Input 2021.02.10 15:06
The basis of the existing urban improvement law’executor = union’ is likely to change
Union still penalizes’excess profit return + real residence’
Expert “The residents’ representative meeting is an advisory body, that the public will do everything”
The government is accelerating the work of reflecting the contents of the’public direct implementation maintenance project’ announced in 2.4 Supply Measures in the Urban Improvement Act. The main content is to have public enterprises such as the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) lead the reconstruction and redevelopment projects that were led by the union in principle in the past.
In addition, instead of the union where the powers of land owners were concentrated, the residents’ representative meeting, which was organized around the function of consulting public corporations, is expected to emerge as the leading role of the new maintenance project.
In this regard, experts point out that the residents’ representative meeting, which has only an advisory function after transferring ownership of the land to a public corporation, cannot be the subject of the project. Some point out that the maintenance project will be promoted by a public corporation with the government’s breath, and residents, including landlords, will only stand as bridesmaids. Some point out that the government is insisting on unfavorable conditions such as reconstruction of excess profits for privately-led projects such as unions, and is making unreasonable efforts to change the urban renovation project to a direction led by public enterprises such as LH. There are also concerns that such a move will negatively affect the participation rate of existing landowners in maintenance projects, which will reduce the momentum of urban maintenance projects.
◇ The government promotes institutionalization of redevelopment led by public enterprises without housing associations
According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on the 10th, the government is working on an amendment to the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act (Urban Improvement Act) that contains such details. Hong Nam-ki, Deputy Prime Minister of Economy and Minister of Strategy and Finance, and Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Byun Chang-heum announced that they would discuss the plan for follow-up measures against 2.4 and revised laws related to countermeasures such as the Urban Improvement Act within March by holding a meeting of relevant ministers at the Gwanghwamun Government Seoul Building the day before.
In particular, the former reconstruction and redevelopment project implementers will in principle be changed to a union composed of land owners, so that public enterprises such as LH can become the sole implementers. The government stated in the 2.4 countermeasure data, “If there is a request for a majority of the union members, the public enterprises will apply for independent implementation to local governments, and the public enterprises will establish a new method in which they are in charge of project implementation, including pre-sale plans.”
The current Urban Improvement Act basically sees the implementer who is the subject of the reconstruction and redevelopment project as a union. Out of a total of 142 provisions in the law, 19 provisions are dedicated to the establishment procedure of the union and the qualifications of members in detail. Public enterprises can also become implementers, but are limited to ▲when there is a natural disaster or safety concern ▲when the project is delayed for a long time ▲when two-thirds of the owners of land, etc., apply to the local government. The implementation method is also limited to the management method.
The government plans to change this part so that public corporations can directly apply to local governments for independent implementation at the request of a majority of the owners of land, etc. In this case, since the project proceeds without a cooperative, construction can be started beyond the procedures such as the cooperative general meeting and approval for management disposition, which were essential after the establishment of a maintenance plan and approval for project implementation. It is also the basis for the government’s claim that the speed of business will be accelerated.
Most of the roles the cooperative has played as an implementer so far will be transferred to public corporations, but it is expected that the residents’ representative meeting will take over the areas that public corporations cannot take over. An official from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said, “Once the union members decide to designate a public implementer, the representative body of the union will disappear.” “Converging and implementing the project,” he said.
◇ Residents’ representative meeting replaces union function… Expert “The participation rate in maintenance projects will drop”
The current resident representative meeting consists of 5 to 25 people with the consent of a majority of the owners of land, etc., when an entity other than a cooperative conducts a maintenance project.Building demolition, resident relocation, compensation for land and buildings, burden of maintenance project costs, and tenants Opinions can be presented on the supply and eligibility of rental housing in Korea.
In the end, there are three types of maintenance projects that are directly implemented by the private sector, subsidized by the public, or directly implemented by the public. Minister Byeon appeared on the broadcast on the 8th and said, “If it’s better to analyze it (owners or members of the maintenance area, etc.) and do it yourself, you can do it in the existing way. If you want to do it in the public-led method of 8.4 measures, you can continue with the union. Also, this time, if you want to leave it to the public without a union, you can make this choice.” However, public corporations are inevitably more advantageous than cooperatives in the competition for implementers in a situation where there are restrictions such as the burden of reconstruction excess profit and the obligation to live for two years.
The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has not denied that the revision of this law is a work that changes the basis of the maintenance project. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport said in a press release on the afternoon of the 9th, “The fast track method based on public-public-led public-private partnerships presents an institutional model that can provide sufficient quality housing as cities evolve and develop themselves in response to changes in mega trends such as technology and life. “I did it.” The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport said that the measures announced in the past were “existing measures using a specific location are a fragmentary housing supply project.”
However, some point out that the public-led redevelopment method excluding private businesses such as cooperatives may be an obstacle to urban development. There is also a possibility that the polarization between the Gangbuk region, where public enterprises such as LH are likely to easily become implementers, and the Gangnam region, where the existing union system is stable, will intensify. As the government envisions, the Gangbuk area, where development projects are promoted by the public initiative, is highly developed due to the loosening of floor area ratio regulations, which may intensify problems such as traffic congestion. On the other hand, if Gangnam is developed in low density led by the private sector and maintains a pleasant living environment, the gap between the two sides could widen. In fact, after the government announced the 2.4 measures, major unions in the Gangnam region showed little reaction. There were voices that only a few workplaces in the Gangbuk region deserved a review of the government’s initiative.
Some point out that even if a public corporation is in charge of the implementer, there is a need for an entity to pursue the project while eventually solving the complex rights relationship between land owners and tenants. While the association has a legal personality and has all the core decision-making authority, the residents’ representative meeting, which the government is envisioning as an organization to replace it, transfers decision-making functions excluding the authority to select apartment brands (contractors) to public companies, and presents residents’ opinions. It is because it only serves as an advisory body. There is no means to assert the interests of the landowner or the like.
In this regard, Professor Shim Gyo-eon of Konkuk University said, “Since the Residents’ Representative Assembly (LH, etc.) is merely an advisory body, and it is not owned by the ownership, it is highly likely that presenting opinions on the way the project is carried out is only an act of catering.” He pointed out, “(The Residents’ Representative Council) is allowed to select a brand. If the unit price goes up because of that, will LH and the government accept it?” He added, “It is strange that it gives tremendous benefits to the public, and it is rather strange to take away the excess profit from reconstruction for private (cooperative) redevelopment.”
Some point out that the model of reducing cooperative-centered private-led redevelopment policy and promoting urban improvement projects led by the public may negatively affect the participation rate of residents in the maintenance project or the resettlement rate after the project. Professor Kwon Dae-jung of Myongji University said, “It is efficient not to do it by the public, but to take the initiative led by the private sector or jointly with the public and private sectors,” he said. I said.