April 2, 2007 9:41

Goodbye Nail House

Posted by Simon Elegant | Comments (16) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

So, the Nail House in Chongqing is gone. The owners finally reached a satisfactory agreement with the developer, news reports said, achieving their their aim of getting a commercial property instead of cash compensation. The most interesting aspect of this case (which we wrote about earlier, like every other reporter in China) was the fact that it was so heavily covered, particularly on the internet, which dragged in old media on its coattails. All the light and heat generated by the case had reporters and editors scrambling to find some significance beyond the fact that it had garnered so much coverage. Some tried to link the incident to the property law passed earlier in March by the National People's Congress. But the law hasn't come into effect and its not clear whether it would have made a difference if it had been. Still others attempted to go the traditional human interest route. Problem was the couple were a bit quirky but by no means the sort of oppressed, penniless grandparents being screwed by an evil developer who would have made the story juicy. They appear to be a stubborn, media savvy, adequately well-off couple who wanted more moolah. One paper even wrote (thanks as ever to the indefatigable Roland Soong for translation) about the case seeing the birth of "citizen reporters" who went to the site and then blogged about what they saw afterwards. I'm willing to wait and see if this is really the beginning of a revolution that sees China's tens of millions of netizens allowed to report live from disaster sites, the NPC, mass protests over land acquisitions etc etc, but for the moment I remain skeptical, to put it mildly.
In short, the Chongqing Nail House was actually more like Paris Hilton than anything else, famous for being famous. Full of sound and fury.......signifying nothing.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments

Posted by slkf
April 2, 2007

Should have been done earlier when the owner was still inside.

Posted by nanheyangrouchuan
April 3, 2007

I support that couple in getting "fair compensation" for their house. It is obvious that this writer and the previous poster are nothing but banner carriers for reckless developers. As if big chinese cities didn't have enough shopping malls with people looking and not buying. This couple stood up for their human and property owner rights and won both public opinion and a thick fist full of RMB.

Pox on faceless corporations and their minions.

Posted by next
April 3, 2007

sorry, i live in China. What is idealism?

Posted by Anonymous
April 3, 2007

Hope that this is a positive sign for raising awareness for respecting individual rights! We have to fight and reject the "一将功成万骨枯" (Ten thousand perished for the sake of an individual's achivement) medieval mentality in whatever parts of the world. Though Chin Shih Huang Ti possessed great achivements, a lot of people also perished as a result of building of the Great Wall and the burying of scholars (焚书坑儒). Shame on the poster who taunts justice for the people.

Posted by Anonymous
April 3, 2007

Agree. Chairman Mao would have been very sad to learn that the very people he had fought for and tried to liberate, finally ganged up with the land owners (地主) instead. Sigh...

Posted by A Chinese temporarily away from home
April 3, 2007

A rare victory of the weak. I do hope this could become a pioneering event to demostrate how to protect our properties. Yet I'm really doubtful on its lasting consequences. The estate developers were not ready this time. Once a leason is taught, they would very probably be better prepared next time. After all, the local government is behind them. Anyway, this is a good result, and I do hope this could be a model case in the future.

BTW: costs of the compensation will definitely be poured onto the final users of this land, if there's any. The company and the government will surely not the losing guys.

Posted by Standing by
April 3, 2007

I wonder if the similar conflict occurs in US,Great Britain or other developed countries,what should be the consequce?

Posted by Anonymous
April 3, 2007

To Standing by:

Don't you think that this is a step forward for the great Chinese people themselves? Why do you care about how other developed countries deal with this conflict? Should we emulate these developed countries even if they forsake their human rights; just because they are developed?

Posted by John Smith
April 3, 2007

Standing By: Yes, this kind of things happens in the west too. Private developers cannot force landowners to sell. They have to negotiate with the owner for an acceptable settlement. The governments are too careful to get involved in this kind of disputes, because elected officials would fear getting voted out in the next election if they are seen as siding with the developers.

"Consolidated" sites are sites suitable for major development that has been bought piece by piece over decades. These sites worth a lot more than the total of individual piece of land. And those doing the consolidating never tells anyone what they are doing, just in case someone will buy a piece of land in the middle of the site, and keep it to get a good price.

When government needs a piece of land for "public use" - and there are very detailed rules about what constitute "public use" - the government will try to negotiate with the land owner just like a private developer does. However, if they cannot get a fair deal, the government can "expropriate" through the court. The court will, with help from public appraisers, what is the current "fair market value" of the piece of land is, and that will be the price the government has to pay to the land owner. Expropriation is rarely used, as it is seen as bullying. And the courts in the west are independent of the government, and rules against the government in many situations.

And, of course, the Chinese system is much better, much faster, much more efficient, and is, most importantly, supported by the Chinese people.

Posted by zzyzx
April 3, 2007

Good to see it’s settled between the owners and developer, probably it being involved in countless parties including the local government. It’s also a good lesson for each individual in China to learn how to fight for his or her rights regardless of how unreasonable they sound, a very good move for a country typically paying less attention to individual’s interests.

Posted by John Smith
April 3, 2007

Standby: In western nations, in addition to the purely property rights of owners, there are rules about non-property rights for people too. Access to utility (water, electric power, fuel (natural gas), telephone, cable TV, etc.), roads, fire protection, ambulance etc. are all protected. If a developer somehow endanger the property owner to these kind of service, or make it inconvenient, the property owner, and all people living in the property (renters, family, friends, etc.) can sue the developer for damages. If the developer did that intentionally, they can sue them for criminal negligence, and who ever in the developer made the decision to inconvenience the residents in the property can go to jail, and the developer is not allowed to pay the legal (lawyer) bills for the defendant. If there is a business operating in the property, the business can sue for damages due to loss of business and other costs.

So, you see, the situation can be very complicated and serious if it ever happened in the western world.

And, of course, the Chinese system is much better, much faster, much more efficient, and is, most importantly, supported by the Chinese people.

And I do admire the spirit of those people preferring not to know about how other people handle the same problem. Their confidence of having the right solution is very encouraging.

Posted by Blue
April 3, 2007

shame on the local government.

Posted by Mauri G Gronroos
April 3, 2007

Hard to judge whether the compensation for the Nail House of Chongqing was fair or not. However, we should not kid ourselves and believe the case "was only reveleaded by brave bloggers" and the Chinese media kept silent.

China Daily covered the story 18 times between March 03. and April 03. Most of the stories with a photo:

http://tsearch.chinadaily.com.cn/was40/search?channelid=38056

I think we only spoil a good conversation if we see everything too black and white.

Posted by John Smith
April 4, 2007

Blue: I won't blame the local government. They are just doing their best with the laws they have. They may have done better in helping with the negotiation so that it won't become a news story. China is not the only country where this kind of things happen from time to time. I have seen a few major developments that built around a tiny house, in major cities. But this is the first time I have seen utilities and roads cut off by developers.

Posted by zzyzx
April 4, 2007

John,

Only does the local government have the authority to cut off utilities. Without its permit, the developer could not do anything. There are a lot of things hard to explain there. The local government has played as the bad guy and good guy probably for countless times we would not image.

Posted by rickie ny
April 15, 2007

"signifying nothing."?? like paris hilton. where does this writer come from? the issue here is that people want to protect their property that has been in their family and not be forced to vacate or accept compensation by the court. in the US only government can do that for bigger social reasons like constructing freeways thru imminent domain. but that itself is problamatic. it doesnt happen to rich politically influential neighborhoods. this image of the owner in the NY times article is fabous. so contemporary. she is wearing a fashionable red coat w her arms outstretched in defiance. we dont see this kind of image much and its no wonder her cause has captured the attention of so many people. she was very brave and i hope others were inspired.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/world/asia/27china.html?ex=1332648000&en;=7a7ae6ead13441ab&ei;=5088&