Got into a heated discussion with a coworker over this. My stance is it was probably for the best it was demolished. The entire thing was a massive fire and disease hazard. Massive amounts of crime and unlicensed businesses too. Despite its reputation for a kind of tight knit anarchist type community, most of the stuff I've read seems to suggest triads and the HK police were largely running the place.

I hate forceful eviction as much as the next person here. What else could have been done? There was some compensation given to the residents, but I know some residents complained it wasn't enough.

My coworker's stance is the place should have remained as it was, without any sort of intervention whatsoever, despite being so hazardous.

How do y'all feel?

  • DeathToBritain [she/her, they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    it was anarchist in so much as there was no government, this did not mean the place was directly democratically run by the people there. many people lacked basic living standards, there were huge gang problems, and it was really not a great place to live. if it wasn't torn down, it eventually would have collapsed