Real Estate Economic Goods Future Profit Report Investment… Publicly announced land infringement on private property of’cash settlement’
“Is the apartment development public? Concern about promising business certification agenda”
Sisa Week = Reporter Jeongho Choi Public opinion is not good lately as the government has decided to enforce measures for public development on February 4, which are controversial due to infringement of private property, without any modification or supplementation. The party and the government are insisting on constitutionality, saying that “the legal review has been completed”, but economists are criticizing it as “unconstitutional”.
Authorized brokers in the Seoul area analyzed that “villas and shopping centers in areas that are mentioned as targets for development are recording a decline in the situation where the project area has not been selected.” In the future, if a project site is selected, the controversy over unconstitution is likely to grow.
The unconstitutional factors pointed out by experts are △ infringement of private property △ decrease in real estate profits △ erratic business certification agenda. Even with these three factors, there are disagreements between economists and lawyers.
◇ Public announcement is unclear… Controversy over private property infringement
Recently, the government announced that the publicly announced land will be based on the compensation of land for public development projects. The government said that it would give 10 to 30 percentage points of additional profit compared to the officially announced land price, but even this was pointed out that it was a violation of private property.
Experts argue that the publicly announced land price is only the monetary value of the land designated by the Korea Real Estate Agency, and that the gap with the actual transaction price is large. Nevertheless, many argue that it is not correct for the government to take private property (land) in the name of public development.
Seo Jin-hyung, president of the Korean Real Estate Association (Professor of Kyungin Women’s University), criticized “The owner wants to live in a public development destination, but rewarding it according to the current market is an act of taking private property.”
However, the interpretation of lawyers is different. In the case of foreign countries, it is argued that it is not unconstitutional because the government leads large-scale housing development. Attorney Kang-Hoon Lee, a lawyers group for a democratic society, <시사위크>In talks with and, he explained, “The land compensation is just a matter of the adequacy of the evaluation of the Korea Real Estate Agency, and we just need to correct it.”
In the past, public development took place outside the city center. Facilities such as farmland and waste factories did not cause any major problems even if the land was accepted and compensated. However, it means that the measures for supply to the second and fourth quarters will be in direct proximity and in the center of the city. In the meantime, reinforced land compensation measures are required to break away from the development method.
◇ Economic goods’real estate’… ‘Concern’ lowering profits
The government announced that it would give priority to residents of the target area for public development and pay cash to non-residents. In response, economists argue that forcing non-residents to liquidate cash is excessive infringement of private property because real estate is’economic property’.
The purpose of investing in real estate itself is to expect market capitalization income or rental income from shopping malls. However, as the government is implementing a policy focusing on one household and one house (living house) by preventing unearned income through real estate, friction with non-residents is expected when liquidating cash.
Hyo-joo Park, secretary of the People’s Livelihood Hope Headquarters of the Participation Solidarity, explained, “The February 4 public development measures include a plan for indigenous residents to live in.” He predicted that “when a publicly developed apartment is built, the market price will naturally be low because buyers know what apartment (publicly developed apartment) it is.”
◇ Economic and legal controversy… ‘Business certification agenda’ outbreaks
There is a disagreement over whether the government officials will see the apartment development project in terms of the public interest. In public development, in most cases, facilities related to SOC (social overhead capital) or government offices are built. However, it was pointed out that it was not correct for the government to do public development of apartments by stepping up to fix the house price.
In foreign countries, the redevelopment project is led by the public. △Urban planning, △project implementation △approval of management disposition, △in many cases, the government takes the lead in selecting a cooperative, and the private sector only executes the project. In Korea, apartment development is entrusted to the private sector.
In the Land Compensation Act, the’project certification system’ refers to “determining a business to accept or use land in a public service project.” In other words, it is pointed out that it is unconstitutional to accept land through cash settlement in the state that there is no regulation for whether apartment public development is a public service project.
Prof. Seo pointed out, “If the government’s February 4 public reconstruction plan is approved, the land will be expropriated, and this law (project certification system) will be rampant.”
“The business recognition system may be unconstitutional,” Lee advised. “In order to escape this, a proper public reconstruction project is necessary.”
◇ Controversy over unconstitutionality… “Separate improvement measures should be presented”
Typically, apartment redevelopment takes more than 10 years. Redevelopment projects in farmland and abandoned factories also suffer from pain in the process of land expropriation. However, contrary to the government’s insistence on redevelopment projects in the city center, experts believe that there will be many difficulties during the project. In addition, some point out that the government’s decision to settle cash and share the development profits with the original land owners does not fit the purpose of public development.
Rep. Lee Heon-seung of the National Assembly (National Power and Land Transport Commission) argued that “the government and the ruling party should propose separate measures for improvement as there are points that it is unconstitutional and over-legislative in relation to the cash settlement issue.”
Copyright © Sisaweek Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited