Recently, multiple villages in Zhejiang Ningbo, Hangzhou, as well as in Guangzhou and Foshan in Guangdong Province, have been exposed for setting up roadblocks and arbitrarily charging fees, sparking heated discussions on the phenomenon of “charging tolls to enter villages”. Some netizens have questioned this practice, suggesting that it targets migrant workers and temporary visitors, potentially violating land laws and even becoming a means of “indirectly driving out non-local populations”.
In Yanzhou District, Ningbo City, a road less than two meters wide in Yaozhang Village has been blocked by a toll gate with a notice sign indicating fees of 5 yuan per hour, 20 yuan for the whole day, and a monthly pass for 100 yuan. The village committee stated that the fees apply to “vehicles entering temporarily”, while villagers can pass for free.
After videos related to this issue circulated online, they sparked a wave of criticism. A Douyin user sarcastically remarked, “The whole country is trying to attract people, but Ningbo is trying to drive them away. Can’t even accommodate outsiders in rural areas anymore?”
Similar toll gates with monthly fees ranging from 200 to 300 yuan have been reported in Xiangnan Village in Yiqiao Town, Jiubao Street in Shangcheng District, and Qioujiang Xin Village in Xintang Street, all located in Hangzhou. Netizens have pointed out that these fee measures were implemented without holding public hearings and were solely decided by the village committees, criticizing them for “violating legal procedures”.
A resident of Xiaoshan commented online, “Even visiting elders in the village requires a fee, 5 yuan per hour, almost like a shopping mall.” Several tenants on the Douyin platform mentioned that “80% of the villages in Xiaoshan District have started charging tolls to enter.”
In the comment section, some netizens expressed their resignation, saying, “The city no longer accepts us, maybe we should go back to the countryside to farm, as long as we have enough to eat.” Others advised their fellow Guizhou locals not to come to Zhejiang, mentioning hourly wages for manual labor in Ningbo, Shaoxing, Jinhua, etc., of around 17 to 18 yuan, without including food and accommodation costs, even requiring them to buy their own electric fans, “now even the village entrance charges fees”.
According to the New Beijing News, the village committee of Yaozhang Village responded by stating that the “village toll collection” measures had been approved through a village assembly and received the approval of the street office to prevent non-local vehicles from “bypassing tolls”.
However, an investigation by the Yinzhou District Procuratorate in Ningbo found that several villages in their jurisdiction had set up toll gates without approval or necessary safety facilities such as fire protection and lighting. Some toll gates were even set up on six-lane municipal roads or on the sides of bridges, severely affecting public transport and safety.
Prosecutor Zhang Xueqian from Yinzhou District remarked, “Converting the entire village into a parking lot is a disguised encroachment on public resources. ‘Village autonomy’ must be exercised within the legal framework.”
Online searches revealed similar instances of “village toll collection” in Huadu District and Panyu District in Guangzhou City, Longshan Town in Shunde District, Foshan City, and other areas in Guangdong Province. In some parts of Shunde, toll gates have been set up on both sides of public roads, with monthly rates of 300 yuan for cars and 15 yuan for electric vehicles.
Although some areas claimed to have dismantled related facilities, many netizens reported that “the toll collection continues without supervision”. Videos showed that some toll booths were still in operation, with staff collecting fees.
Regarding the legality controversy surrounding “village toll collection,” Lin Di, a retired teacher from East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai, pointed out that rural autonomy should not become a cover for seizing public resources. “If the toll collection is not approved by law, even if it is passed by a village assembly, it is still illegal.”
Lin Di stated that charging fees under the name of “public interest” must be subject to government supervision and undergo legal procedures. While some villages face challenges due to increasing motor vehicles and influx of tourists, he emphasized that these issues should be addressed through scientific planning and policy support, rather than resorting to making money by closing doors or infringing on the basic survival rights of outsiders.
On June 2nd, due to implementing “village toll collection,” hundreds of non-local workers in Yangyong Village, Dalang Town, Dongguan City, Guangdong, staged a collective protest. Due to escalated tensions, the police failed to disperse the crowd, leading the local village committee to dismantle the toll facilities overnight.
A similar incident occurred in Shanghai Lianmin Village in late December last year. At that time, a tenant named Zhang revealed to Yangtzi Evening News that she rented a house and yard in Shanghai Lianmin Village for a monthly rent of 2000 yuan. However, starting from December 2nd, the village committee required her to pay 1500 yuan for parking, claiming that the vehicles were using collective roads, despite her already paying a monthly rent of 2000 yuan. Nearby villagers also complained that the toll gate affected their daily travel, stating, “The village has been enclosed, and we have to detour or pay to return to our village.”
Several scholars have indicated that “village toll collection” reflects the contradictions between rural governance and rapid urbanization. It not only addresses the practical needs for increased collective revenue but also exposes deep-rooted issues such as the lack of legal awareness and the absence of a public service system.