The death sentence given to a real estate developer yesterday is of exemplary significance given the necessity of putting an end to the rampant demolition by developers.

This developer in Wanzhou, Southwest China's Chongqing municipality, masterminded the murder of a man whose parents resisted demolition, for three years, to enable his real estate project.

In another case last month, a man, who killed an intruder sent by a real estate developer to pull down his house, was given three years of imprisonment with a reprieve of five years. The man was charged with use of excessive force in self-defense.

Both cases point to long-standing conflict between real estate developers and residents whose homes are in the way of the housing projects. Some developers have resorted to brutal ways to force residents to move. Some cut off electricity, water and gas, some hired thugs to threaten home owners and a developer even put poisonous snakes in a residential building to scare residents away.

The fact that both verdicts have been welcomed sends the message that the law must deliver justice, especially to the weak. But it is too early to conclude that they will deter developers from their brutal ways to demolition.

Why do some developers have no scruples in doing whatever necessary to realize demolition at the lowest cost?

On the one hand, local authorities back most developers since land sales are an important source of revenue for local finance. With such a background, they are not afraid of petitions against them by residents.

On the other hand, they believe in the tacit rule that money moves matters. They can handle everything by giving money. If anyone is injured in a demolition, they can be paid off. Even if they are sued and put in jail for offences in pursuit of demolition, they hope to get away by paying money.

Imagine that the thugs this Chongqing developer had hired just broke the legs of that man, whose parents were too frightened to persist on their fight, this developer would just pay some money in compensation and then have his demolition under way.

The significance of both cases lies in their projection of the necessity of having a platform for both developers and residents to negotiate on an equal basis. It is unfair for developers to make handsome profits from commercial housing projects while they pay relocated residents only a small amount of compensation, which is not enough to even purchase a suitable house.

They also point to the urgency for the necessary action that must be taken to stop developers from employing illegal means to press ahead with demolitions. Such action is necessary for protecting the legitimate rights and the interest of residents who are to be relocated. To make developers toe the line is also in the interest of the healthy development of the real estate business.

Comments