In "Regulations on Property Management of Residential Districts of Shanghai
(draft)" (revised version) examined and approved at 11th session of the Standing
Committee of People's Conference of Shanghai held on April 13th, there is a new
regulation in articles concerning "changing buildings for residential use to
those for other purposes other than for residence", i.e., the property
management must not presumably change nature of the housing; at the same time,
it is regulated that if any proprietor getting approval to change the nature of
housing from residence to other purpose, he should pay property service fee ten
times of the one in his residential district. Deducting cost of property
services, the fee is used to supplement special maintenance fund of the housing.
This means that Shanghai will adopt controlling and adjusting measures in
economic lever to solve the issue of "changing buildings for residential use to
those for other purposes other than for residence" that the public are concerned
about.
Can people set up business in residential buildings? The annoying problem has
always been a focus throughout the constitution course of "Regulations on
Property Management of Residential Districts of Shanghai (draft)". No matter in
discussion of standing committee session, taking council with the public, or in
holding hearings, there are two opposite opinions concerning the issue of
"changing buildings for residential use to those for purposes other than
residence". One group hold that presumably changing nature of residential
buildings should be strictly prohibited. Because if non-residence situation is
intermingled in residential buildings, it will not only impose many risks in
respect to security to residents, but also aggravate depreciation of equipment.
While the other group said that in the course of reform, there are indeed some
laid-off workers who have to make a living by means of their place, and changing
the property nature involves life guarantee of relevant people and such social
problems of non-formal employment. They suggested the government to loose
relevant policy and add some restricting conditions.
In the course of revising the regulation, a lot of people imposed the
question: who is pleased to see a sign board of "Welcome" on returning home
every day from work? Who is to responsible for murder cases as a result of
miscellaneous persons going in and out of the residential buildings? They
pointed out that it is a very small amount of people who have to be
self-employed in the buildings, and it is not suggestible to have majority to
accommodate to the interest of minority in government's formulating rules and
regulations.
It is reported that group forbidding "changing buildings for residential use
to those for other purposes other than for residence" get the upper hand in the
standing committee. On this account, on revising the draft, the principle of
forbidding "changing buildings for residential use to those for other purposes
other than for residence" is maintained, and it has been made clear that in
order to keep seriousness of urban planning and maintain living environment of
the public, presumably changing the nature of residential buildings should be
prohibited.
In the light that reason for the phenomenon of "changing buildings for
residential use to those for other purposes other than for residence" is that
cost is quite low in doing business in residential buildings, economic levers
are added to controlling and adjusting measures in the revised version of the
draft, i.e., property service fee which is as high as ten times of the one for
residence use should be paid for the approved behavior of "changing buildings
for residential use to those for other purposes other than for residence". As
for legal liabilities, the behavior of presumably changing property nature will
be imposed severe punishment: who will be ordered to correct within a time limit
by real estate administrative departments on district or county level and will
be imposed a fine of 10,000 to 50,000 RMB.