Fourteen years ago, the Beijing authorities provided the Yong’an Xili land to the British King Company in Hong Kong, forcibly evicting and demolishing local residents’ homes. Chen Yanhua’s family’s house was demolished without negotiation or signing of any compensation agreement.
Chen Yanhua’s ancestral home was in Yong’an Xili, Beijing. In 2011, a year after the promulgation of State Council Order No. 590 “Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land,” the house was forcibly demolished but Chen Yanhua was not compensated or resettled by the relevant authorities.
A friend of Chen Yanhua, Mr. Chen, told Epoch Times reporters, “At that time, there were notices posted for relocation. Chen Yanhua did not sign any agreement for relocation or compensation, which amounted to forced eviction. Some people who did not relocate were sued by the government and land acquisition units, and the court made the decision.”
After the house was forcibly demolished, Chen Yanhua’s elderly parents in their 80s had nowhere to go. For many years, Chen Yanhua has been demanding that the government provide a resettlement house, but the issue remains unresolved even after the passing of both parents and up to the present day.
Recently, Fujian human rights activist Wang Xiuying exposed Chen Yanhua’s plight online, garnering support from many netizens who have faced similar situations.
Beijing Beiyin Law Firm also emphasized online recently that State Council Order No. 590 clearly states: for relocations due to house expropriation, temporary resettlement fees should be paid; if resettlement is not provided beyond the agreed transitional period, temporary resettlement fees should be increased from the month of the deadline.
Wang Xiuying stated, “It’s not that the authorities don’t understand these laws. Those in power are more familiar with legal provisions than the common people. The ‘Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-owned Land’ are very clear: compensation first, then relocation; if an agreement cannot be reached, the government makes the compensation decision; water and electricity should not be cut off by force; inheritance disputes do not exempt administrative duties. However, some people choose not to comply.”
She analyzed that firstly, the “control stability logic” overrides the “legal logic.” Superiors look at the number of petition visits, the progress of evictions, and project milestones. Officials calculate: compensating for a house is “spending money to buy trouble”; dragging it out for 14 years, the cost is borne by the affected individuals while their political achievements rise.
Secondly, “local responsibility as the last resort” has turned into “local cover-up.” Don’t escalate conflicts upwards, because that leads to “making trouble.” Hence, grassroots authorities leave people hanging by telling them to “wait for further notice” or “go to the petition office first.” It’s not that the problem cannot be resolved, but the authorities are unwilling to do so.
Thirdly, “fragmented responsibility.” The demolition may be carried out by a project company, the verdict is from the old demolition office, the acquisition is by the district government, the review is by the court, and the inheritance falls under the civil division. “Everyone can be in charge” has become “no one is in charge.” The phrase “historical legacy issue” wipes out 14 years in one stroke.
Lastly, “implicit disdain for the lower class.” In the eyes of some, residents without connections, lawyers, or media attention cannot make a scene no matter how loud they shout.