Commentary: The 70 year limited rendered private ownership void

Zhang Jianfeng

Critics are still fighting over whether China's protection of public rights and private rights is equal. This question arises from the 70-year permit for land use, which is part of the draft of the "Property Law" which was not reviewed last year because of controversy.
It is not difficult to discover that no substantial breakthroughs were made this time in this review of last year's content. For instance, in terms of land use rights for residential buildings, land rights are only valid for 70 years. When the term of use expires, current law allows the government absolute power to take the land back. When the land is taken back, property on the land and its ownership will no longer exist as a whole.
According to the "Urban Real Estate Management Law" passed in 1994, when private ownership and public ownership clash, to benefit the public interest, the only solution is for private rights to yield to public rights. While the integrity of state land ownership is protected, nothing is mentioned about private property held by residents on this land. In the process of the fifth review, the draft of the "Property Law" continues this principle.
Some critics still commended the progress of this draft, for instance, when land use rights are up, residents may apply for a continuance and pay corresponding land transferal fees. Last year, this stipulation met with strong criticism. People asked if the law forces residents to repeatedly pay for land transfer, then this private ownership right is no different from leasing. It then dawned on people that what they have in their hands are like "fake deeds" riddled with uncertainty.
Seventy years as a renewal cycle for land use rights looks like progress, while in reality, it renders private ownership void.
First, to guarantee renewable use rights, people require a prerequisite, namely relevant authorities promise to not take back land use rights for "public interest reasons." In reality it is not hard to discover that, if certain authorities are determined to take a plot of land, their excuse will always be "public interests". Based on this, they can freely take back land for which the usage permit has not expired, and ruthlessly bulldoze private houses on top of it. Therefore, because of the legal definition of "for the public interest," the 70-year term violates the principles of private ownership. No one can guarantee that this law will not send the wrong signals to officials that profit from land use rights, giving them the feeling that they can freely dispose of private property.
Second, if the 70-year renewable lease becomes legal, and people must protect their property rights by repeated paying for the land, this implies they are do not have absolute and complete private ownership, even though the draft of this law has claimed to give such rights to people.
Third, the original objective of this law was to protect public rights and private rights equally, therefore allowing people to renew their agreement to rent land after 70 years. However, if a term of time for land use rights is given, and then a renewal payment is required, this implies that public rights and private rights are not equal in the first place. Even if the rent (the land transfer fee) is only symbolic, we know that paying RMB1 and paying RMB10,000 is the same. By paying, private ownership is continuously violated, and not respected and protected.
The only thing important is, disputes over this law demonstrate that individuals' awareness of their rights and individuals' desire to have their rights protected are increasing. This is unprecedented. This dispute shows how people urgently need to reshape and support their own rights through the law. On many occasions, what is hinted at is people's suspicion and worry about China's laws, therefore they need to repeatedly fight over a standard related to an order.
The main concern is, what kind of a Property Law can provide the masses with a sense of security and protect their rights from being violated.

by reporter Zhang Jianfeng