Opinion

A real real estate rule

(China Daily)
Updated: 2010-01-30 16:09

The draft regulations on real estate demolition and relocation in urban areas, issued on Friday to solicit public opinion, have finally assured us that the existing anachronistic rules will be replaced.

The existing regulations, which took effect in 2001, have contributed to demolitions, violence and deaths by blurring the line dividing property requisition by local governments for public interest and purchase of land and buildings by realty developers for commercial use.

In fact, the existing regulations bestow undefined, and thus unrestrained, latitude on governments and developers to demolish urban structures and relocate residents. That explains why standoffs between demolishers and "nail households" - tenants who fight for higher compensation and refuse to vacate houses despite the demolition of structures around them - have been increasing by the day.

It is good to see the draft regulations clarify that governments can requisition property for public interest only in seven specific cases. Compared with the existing regulations, this is a great progress.

If these specifications take effect and are implemented in letter and spirit, they will prevent local governments from using their power to help developers and push for demolition.

The draft, however, is vague in one of the seven areas of public interest, describing it as other needs as stipulated by relevant laws, administrative rules or regulations of the State Council.

The drafters must have feared that there could be some areas of public interest that the new regulations fail to cover, and hence the clause. Yet experience shows that it is such vague or ambiguous stipulations that some officials and developers have taken advantage of.

So if there is something to be desired in the draft regulations, it is clarity over such stipulations. There should be no room for vagueness. The specific areas of public interest should be spelt out to preempt any move, either by officials or developers, to exploit them for their benefit.

Transparent means such as public hearings can always be held for people to vote on whether a government should requisition a piece of land and whether it would benefit the public.

Another noteworthy stipulation is on governments' requisition of property in old residential areas for renovation. It says such a project should not go ahead without the consent of 90 percent of the residents. This, to a great extent, epitomizes the people-first principle. But it fails to specify how the 10 percent (or more) of the residents who oppose the renovation drive will be treated. Though the stipulation specifies uncivilized means such as severing electricity or water supply should never be used, there is no guarantee that other coercive tactics would not be used to force them into bowing to the demands of the 90 percent.

The drafters have done a wonderful job by clarifying that, in demolitions for purposes other than public interest, the demolishers have to sign agreements with property owners on the principle of fairness.

Despite some minor aspects that need modification, the draft regulations have struck a much better balance among the interests of residents, the public and real estate developers.