Olympic ideal demolished: how forced evictions in China related to the 2008 Olympic Games are violating international law.

The most recent governmental action regarding property rights occurred on March 14, 2004, with the passage of three property-related constitutional amendments. (52) First, the amendments made all legal forms of private property explicitly inviolable. (53) Second, they encouraged, supported, and protected the rights of nonpublic sectors. (54) Third, the amendments subdivided expropriation into takings with ownership change and use without ownership change--both of which require the State to compensate citizens. (55)

Because of these numerous changes, land suddenly had value in China, and a real estate market emerged. (56) However, the economic and real estate boom of the 1990s created new problems, such as where to house the rapidly growing population and business sectors. (57) The government began taking (58) large areas of vital agricultural land for housing construction (59) and evicting urbanites to make way for development. (60) Beijing's victory in the 2008 Olympic bid "has spurred accelerated demolition, eviction[,] and construction in the city." (61)

III. CHINESE GOVERNMENT TAKING LAND IN PREPARATION FOR THE 2008 OLYMPICS AND CITIZENS' REACTIONS

The recent protests by evicted Chinese residents have brought Chinese land reclamation practices into the international spotlight and under the scrutinizing eyes of numerous media outlets (62) and human rights watch groups. (63) Much of the demolition and eviction in Beijing today relates to China's preparations for the 2008 Games. (64)

A. Chinese Citizens React in Protest to Land Grab

The Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) (65) handed China one of its not-so-prestigious "Housing Rights Violator Awards" in 2005. (66) The Centre's executive director Scott Leckie stated, "The Beijing government has admitted [to] a minimum of 400,000 people [being] moved to create space to build various Olympic venues...." (67) COHER also reports the "800 year old Jiaodoku neighbourhood was flattened in July 2003, destroying over 2,000 households, to make way for Olympics-related construction." (68)

These evicted residents, left with few avenues of redress, have increasingly taken to the streets in protest--protests the government has repeatedly attempted to suppress. (69) Beijing police prevented a demonstration by evictees over low compensation by blocking off streets surrounding the central government compound in July 2003. (70) Beijing authorities foiled another protest that same month by Guan Zengli, a housing rights organizer who had previously led a "protest by about 50 people in front of the Ministry of Land and Resources." (71) On September 15, 2003 Zhu Qingliang poured gasoline over his body and lit himself on fire in protest against poor compensation for his demolished home. (72)

Another widely reported protest occurred on October 1, 2003. Beijing resident Ye Guoqiang jumped from the Jinshui Bridge in an attempted suicide to protest how the Chinese government forcefully evicted him from his home to make way for Olympic construction. (73) He survived the fall but was jailed for illegally demonstrating. (74) Apparently Guoqiang was not alone; in November of 2003, over 1,200 Beijing residents signed a petition on the Internet in support of his actions. (75) Seven other protesters were charged with causing social unrest in October 2003, and two more protesters were detained. (76) In 2004, another protestor, Ye Guozhu was detained "and sentenced to four years' imprisonment for protesting against the razing of his home and two of his restaurants." (77) Daily protests against demolition and eviction occurred in Tiananmen Square and the Zhongnanhai Compound from September to December of 2004. (78)

All told, COHRE reports "more than three million people were involved in 50,000 public protests in 2003, mostly stemming from illegal land grabs, forced evictions and relocations." (79) Zhou Yongkang, China's Security Minister, "admitted that land disputes and economic inequality led to nearly 74,000 protests and riots" in 2004. (80) Human rights watchdog groups and unofficial websites recount many more tales of forced eviction and demolition. (81)

Many frustrated citizens are expressing concern and outrage through protests, international media, human rights groups, and postings to Internet bulletin boards. (82) These actions are extremely risky given the censorship laws present in China. (83) According to Human Rights Watch, "The Chinese government retains its ability to arbitrarily restrict certain speech or punish people for holding and sharing their opinions." (84) Despite possible prison time or violent suppression, these men and women continue to object to the arbitrariness of the demolition and eviction process and their lack of basic property right protections. (85)

B. The Process and Its Problems

1. The Current Procedure

Because the State owns almost all the land in Beijing, "developers who wish to build on a site must apply for and obtain a series of permits from demolition and eviction management departments." (86) These licensed developers are then obliged to inform residents of the project, offer an explanation of the project, and negotiate compensation. (87) National regulations then require developers to enter into agreements with property owners and any renters regarding the "method and amount of compensation, place of relocation, duration of relocation, and transitional period." (88) Once all parties sign the agreement they must relocate. (89)

If the evictee signs an agreement, but then refuses to leave, "the evictor may apply for arbitration, may sue the evictee, and may apply to the court for permission to implement eviction.... If the evictee does not sign an agreement, she or he may also apply for arbitration and sue the evictor...." (90) Evictors may seek, and often do seek, to proceed with forced eviction and demolition while arbitration or litigation is still pending. (91)

The national "regulations also address[] compensation and resettlement, and lists the factors that [government officials] should [weigh] in determining the amount of compensation." (92) For example, Guiding Opinions on the Appraisal of Urban Housing Demolition, which took effect January 1, 2004, "set forth guidelines on how to conduct appraisals of urban housing." (93)

2. Problems with the Current Procedure

Although the process does not appear extremely arbitrary or illegal on its face, many holes emerge in practice. First, nothing in China's law requires consultation with residents. (94) Second, numerous reports claim evictees are given little or no notice of their eviction, perhaps because few or no requirements of advance notice exist. (95) In extreme cases, residents return home from work to find their homes already torn down. (96) The national obligation for licensed developers to inform affected residents of the nature of demolition projects "is more of a recommendation than a legal provision, because there is no legal penalty if ... a ... unit fails to abide by it." (97) This communication requirement is thus largely ignored by demolition departments and developers. (98) Some local regulations require developers to inform residents within five days of receiving government approval of demolition. (99) Others require developers to give residents detailed information about a project, but do not specify a timeline for notification. (100)

Third, some residents complain that the little information they do receive from developers or demolition departments is intentionally misleading. (101) After being told they were being evicted to make way for a "green belt," Jinhua residents learned their land was instead slated for high-end private apartments. (102) Incorrect or intentionally misleading information not only destroys citizens' trust in the government, but also leaves them without the tools to contest their eviction or compensation.

Fourth, major disputes arise over compensation. (103) Although the Guiding Opinions require all demolition appraisals be based on the market value of affected houses, (104) countless residents have complained they are not getting the money to which they are entitled. (105) Reports claim "the amount of compensation may in some instances, be unilaterally decided by the developers or the demolition companies," or set far below market value, or both, with little account taken for loss of income. (106) Although the Guiding Opinions are a step toward fair compensation, they allow appraisals to be based on either (1) prices annually announced by the government or (2) prices indicated by the real estate market; however, the Guiding Opinions offer no preference when major discrepancies exist between the valuations. (107) One resident indicated the value of his home was based on a five-year-old government price listing. (108) In addition to valuation discrepancies, evictees often experience difficulty receiving the valuation amount. Homeowners report they only receive partial payment, receive no payment at all, or that their payment goes to local authorities. (109) "[I]n some cases developers pay compensation to the local authorities instead of to evictees." (110)