news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

I read the news about the "three systems" of urban housing health check, housing insurance and housing pension proposed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. At first, I thought that the country was going to introduce and implement the policy of "using housing to support the elderly". After reading it carefully, I found that it was not the case at all. It is about supporting housing, not supporting people.

China Youth Daily quoted the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development spokesman and director of the Housing Reform and Development Department Wang Shengjun as saying: "Houses will age like people and get sick, so we need to establish a regular house check-up system." At first glance, it seems that there is nothing wrong with houses aging and requiring regular house inspections.

Regarding the purpose of housing pensions, China Youth Daily said it very bluntly, "Establishing a housing pension system is to provide financial support for housing examinations, housing repairs, and housing insurance." Housing pensions are to provide funds for housing examinations and repairs.

I don't understand what you said. I have a few questions and hope the relevant parties can respond.

The first is a conceptual issue. According to Chinese usage, the so-called "elderly care" usually refers to the elderly. Although pensions are paid very early, receiving them is something that happens after retirement. People have to wait until retirement to receive pensions, which means that the elderly care needs to define the important standard of "elderly".

Similarly, if the concept of "housing pension" is to be established, the key is to define the concept of "elderly" housing, that is, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development must determine how many ages of houses are "elderly housing". Houses that do not meet this age limit cannot receive pensions. The statement about pensions in China Youth Daily should have nothing to do with old-age care.

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development does not seem to have defined this concept. It is not the way for a responsible government department to propose "housing pension" before defining this concept.

Second, the definition of "old" houses. I was really surprised to see The Paper forwarding an article from the Economic Daily:

"Like human life, the houses we live in will also age slowly, posing safety hazards. my country has become the country with the largest number of existing houses and the most concentrated number of houses built in the world. By the end of 2022, nearly 20% of existing houses in urban areas were built more than 30 years ago, which means that around 2040, nearly 80% of these houses will enter this stage. A considerable number of old houses have low construction standards and lack necessary maintenance, and safety hazards need to be checked. At the same time, many self-built houses in urban and rural households also have safety risks."

According to the author of this article, houses over 30 years old have "entered the middle and late stages of their design lifespan." Of course, the author is also quite cunning and knows how to play with words. He did not use the word "old" but only used the ambiguous term "middle and late stages." How long is the middle stage? How long is the late stage? The author deliberately did not say. However, does it go against common sense to say that a 30-year-old house needs to be "aged"?

We are too used to the media's coyness and evasiveness. The housing pension system can be classified as a serious policy and regulation, and the term "mid- to late-stage" is obviously inappropriate. Can we say that people can apply for pensions when they reach the "mid- to late-stage" of their lives?

Let me say it again. If the relevant departments cannot define the concept of "elderly housing", the concept of housing pension cannot be established.

Third, the target of housing pension. Let’s not talk about whether there is a clear definition of “elderly housing”. I discovered, of course, I just read a few words online and made a random guess. The word “discovered” is naturally influenced by the style of the Economic Daily. I “discovered” that the reason why the Economic Daily said this seems to be because the housing pension system targets commercial housing built after the reform and opening up.

This is a little confusing to me. Why can old houses, not to mention the Bund in Shanghai, but the Shikumen houses in Shanghai, still stand for hundreds of years without "pensions"? The reporter of the Economic Daily is so bold and reckless. Of course, his subjective intention is not to discredit the quality of houses built after China's reform and opening up, but to actively support the "innovative" policies of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. I just want to know, what is the basis for this reporter to say that after the reform and opening up, especially the houses built in the past 30 years, they have entered the "mid-to-late stage" faster than before the reform and opening up or before liberation?

If the explanation given by the Economic Daily is true, shouldn't the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development give an explanation? Shouldn't the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development bear the responsibility for supervising the premature aging of houses built in the past forty years?

Fourth, the difference between housing maintenance fund and housing pension. Putting aside the suspicion of illegal misappropriation of the "pension" when the house is not old, I found out that there is a "housing maintenance fund" for commercial housing. The buyer must pay this fund when buying a house. The housing maintenance fund includes a special fund for housing public facilities and a housing maintenance fund. "The "Management Measures for Special Housing Maintenance Funds" (Order No. 165) of the Ministry of Construction and the Ministry of Finance clearly stipulates:

"Owners of commercial residential buildings and non-residential buildings shall pay special residential maintenance funds according to the building area of ​​the properties they own. The amount of the first phase of special residential maintenance funds paid per square meter of building area shall be 5% to 8% of the cost per square meter of the local residential building installation project."

Since there is a housing maintenance fund, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development must explain in detail when launching housing pensions that the current housing maintenance fund cannot meet the actual situation of housing inspections and repairs, and explain that this is especially true for houses built after the reform and opening up. The government department’s explanation cannot be as arbitrary as the Economic Daily reporter did. The government department should be able to provide clear data on this.

Fifth, the quality and life of the house. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development launched the housing pension fund out of filial piety to protect the "elderly" houses. Filial piety is the first of all Chinese virtues. Although the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development is not filial to the elderly, its "filial piety" should make the houses cry.

Because of my curiosity and emotion, I checked the Regulations on Construction Project Quality Management revised in 2019. I found out that the Economic Daily was wronged. Only Article 40 has any statement about the quality of houses. It says:

“Under normal conditions of use, the minimum warranty period for construction works is:

(1) For infrastructure projects, foundation engineering and main structure engineering of building construction, the reasonable service life of the project as specified in the design documents;

(2) For roof waterproofing projects, anti-leakage projects of bathrooms, rooms and exterior walls with waterproofing requirements, the period is 5 years;

(3) Heating and cooling systems, with two heating periods and one cooling period;

(iv) For electrical pipelines, water supply and drainage pipelines, equipment installation and decoration projects, the period is 2 years.

I don't know the life of the main structure. For example, if the warranty period is 5 years, then a house that is 30 years old is really old. The comparison is really shocking. The warranty period of our house in this regard is not as good as that of home appliances:

"The China Household Electrical Appliances Association has issued a series of standards on the safe use period of household appliances, which stipulate the safe use period of various household appliances. Specifically, the safe use period of refrigerators and wine cabinets is 10 years, and the safe use period of gas stoves, range hoods, storage electric water heaters, water purifiers, tableware disinfection cabinets, washing machines and dryers is 8 years."

I also don’t understand why the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development does not put forward basic requirements for the life of the main structure project? Why is the warranty period required by relevant housing departments so short?

Because I don't understand, there are still many questions. In short, what I really don't understand is:

Why doesn't the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development set high standards for the life of the main structure of buildings, building quality and shelf life, and improve the shelf life of buildings in all aspects, but only focuses on the elderly care aspect of buildings?

Since houses age so quickly and have such a short shelf life, why doesn't the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development require homebuyers to pay into a housing maintenance fund while requiring developers to provide pensions for short-lived homes?

At this point, one can only wonder, whose side is the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development speaking on?