HOUSEHOLDER’S REVOLUTION(page 5)

春光明媚

http://www.gbcc.org.uk/currentissue.pdf

The complete lack of a regulatory framework led
to major problems. In many parts of the country not only
were developers not required to consider issues such as
provision of individual power or water meters, the
regulations that were in place were rarely enforced. In
neighbouring communities developed between 1989 and
1995 in Chengdu known as the Five Gardens
Communities, residents were not provided with
drinkable water, the temporary electricity used for
construction was not converted to permanent electricity,
and the developers retained control of all of the
communal assets. Just a year after moving in, residents
found cracked walls, broken pipes, and even structural
defects to the exterior walls of the buildings. To make
matters worse, the property management companies
charged with maintaining the new property were doing
little more than collecting fees. In Ziyu Shanzhuang, a
late 1990s Beijing development, these ran as high as
2400 Chinese yuan (260 dollars) per unit per month,
slightly more than Beijing average income that year.
For others their homes were never even
constructed in the first place. As demand for commercial
housing outpaced supply, homes were sold up to 18
months before they are built. Developers and property
sales companies exploited loopholes in the regulations to
prevent this. Many developers run out of funds before
communities can be completed, leaving residents with
only a concrete foundation or without promised
communal assets. Official statistics for
Guangzhou place the number of
“lanweilou” or “unfinishable” housing
projects at 132. Most housing projects in
Guangzhou range from 1000 to 5000 units.
This means that over 100,000 purchasers
have been affected in just this one city.
Violent reaction
China’s urban homeowners are not taking
these issues lightly. Since the mid-90s
increasingly large groups of residents have
mobilised to press developers, property
management companies and local officials
to live up to their promises.
In most cases residents have been
frustrated. Only as communities began to
get violent did the government begin to
regulate the behaviour of developers and
property management companies. In the
Five Garden Communities, neighbourhood
activists were attacked with knives after
pressuring the developers to deal with basic
infrastructural issues such as running water. After these
incidents the local government set up a committee
charged with working with residents to resolve issues
left behind by the property developers.
Government failure, homeowner action
Local government’s inability to resolve problems led
residents to find ways to take matters into their own




Contesting banners placed on the front of the community hall at Times Manor
(Top) “Boycott illegal elections conducted without government sponsorship;” and
“Participate in the Homeowner’s Committee elections, make every vote count


hands. From 1994 onwards, groups of residents began
organising autonomously into homeowners associations,
electing a small number of homeowners to a
Homeowner’s Committee. The committees spread
rapidly through the 1990s. In 1996 they were awarded a
legal status, although not a formal permit for
autonomous organisation. Only in 2003 with the
implementation of the Property Management
Regulations by the State Council, were residents finally
given limited space to self-organise into Homeowners
Associations. These associations rapidly became the
focal point of community activism throughout China.
Lack of legal status impedes groups from taking
legal action against developers or property management
companies, but the relative lack of interference in their
affairs, and their growing ability to affect changes to
community governance has made these organisations
increasingly attractive to individuals with political
aspirations, and private residents interested in improving
the management of their communities. It is difficult to
ignore the ways in which local governments, property
managers and corrupt homeowners are co-opting these
organisations but the number of popularly elected
homeowners committees operating with relative
independence is now estimated at over 1000 nationwide.
Many of these organisations are firing their
developer-appointed property management companies
and hiring their own, or even taking over responsibility
themselves. At Times Manor a small number of residents
with ties to the property developer had tried to block
moves by the homeowner’s committee to replace the
property management company. The company’s guards
were often found asleep, rubbish was not removed, and
simple maintenance tasks not performed. Residents
reported security guards breaking into vehicles and the
company had torn down election notices and other
documents posted on the community bulletin board.

winne

仔细把原文都看了一遍。不知道被这样报道是喜是忧。业主的革命？没要革谁的命，就要点自己的小小权益。

Thorn

没错，同感，没革命没想造反，只想尽量维护自己一点点的权益和一点点尊严和体面，跪着请求。

ellen

其实很好理解，西方人认为，每个公民应有的权利是不可以被践踏的。为之可以来一场革命，但在中国不同，几千年的封建集权的统治，使民众一直生活在被漠视权利的环境下，久而久之变得漠然，是很正常的。

但我相信历史的车轮是不会由于任何人的意志而停止前进的，想想，20世纪之前我们还是与世隔绝的封建帝王专制的国家，而且周而复始地运转了2千多年，尽管我们的末代皇帝溥仪想尽一切办法想要回到他那个“莫非王土”的世界，尽管大多数的民众并没有觉得有必要进行一场改变制度的革命，就连袁世凯也觉得封建制度没什么不好。因为它的惯性太大了。但经过这100年来，我们还是走进了一个新的完全不同的时代，尽管每一步都充满了艰难困苦。这100年跟2000年比起来可谓是很年轻。

对于一个人而言，改变都是不易的，更何况一个国家。但是作为一个普通公民，我会珍视国家和社会i赋予我的每一点点的权利，以及义务。同时也会尊重每个人的权利和义务。如果有人没有意识到这一点，他应该还没有意识到或者还不懂得要如何尊重自己，因此也不懂得如何尊重别人。

真理

((对于一个人而言，改变都是不易的，更何况一个国家。但是作为一个普通公民，我会珍视国家和社会i赋予我的每一点点的权利，以及义务。同时也会尊重每个人的权利和义务。如果有人没有意识到这一点，他应该还没有意识到或者还不懂得要如何尊重自己，因此也不懂得如何尊重别人。 ))
太受启发了!!!!!