The most controversial [new housing reform policy]: white paper demolition!

Spread the love

Author: north wind source: beifengxuelin (id:beifengxuelin)

I have a relative who used to have a bungalow in the “old downtown” of a third tier city.

In the past few years, he has always hoped that the municipal government can use the “shed reform” to make his family richer.

He even tried to find a relationship to evaluate the “bungalow” as a “dilapidated house” and agreed to “rebuild” the house himself. In the future, he could compensate more for the demolition area.

Of course, in the past few years, he tried his best, but the feedback from the municipal government to the community was very cold.

Until this month, he told me that the community took the initiative to contact him, that there were professional institutions to “measure and evaluate”, and that they were likely to be “evaluated as dangerous houses”, thus forcing the government to “speed up the demolition”.

From the “cases” fed back by some readers, it seems that there is more than one sign that the third tier cities are preparing for shed reform.

However, I would like to remind you that it is not too early for the government to be happy when it has changed from a “love of building and ignoring” to an active “assessment of dilapidated buildings”.

When a city is in financial difficulties and it is very difficult to destock new houses, it is trying to “promote the shed reform”. If there is no money, it can promote the shed reform. It is likely that the “white bar shed reform” model is spreading and imitating!

First, the most controversial “white stripe shed reform”!

In recent months, there have been a lot of negative news in Henan.

From the super high price “nucleic acid detection kiosks” to the failure of rural banks to withdraw money in April, to the “depositor red code” event this month, and the “no petitioner community mid-term examination Bonus” and other wonderful policies.

When a series of negative social news made netizens all over the country denounce Henan, it also included the “white paper demolition” policy of Henan local government.

What I am going to write today is to discuss the policy of “white strip demolition” from the economic level, and what I want to explain is that the model of “white strip demolition” is not the first one in Henan. Cities in many eastern provinces have launched similar models.

Some netizens in Henan believe that in the eastern coastal cities, it is “the new housing reform policy” and “the reappearance of housing tickets”. When they arrive in Henan, they are scolded as “white strip demolition”, which seems to be suspected of “looking at the regional dishes”.

Today, we leave aside the region and only talk about the “white strip demolition” policy from an economic point of view.

The so-called white stripe demolition is a variation of the “monetized shed reform” promoted by the local government this year.

That is, local governments first implemented “hundreds of billions of shed reform funds” from large banks such as “CDB”. However, if the “flood irrigation” directly paid money, it would easily lead to many risks, such as soaring house prices, social inflation, or capital overflow.

So how can the “white strip demolition” in Henan solve these problems?

From the perspective of policy description, it is to give the relocated households “no cash, but only bills and vouchers of house value”, and then the relocated households can only “carry out improved housing transactions in the relocated cities” by virtue of these bills and vouchers.

At the policy level, this model ‘seems’ to have several benefits:

First: the past shed reform often created a group of multimillionaires whose “capital consumption flow is uncontrollable” and efficiency is not high.

“Demolition certificate” allows the relocated households not to become “suddenly rich” and will not become the “inflation” and unstable nouveau riche class of the society.

Second: in the past, for the shed reform in the third tier cities, the financial or local governments lent funds to “relocated households”, and the relocated households would take money to the provincial capital to buy houses. The relocated households in the provincial capital cities returned to the new first tier and super first tier cities in China to buy houses.

The consequence is that “after the third and fourth tier cities borrow money and monetized shed reform, these funds are still injected into and speculation about new and super first tier” real estate.

Using the “demolition certificate” system, the “compensation” after demolition can only buy a house in the “original city of the relocated households”, preventing the evil consequences of “borrowing money for capital flight”, making the city borrow money, and finally turning into the city’s “new houses to be destocked”, and the fertile water does not flow into the foreign farmland.

Third: in the past, when cities were “demolished”, the funds for monetized resettlement would flow to all levels of society and industries.

The new policy “demolition certificate” can only be used to buy a house, allowing the demolition funds to be “earmarked for special purposes and only circulated in the local real estate market”.

Second, this is not the first in Henan!

In the “policy description”, the “demolition voucher” replaces the huge amount of demolition funds, which can achieve the advantages of “the highest capital efficiency”, “no capital outflow”, “capital circulation in the real estate industry” and so on.

However, in the eyes of many economists and commentators, this is a “white note” to seize the legitimate real estate of the relocated households, and let the relocated households “take over the new real estate”.

Many negative comments lead the black pot of this “white strip demolition” model to Henan local government.

However, according to the survey of readers all over the country, this model is not “the first in Henan”.

My readers in Jiangsu and Zhejiang have reported that there is a “white note similar to demolition” in the local area. From the point of time, the earliest readers’ feedback is from Shaoxing, Shengzhou and other regions in Zhejiang.

This kind of “white paper on demolition” first appeared in the “developed areas without money” in Jiangsu and Zhejiang, which is somewhat surprising.

However, one of the characteristics of these areas is that they are “not rich” or “adjacent rich areas” within Zhejiang.

This kind of “white strip demolition” can “leave the demolition funds in the local area” and stimulate the circulation of local new housing funds, which is the reason why this policy has been followed by many cities and regions.

Third, the advantages and disadvantages of the economy need to be comprehensively studied and the boundaries of the legal system!

This kind of “white strip demolition” has different names in the “real estate new deal documents” in various places, but all of them list the three advantages of “special funds for special purposes”, “no outflow of funds from the region” and “no spillover of funds into the real estate industry”.

With so many advantages, why do so many people scold? Because in the case of actual feedback from readers, there are many drawbacks.

For example, a reader fed back to me a demolition case in Zhangjiagang, Jiangsu Province: the government “assessed it as a dilapidated house”, forced the demolition, and then gave two “demolition compensation schemes”.

The first is to take money and leave according to 7000 square meters. However, the house prices in different local areas are between 9000 and 12000, which is obviously lower than the compensation unit price of the market price. Of course, the common people are not willing to.

The second one is to compensate for 8000~9000 square meters, but not in cash. Instead, only “room tickets” will be given, and two developers will be assigned to “choose one from the other”.

Not only does it limit the scope of the relocated households to buy houses, but also the unscrupulous developers, after knowing the “relocation voucher” policy, directly increase the house price from the market price to the “relocation voucher” facing the relocated households by 30%.

Many economists blame the root cause of the “white strip demolition” because this “white strip” is somewhat similar to the “golden coupon of the real estate market”.

After receiving the white paper, the relocated households can not “choose the property they like equivalently”. On the one hand, it leads to the “general rise” in the real estate market. On the other hand, it is to increase the “far higher market price” for the “white paper for demolition”, which is very similar to the situation before the great depreciation of the “gold dollar Certificate in the Kuomintang controlled areas”.

So far, I have not directly marked the “demolition certificate” as “disordered housing reform”.

In my opinion, in some economically underdeveloped and financially scarce cities, if they want to achieve a “soft landing of real estate”, they may change their names to adopt the “white strip demolition” mode, transfusion the demolition funds to “local new buildings”, and try to keep the funds borrowed by the government in the local “internal circulation”.

However, how to make the “demolition certificate” not become the “golden voucher of the Kuomintang controlled areas” that the “real estate market” overwhelms the economy needs the wisdom of the senior management and the legal boundary!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *