In the Inner Mongolia spring ploughing incident, the officials were dismissed from their posts, are they not aggrieved? Will the people be innocent if the people are ploughing normally?
The people are not wronged
According to the latest notice of Kailu County, the villagers' 5,600 acres of barren marsh meadow land lease contract clearly stipulates that the land is used for the construction of dairy farms and forage planting, and belongs to forest grassland.
Is it illegal for a contractor to change the nature of the land without permission, to cultivate it, to turn the forest and grassland into cultivated land, and to sublease it to others? It is illegal to change the use of the land without the permission of the competent authority!
The town cadres were overly rhetorical
There must be something inappropriate in the way the town government handles and the attitude, the rhetoric is excessive, and the attitude is bad, but the starting point is not to do it in accordance with the requirements of the superiors, otherwise why is the attitude so tough, is there a document to support it?
The party secretary of this town has been dealt with in accordance with the law, and in any case, he has paid the price for his actions. Even Baidu's entry has changed, and he has become the former secretary of the town party committee.
If this matter is not exposed by the media, the grassroots government has two ways to solve it: one is the violent collection in the video, and the other is to legalize the confiscation decision through communication with the court when the growers violently refuse to pay and petition to make trouble. Courts or counties and townships all serve the same goal, and the two can only advance and retreat together, and it is impossible to dismantle each other!
Conflicting interests, a lose-lose situation
The main problem of this incident is that watching these landlords make a lot of money, they are red from the bottom to the top. The problem is not policy, but the interests of local and foreign contractors, the contractor changes the use of the land without permission, and it is normal for the local people to share the benefits of land appreciation. Both sides make sense, and the locals are more defensible, today they can turn grassland into farmland, and tomorrow they can turn farmland into factories. The problem is that the quality of local cadres is too low. Naturally, the court's decision can only restore the grassland to its original state, which is a lose-lose situation for both parties. That's why we didn't go to court. This is because this is a dispute over interests after illegally converting grassland into cultivated land! This matter is a lose-lose situation if it is handed over to the law.
This land is not cultivated land, and if it is handed over to the court, it will be returned for planting. Enterprises don't want to farm, and the local government can't get money. Stupid to go to court. The essence is that both parties are breaking the law, and everyone is covering it in private and making money. Now one party is gone, and it is scattered!