來BOT不是為了蓋,所以倒是不佣擔心

比較怕真的有人為了政績硬是讓那顆蛋達到蓋的門檻

CCLu said...

I haven't discussed ECFA because I think that's a non-issue.

Will it help? Sure, it helps. How much? I'm afraid that's the problem. The difference between a normal FTA and ECFA is not only by the definition of sovereigns, it's how powerful, how rigid the timetable is.

I start to think the Chinese government is not confident enough. To apply this soft ECFA shows how much their government tries to protect their state-run enterprises.

Taiwan will get some tariff benefits, and that's it. Chinese government will protect their inefficient sectors no matter what because there lies their interests, politicians' interests.

I don't think those two points Kho mentioned will be the key to the success of ECFA. First and foremost, it does not create a useful platform for anything. Unless we have a strong mediator, which is a third party and does not represent the interest of either side, we do not have any platform for trade dispute negotiation. China will not let the U.S. to play any role like this, I understand. But the EU should be an acceptable alternative. Short of that, we can forget about this. The power is so unbalanced toward the Chinese side.

The second point was debunked by Chinese officials right from the start.

Those things worried DPP probably will not happen. However, the benefits KMT claimed will not materialize either. The opposition can shrug it off and move on, but the government will have a hard time facing re-election.

Economically, I believe that ECFA is a non-issue. It isn't so politically.

CCLu said...

那顆蛋只要開始蓋,甚至只要計畫通過,就可以提供想像。至於爛攤子,那大概要等到完工啟用後才會慢慢發現。

我們還是期望不要發生什麼事情比較好。

小弟姓黑名貓 said...

Are there any recommended readings on ECFA? Thanks for you replies as always.