In recent days, cadres in Kailu Village in Inner Mongolia have become well-known for obstructing peasants from farming. It just so happened that I was studying for the land appraiser and real estate appraiser exams and had passed three of the four courses, and I had a certain amount of knowledge related to rural land policy. The village cadres are only debatable about the method of charging fees, but there is no problem with the fees themselves. In the end, these peasants must have to pay the money in accordance with the land policy.
In the comment area, many people took the rent as a rough house, and the tenant refuted the unreasonable charge by the landlord after the renovation was completed. This is a lack of understanding of land policy. Land lease is different according to the location, different uses (land in the same location, commercial, industrial, residential, woodland, grassland, etc. are charged differently), different forms of ownership (state-owned land is generally higher than the price of collective land), and the lease price is different
In order to make the best use of the land, the land on the mainland has a unified arrangement of uses by the state, and the use of land on the mainland must not be changed at will. The policy of returning farmland to forests in order to protect the environment is an example. In some cases, trees are planted on unsuitable cultivated land. The land in question was classified as grassland according to the criteria in the second national land survey, and it is not a wasteland encouraged by the policy. Even if there is a lease contract, due to the change of land use, it is necessary to approve and re-estimate the land rent according to the new use, and the farmers' input to improve the land will be taken into account when calculating the land rent.
Returning to the land involved, according to the latest notice, it is not the land under the contract, and the cultivation and use of the land outside the contract requires a fee. Under the current land tenure structure, rural land is collectively owned. If this part of the land that is not used without a contract is not paid, it infringes on the interests of other members of the collective. If the land in question is determined to be used as cultivated land in the third land survey and is outside the contract, it should be paid according to the new use and the new contract payment standard. It is necessary to consider the different land benefits brought by different uses, and the current price level. It is not possible to conclude the current lease contract at the price level of 30 years ago. Nor can contracts be concluded for cultivated land for grassland uses suitable for grazing. To do so would be to the detriment of the collective interest.
There is no problem with the fact that these village cadres who have been dealt with insist on charging fees according to the policy and the decision of the village collective (the news says that the villagers have collectively decided on the fee standard of 200 yuan per mu of land), but the fault lies in the way and method, and they are suppressed by public opinion that is not clear. I didn't understand the legal basis for charging fees myself, and my working methods were simple and crude.
However, the grassroots work is really not easy to do, and the so-called farmers only emphasized their investment in the land in front of the camera, and did not say that the land he planted was originally grassland and there were no contract procedures. To give an inappropriate example, the lawn in the community has been forcibly seized to grow vegetables for free, can the residents of the community agree?