Participating in the discussion on the Land Law (amended), delegate To Van Tam reflected on the situation where planning was established and approved but implementation was slow or some planning contents could not be implemented.
This slow implementation is not only 5 - 10 years, sometimes 20 years, sometimes even longer. People often call this case "suspended" planning. Mr. Tam said that "suspended" planning not only wastes land resources, affects socio-economic development but also causes difficulties and disrupts people's lives.
"Residents in the 'suspended' planning area live in a state of anxiety and misery, unable to leave or stay. Their rights are not properly respected. The Land Law amendment needs to have clear and feasible regulations to eliminate this situation," Mr. Tam suggested.
From there, the Kon Tum delegation proposed to remove the "vision" in planning and land use plans according to the draft of 10 years for district-level land use planning.
"Vision is only an estimate, a forecast, and the forecast may or may not be accurate. That can also be a factor in "suspended" planning. People only want the State to specifically determine how long the specific land use planning will last, or what their rights are in the planning area," Mr. Tam analyzed.
Delegate To Van Tam (Photo: Quochoi.vn).
Mr. Tam also proposed to add a provision to the article on the organization of implementation of land use planning and plans: If the approved land use planning period ends without implementing the planning or project, the planning will be canceled.
Besides, delegate To Van Tam said: "The issue of land recovery for socio-economic development for national and public purposes needs to be extremely transparent and fair to the people."
According to him, Resolution 18 of the 13th Party Central Committee affirms that it is necessary to continue implementing the mechanism of self-negotiation between people and enterprises in transferring land use rights to implement urban and commercial housing projects.
However, the regulations on land recovery, compensation and support in the draft law have not yet clearly demonstrated this spirit, and at the same time, there are many contents that are not favorable to the people.
The Kon Tum delegation proposed to separate land acquisition for national and public purposes and land acquisition for purely commercial profit purposes.
In case of national and public interest, the State shall recover and provide compensation and support according to the rules determined in the draft, and at the same time have additional policies to encourage people to participate.
"In reality, there are many people who voluntarily support land for roads, bridges, and schools without asking for any compensation. The State needs to have additional policies to encourage this," Mr. Tam said.
In the case of land recovery for commercial purposes, purely for profit, Mr. Tam proposed that it should be regulated in the direction of agreement as in the spirit of Resolution 18. He suggested that it should be regulated in the direction that people contribute capital in the form of land or when valuing land, the person whose land is recovered is a party in the valuation process.
In case of failure to reach an agreement, the parties whose land is recovered can request an independent valuation agency. "If no agreement can be reached, the court can be asked to resolve the matter, to avoid the situation where no price is accepted," Mr. Tam said.
Delegate Le Huu Tri (Photo: Quochoi.vn).
Delegate Le Huu Tri (Khanh Hoa delegation) also said that although the draft law has tried to specifically identify the list of projects for which the State will reclaim land for socio-economic development, for national and public interests, it cannot list all the projects that will arise in the future.
Therefore, he suggested that it is necessary to design another regime to handle the actual occurrence of projects that are necessary for socio-economic development, for national and public interests, but are not included in the list of projects recorded in the law.
Mr. Tri analyzed that the 2013 Land Law has not been clearly regulated, leading to many cases of abuse of the State's land acquisition for socio-economic development to reclaim land from land users, but in fact the project is not entirely for socio-economic development, for national and public interests, but for the profit goals of investors and enterprises.
"This causes frustration for land users and gives rise to many lengthy and complicated lawsuits. Therefore, the draft law needs to clearly stipulate that projects in which the State reclaims land for socio-economic development must be for national or public interests or for defense and security purposes, but must ensure that they are truly necessary and not for profit purposes," Mr. Tri suggested .
Source
Comment (0)