Subdivision of plots for sale: “At the gate – at whom”?

Although the Land Law 2013 has been criticized for having many shortcomings, it has also devoted a fairly large scope to subdivision and sale of plots. By Decree 43/2014, it has tightened a level. Then came the revised draft Land Law, which continued to tighten, to the point that there was almost no “breathing room”. So, what is the reason for this incident?

Pushing difficulties to businesses

There is an opinion that the tightening of plots for sale of land plots is to keep the land fund for urban development. This is not actually right. Because in Clause 2, Article 41 of Decree 43 as well as the Draft Decree this time, it only tightens the form of subdivision for sale of plots, not low-rise buildings in general. Only thing, developing low-rise houses in the form of ready-made houses for sale will require larger capital and be more picky. From this analysis, it is not possible to say that subdivision of plots for sale does not bring much long-term value to the State because it is converted to residential land with a long term and only collects money once. Thus, the key here is the management issue, not the crime in the subdivision.

There are opinions that, due to the development of subdivision, many investors buy residential land and then switch to building hotels, restaurants, commercial services… to exploit the price. cash flow management, causing conflicts in the use process with households building houses to live in, and at the same time overloading urban infrastructure in the area.

Actually this is real. But if there is the above intention, investors can still circumvent the law by buying ready-made houses and then renovating and repairing them to convert the use and this fact has also taken place; only thing, as mentioned above, it causes more waste for investors and society. Thus, the problem here is also the management, not the crime in the subdivision.

It is said that tightening the management of subdivisions for sale is to prevent and limit Alibaba-style ghost projects. This is possible, because the incident in Alibaba has had a large social and economic impact and it reveals a large gap in management both vertically and horizontally, both at the local administrative level. management areas and areas of the authorities.

But, one hypothesis is raised here, whether just banning the subdivision of plots for sale in the inner city is enough to prevent “Alibabas”, while the management is still lax, okay? Thus, the problem here is still the management, not the crime in the subdivision.

There is also a reason given, that is, limiting subdivision of plots for sale will facilitate management in both architecture and urban development. Because, if it is to sell ready-built houses, the government and authorities only have to manage the investor or real estate developer, instead of having to manage each household, each house, with hundreds, even Even thousands of customers if subdivided to sell the background.

But if this is the real cause, the fault is still not in the subdivision, but deeply in the thought of wanting to win the easy part, the safety for themselves, pushing the difficult and the suffering for businesses and people only. . And that is not only bad in that the management agency wants to “choose the light job”, but also causes costs, wastes society and destroys a resource for economic development that is urgently needed in the current context. now on.

Land plots are divided into plots for sale in Thanh Hoa (Photo: Luu Van)

Ban or govern?

The best solution at this time is to be more open in management to help remove businesses in the context of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the slowing down of the real estate market after a period of ups and downs.

The first is management by planning. The need to keep land resources for short-term, medium-term and long-term development can be ensured by land use planning and urban planning. In which, governments at all levels and functional agencies can actively plan land use plans for each area in each period to serve the local economic and urban development in each period. specific paragraph.

In parallel with that is the formulation of architectural planning, if it has not been established for the whole city or town, it can also be made for each area, each project and managed according to that plan. In particular, for projects with sub-lots for sale, it is possible to specify the height, number of floors, setback, color, facade style… to create unity and urban identity, especially the village. architectural color. Thus, functional agencies can completely manage urban development, ensuring a unified urban face and identity, while avoiding the monotony and boredom like selling ready-made houses.

Concerning about the worry that subdivision of plots and plots will lead to the construction of “sticky rice”, messy, asynchronous, houses built first, houses later, even lasting for decades, this can also be completely overcome. by stipulating construction progress and time. If within the specified time limit, the landlord has not built, there may be administrative fines or withdrawals such as the suspension of a suspended project, for example.

As for the recent Alibaba incident, the fault is due to management, not the method of plotting and selling the background. The sale of project land requires marketing and advertising, even a lot of noise, so it cannot be said that the local government does not know. Therefore, if early detection and early action is taken, and resolute measures are taken, no “Alibaba” can exist.

The negative and negative sides of subdivision are real, but it does not come from the intrinsic of this method, but mainly due to the lax management. Therefore, it is completely possible to replace “ban” with management measures.

Thus, it will both create open space for people and businesses, while making the best use of land resources, and creating conditions for urban development suitable to each condition, circumstance and level…, while still ensure the right orientation, right planning and sustainable development.

Bui Van Doanh – Director of Vietnam Real Estate Research Institute

According to DDDN