23,000 opinions in 10 days’unusual’
Mostly opposite… Controversy over private property infringement
Some agree… “Housing speculation should disappear”
[이미지출처=연합뉴스]
–
[아시아경제 문제원 기자] In ten days, over 23,000 opinions were issued on the amendment to the Framework Act on Housing, which stated ownership and residence of’one household, one house’ as a basic principle. Most of them are against the bill. The purpose of the amendment is to improve the increasingly unequal housing ownership structure, but opinions are raised that it will not be easy to pass due to high opposition such as’private property infringement’.
According to the National Assembly Legislative Notice System on the 2nd, 23,397 people submitted their opinions on a partial amendment to the Basic Housing Act, initiated by Democratic Party lawmaker Jin Sung-joon as of 3:30 pm on the same day. The legislative notice period for this bill is from December 23rd last year to this day. It is very unusual for more than 20,000 opinions to disagree over ten days. Other bills have fewer than 100, even if there are many opinions.
The main purpose of the amendment is to add to the basic principles of the current housing policy ▲ 1 household and 1 house holding and living ▲ priority supply of homes for the homeless and real homes ▲ banning the use of housing for asset growth and speculation.
As for the reason for the proposal, Congressman Jin said, “According to the results of the 2019 housing survey results, about 4 out of 10 Korean households are homeless households,” and said, “In order for the public to be substantially guaranteed housing rights, first provide housing to real residents of homeless housing. Some point out that housing should not be a means of asset growth or speculation.”
Opinion on some amendments to the Basic Housing Act initiated by Democratic Party lawmaker Jin Seong-jun (photo = National Assembly Legislative Notice System screen capture)
–
Immediately after the amendment was initiated, private property rights infringement controversy arose. Kim Mo, who left a dissenting opinion, said, “It is not right for the state to go out and say something without recognizing personal property.” Mr. Kang said, “It is a bad law that makes multi-homed people illegal through continuous regulation.”Listening to public opinion and opinions of expert groups I hope you will work on effective supply measures.”
There is considerable criticism that it is excessive to specify one household and one house ownership in the basic principles of housing policy, and that there are members of the National Assembly with multi-households in the ruling party, as they already check multi-homed people through capital gains tax or comprehensive real estate tax. In fact, it was controversial as it became known that 2 out of 12 co-sponsors were multi-homed.
There is an opinion that if the principle of one house and one house is legislated as the ruling party’s wish, interest in’Smart One House’ increases, the value of housing in unfavorable areas and tangibles decreases, and demand is inevitably concentrated to apartments in Seoul or Gangnam, which many people prefer. In addition, it is pointed out that if all households become one household and one house, it is theoretically not realistic as the private rental volume disappears.
Although not many, there are opinions in favor of the amendment. Yang Mo said, “The country can live only when speculators are eliminated by limiting it to 1 household and 1 house.”From the lawmakers If we take the initiative and do not normalize the house prices, there is no future for the country.” Kim said, “Only when the speculative buying and selling of houses is eliminated, an equitable home will be distributed to all.”
The amendment is only to declaratively add’one household, one house’ to the basic principles pursued by the Framework Act on Housing, and it does not mean that the holding of multiple houses is illegally defined or punished. Some of the submitted opinions can be used for legal review, but there is no compulsory force. Nevertheless, the reason why many people disagree is interpreted to be that the distrust of the party’s real estate policy is so great.
Even inside the ruling party, opinions differ. Democratic Party leader Kim Tae-yeon, who has been controversial since the bill was proposed, said, “Even if it is a general proposal, it is necessary to consult with the Policy Committee when proposing major public welfare bills such as real estate.” Democratic Party Supreme Commissioner Roh Woong-rae said on a radio on December 31 last year that the Moon Jae-in government’s real estate policy was “it is difficult to give more than 50 points.”
Reporter Jeon Sang-won [email protected]
– .