Recently in Jinyue Huafu residential area in Leizhou City, Guangdong, a group of homeowners voiced their discontent regarding a property rights dispute with the local government. The homeowners believe that the handling of the ownership of the ground floor public spaces by the government has been inappropriate, sparking ongoing protests since September.
On October 12th, when authorities attempted to apprehend protesting homeowners, it led to hundreds of homeowners surrounding the police station in protest. However, opinions among the homeowners are divided. Mr. Zheng, one of the homeowners, expressed on October 14th, “Although the contract mentions the day care center and community service center, the property developer did not clearly state during the property purchase that this area would be handed over to the street office free of charge, nor did they mention that it does not count towards the public area.”
Zheng further explained, “We bought a 120-square-meter house, with the public area accounting for about 20%, resulting in actual living space of just over ninety square meters. With such a high percentage allocated to public area, how can the developer claim that the ‘raised floor’ does not belong to the homeowners’ public area?”
This dispute involves the provisions of the Property Rights Law regarding the distinction of ownership in buildings, the disclosure obligations in commercial housing sales contracts, and the relevant policies on the construction of public service facilities. The core of the homeowners’ questioning lies in whether the developer adequately fulfilled the duty to inform homeowners of the nature of the ‘raised floor’ property rights at the time of sale.
Since early September, homeowners in Jinyue Huafu have been actively advocating for their rights through various means. However, tensions escalated further on the night of October 12th when police attempted to arrest another homeowner, leading to a standoff between hundreds of homeowners and the authorities. Several homeowners reported that the police used deceptive tactics to lure a female homeowner out of the residential area under the false pretense of her husband being in a car accident, leaving her young child unattended at home. The homeowner was detained for 24 hours before being released.
On the same night, authorities once again attempted to arrest another homeowner, resulting in a standoff lasting over an hour between the homeowners and the police. Mr. Zheng criticized the authorities, stating, “Without showing a subpoena, deceiving homeowners to leave their homes and then arresting them is a serious violation of due process. Accusing homeowners of ‘inciting trouble’ has no factual basis; we are simply exercising our legal rights to express ourselves and oversee actions.”
Furthermore, some homeowners reported that local authorities called homeowners who work in governmental units, pressuring them to attend a meeting at the city committee, raising concerns over coercion. Simultaneously, multiple online videos related to the incident were taken down, restricting the flow of information.
Interviewed homeowners highlighted that this incident exposes multiple contradictions in current community governance. Firstly, there is a conflict between the policy of constructing public service facilities and safeguarding homeowners’ rights. Secondly, there is a contradiction between closed-community management and open public services. Homeowners expressed concerns about the safety and management issues that could arise if public services are open to the public in a closed-community setting.
The homeowner stated that thirdly, a crisis of trust arises from information asymmetry. From the vague wording in the property purchase contracts to unilateral explanations in government announcements, to a lack of clarity in communication during the advocacy process, obstacles exist at every stage of information dissemination.
Mr. Zheng expressed, “We have repeatedly reported the situation to government departments, but have not received any substantial responses, leading to the deepening of the conflict.”