Nam Van Development Company Ltd. argued yesterday that the group’s delays in the development of its thirteen land plots in the reclamation areas of Zone C and D are not its fault, calling the government’s imminent action of taking back the land parcels outright ‘robbery’. In a seminar held by the company discussing the city’s new land law, the president of Nam Van Development, Jorge Neto Valente, claimed that the implementation of the new land law was “the only existing law in the past 16 years that has had such damaging consequences to the Special Administrative Region”. “In my opinion, the law needs to be amended or retouched at least,” the company president claimed. The new land law, implemented in March 2014, regulates that no extensions are allowed for temporary or conditional land concessions, which carry a validity of 25 years, if developers fail to complete their projects on their sites and such sites are reclaimed by the government. Last November, the Secretary for Transport and Public Works, Raimundo do Rosario, said that the government intended to reclaim 14 plots in Zone C and Zone D once these concessions expired at the end of July (this year) as these plots had been left undeveloped. Wrong decision The owner of thirteen of the land plots that are to be reclaimed by the government at the end of this month, Mr. Valente told authorities that the move to take back the land plots is the wrong decision. “[Despite] the government telling people [to appeal] to the courts [for objecting to the repossession of land plots], the public’s confidence in the local legal system and in the courts will be affected – and this is a mistake,” said the company president, who is also a lawyer and heads the local lawyers association. “The courts will not replace the decision of the government. The courts will not allow, nor declare, the decision of the government to be void. Based on the legal system, the administrative courts will only check whether the government’s decision is in accordance with the current laws,” Mr. Valente declared. Nam Van was granted these land plots in 1992. In 2001, once greenlighted by the government, it allocated the 13 land plots to different subsidiaries for developing the parcels. “Government is stealing” One of the investors in the subsidiaries, Patrick Wong, who now owns plots C5 and C6 in the areas, said yesterday that the company’s delays in developing these land plots was due to it trying to meet the government’s requests. “My drawings for the planning [for plots C5 and C6] were approved by the government in March 2007. But due to protecting the city’s world heritage, the government asked us to pause our plan,” Mr. Wong, who is the executive director of Nam Van Development, said. “When our development was halted, the ex-Secretary for Transport and Public Works (Lao Si Io) said we needed to respect the World Heritage, yet added that [the benefits] of land awardees wouldn’t be affected,” the company executive added. Mr. Wong also argued that the government had announced in 2011 that the lack of development on his two land plots was not because of the company, questioning the reason why the government is now intending to reclaim the plots. “In 2011, Lao Si Io released a list of 65 plots, with their reasons for being left undeveloped not the concessionaires’ liability … I think someone is stealing my land now. Is this a big misinterpretation by the incumbent government?” he queried. Legal action final remedy Asked by reporters whether the company would take any legal action following its 13 land concessions to be announced void at the end of this month, Mr. Valente indicated that legal actions would be the company’s last solution. “We should bear in mind that investors don’t look for compensation. They look for developing their project as any compensation would be [lower than] the damages made by the government’s repossession of the land plot,” the lawyer said. “The compensation is our last remedy to reduce the losses of investors,” he stated. Law amendments urged Meanwhile, Chief Executive-appointed legislator Gabriel Tong Io Cheng agreed yesterday that the government’s intended action of taking back the undeveloped plots for which land awardees are not responsible is like a crime. “I don’t think the initial aim of the new land law is to steal others’ land plots. If the government grants a land plot – while all procedures for development need to be approved by the government but it hasn’t approved any for 25 years – this would be a fraud. Hence, I’d rather believe that this is a misinterpretation of the law,” the legislator claimed. In fact, last week the legislator submitted a bill calling for an interpretation of the temporary concession of the new land law to the Legislative Assembly. The bill seeks to allow Chief Executive Fernando Chui Sai On to decide whether a temporary concession could be extended if concessionaires are not the liable party for the lack of development on the plots. Meanwhile, CE-appointed legislator-cum-lawyer Lionel Alves perceives the new land law as failing to protect off-plan home purchasers in the territory. “The implementation of the law on property off-plan sales is to protect the benefits of homebuyers by asking all off-plan homebuyers to register their purchases at the government department. But when all these registrations could become ineffective as a land concession carrying a 25-year term expires, is this really a step to protecting home buyers?” Mr. Alves questioned. Alves believes that the government should at least compensate concessionaires at the time of loss if it is not their fault that the land plots haven’t been developed. “For example, if a football match is halted for three minutes due to a player being injured, the referee would compensate these three minutes at the end. Giving extra time for compensation is a fair method,” the lawyer said. “The case [of Nam Van Development] is different from idle plots which their developers could build on but do not do anything… In this case, land concessionaires want to develop, yet they cannot due to the documentation,” the CE-appointed legislator argued.
—
box
