Property Right in Zoning Plan
Look at the Nail House story in NYTimes front page days ago, which has attracted much attention recently from western media and aroused heated discussion among Chinese people.
Dingzihu is a Chinese phrase that means a household or person who refuses to vacate their home to make way for real estate development, for "they stick out like nails, hard to be removed in an otherwise modernized environment". It has been translated as 'nail house' in English.
Should people move if the compensation is reasonable despite of their unwillingness in municipal or commercial zoning plan?
During the CCTV interview, the “nail house ” owner WU said (translated): Among the residents moving, I am the largest private property owner, furthermore you can basically say I am the only one who has complete papers, such as a property rights land right certificates, they both clearly indicated that it is a building zoned for business. At that time I had just finished renovations, and they (the developer) said they had to tear everything down and people had to be relocated, as a result this was really damaging for us. According to my property right certificate, I am clearly in ownership of 219 square meters, so for this use it should be returned to me.
According to Chongqing law, there are three possible ways to compensate owners in this type of situation: 1) provide housing on the same spot; 2) provide housing in another spot; 3) provide a sum of money. The city is only willing to provide Ms. Wu, the resident, with the third option, but she is not willing to accept a sum of money.
According to a survey by QQ.com (famous Chinese software media that rivals MSN, link not provided here for in Chinese), 81.46% of the netizens back up the house owner to protect his property, while 10.84% deem the issue as too complicated to come up with an idea, and 7.10% consider the house owner as "stubborn nails".
Settlement of the case: according to the Chongqing Court, the two-storey building was valuated at 2.47 million RMB while the real estate developer offered a replacement shop/home building valuated at 3.06m RMB; as a result, the house owners Yang/Wu will pay back the difference of 590,000 RMB to the developer. Furthermore, the real estate develop will pay compensation to the amount of 900,000 RMB for business losses plus 105,000 RMB for property damage and moving expenses. This is somewhat coming down from the 5 million plus RMB originally demanded by Yang/Wu. (From Hong Kong newspaper: Ta Kung Pao)
Report from other media:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1606215,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=47459
Dingzihu is a Chinese phrase that means a household or person who refuses to vacate their home to make way for real estate development, for "they stick out like nails, hard to be removed in an otherwise modernized environment". It has been translated as 'nail house' in English.
Should people move if the compensation is reasonable despite of their unwillingness in municipal or commercial zoning plan?
During the CCTV interview, the “nail house ” owner WU said (translated): Among the residents moving, I am the largest private property owner, furthermore you can basically say I am the only one who has complete papers, such as a property rights land right certificates, they both clearly indicated that it is a building zoned for business. At that time I had just finished renovations, and they (the developer) said they had to tear everything down and people had to be relocated, as a result this was really damaging for us. According to my property right certificate, I am clearly in ownership of 219 square meters, so for this use it should be returned to me.
According to Chongqing law, there are three possible ways to compensate owners in this type of situation: 1) provide housing on the same spot; 2) provide housing in another spot; 3) provide a sum of money. The city is only willing to provide Ms. Wu, the resident, with the third option, but she is not willing to accept a sum of money.
According to a survey by QQ.com (famous Chinese software media that rivals MSN, link not provided here for in Chinese), 81.46% of the netizens back up the house owner to protect his property, while 10.84% deem the issue as too complicated to come up with an idea, and 7.10% consider the house owner as "stubborn nails".
Settlement of the case: according to the Chongqing Court, the two-storey building was valuated at 2.47 million RMB while the real estate developer offered a replacement shop/home building valuated at 3.06m RMB; as a result, the house owners Yang/Wu will pay back the difference of 590,000 RMB to the developer. Furthermore, the real estate develop will pay compensation to the amount of 900,000 RMB for business losses plus 105,000 RMB for property damage and moving expenses. This is somewhat coming down from the 5 million plus RMB originally demanded by Yang/Wu. (From Hong Kong newspaper: Ta Kung Pao)
Report from other media:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1606215,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=47459
posted by Lihua at 11:11 AM
1 Comments:
Interesting story, and interesting photo. I think it is impressive when people are willing to take a stand like this lady. While I recognize that there are at times important reasons for allowing provisions in which the government can take over someones private property (with compensation), I think that very often it goes to far. It reminds me of a movie though, "American Outlaws," in which the James-Younger gang takes on the railroad company to stop them from taking over peoples farms. Peoples their tactics need to be adopted more often.
Post a Comment
<< Home