lammanaut {L_WROTE}:
Of course I haven't seen any documents, it's just what I heard. From you, by the way.
I don't think I ever said anything about them having legal ownership.
lammanaut {L_WROTE}:
I didn't know HKE built it before you said so.
If there is no document regarding the transfer from HKE to "the village" (whatever legal entity that is), then it would legally still be HKE property and therefore private. Lamma is part of the N.T. and regulations here differ from those in Kowloon or Hong Kong.
HKE built it, but that doesn't mean it was ever on HKE land.
I believe it was as "compensation" for the land used for the Cable Road. Villagers are big on claiming compensation and making trouble if they don't get it.
I'm pretty sure it is government land. If it belonged to any particular villager, it would have been on 20 years ago. It's a prime location. I'm sure the have designs on converting it to village housing, probably that's one reason they don't want anyone to use it for anything at all until they can do that.
So the incredibly rare resource in Hong Kong of a full sized tennis court is left locked up and decaying for decades rather than let anyone use it.
lammanaut {L_WROTE}:
Here's something I found on asiaxpat.com :
How is any random poster there more authoritative than any random poster here?
I try not to take as fact anything without a cited authoritative source.
But at least you didn't quote Wikipedia.
lammanaut {L_WROTE}:
I'm not a lawyer and I don't really care who's bloody tennis court it is. But I strongly suggest to consider the distant possibility of them owning the place. They definitely possess it at this moment and no government seems willing to step in.
You were the one who said they legally owned it.
I don't see any basis for that.
The villagers certainly have effective control of the land, and the government is gutless about challenging abuse of public land on Lamma.
So anyone who wants to use the court does have to get their agreement, or face harassment. But this has nothing to do with legal ownership.
lammanaut {L_WROTE}:
Now it's much easier to negotiate from a position of mutual respect rather than one of conflict. My way would be to accept their claim and then kindly ask them to grant limited access to certain trusted people so they don't feel their rule is challenged. Starting with unfounded accusations of land theft is certainly not the way to achieve anything.
"Theft"? Who the hell used that word?
If you talk to them of course you have to kowtow and softsoap.
My point is that the claims of "ownership" are not well founded.
Negotiate all you like, good luck.