Seems like ex-pats in Shanghai are boisterous on top of not obeying zoning rules. This is an excellent test case for Shanghai and property rights:
So the tension is laid out, in a classic form. In common law, the rights of the first one in place are superior to the second. Before the bars the street was quiet, so the renters above have a reasonable expectation that will continue. State intervention only exacerbated the situation, but brining in zoning rules, "you can be noisy until 10 pm."
The practical problem with rules in China is the Communist Party is woefully undermanned when it comes to the total life control assumed in such rules. In USA the cops can shut down a bar at 10pm, but unlikely to happen in China. But that is not the problem, the problem was the curfew to begin with.
After one bar opened, many more did too. Obviously, this is a money maker. The bar owners, with unhappy residents above, are not offering enough for the people to move. The unknown is how much are the bars making?
With private property and a free market, those buildings would belong to someone, who would be obliged to meet contractual obligations. The owner would get sued for renting a bar out below an apartment, or come up with some accommodation between the bar owner and the renter.
Like Hong Kong, there is no private ownership of land in China, so we are talking about the ownership of the buildings or use of land. China is struggling to get real property law right, and Hong Kong has a fascinating blend of socialism and common law in effect.
Back to the bars... clearly the rooms above the bars are worth more now that the bars are there. The bars attract high paying customers. Facilitate the renters in the auctioning off of their leases to the highest bidders. Then it will be the bartenders vs. the entire market instead of the bartenders vs the suffering renter. The renters would clean up on such a sale.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Miller said the bars will simply go out of business if they are forced to close at 10 pm: "It's when the expats are just getting warmed up."
Blaise understands that the buildings are old and the residents can easily hear the noise: "If I put myself in their position, I wouldn't like this place."
In a bid to mollify one resident, Blaise bought the man's room on the floor above his bar. He now uses the room as an office and the resident has moved to an apartment in a street 200 meters distant.
Chi said the bar owners considered buying the second- and third-floor rooms, but the plan fell through because the residents demanded unrealistic prices.
In June, the average price of a newly built residence in Shanghai was more than 28,400 yuan per square meter, according to the China Index Academy. Meanwhile, pre-owned apartments cost nearly 27,000 yuan per sq m, according to Soufun, an Internet real estate platform.
"My room is 15 square meters. If they paid me 10,000 yuan per square meter, how could I buy another apartment?" asked Liu.
So the tension is laid out, in a classic form. In common law, the rights of the first one in place are superior to the second. Before the bars the street was quiet, so the renters above have a reasonable expectation that will continue. State intervention only exacerbated the situation, but brining in zoning rules, "you can be noisy until 10 pm."
The practical problem with rules in China is the Communist Party is woefully undermanned when it comes to the total life control assumed in such rules. In USA the cops can shut down a bar at 10pm, but unlikely to happen in China. But that is not the problem, the problem was the curfew to begin with.
After one bar opened, many more did too. Obviously, this is a money maker. The bar owners, with unhappy residents above, are not offering enough for the people to move. The unknown is how much are the bars making?
With private property and a free market, those buildings would belong to someone, who would be obliged to meet contractual obligations. The owner would get sued for renting a bar out below an apartment, or come up with some accommodation between the bar owner and the renter.
Like Hong Kong, there is no private ownership of land in China, so we are talking about the ownership of the buildings or use of land. China is struggling to get real property law right, and Hong Kong has a fascinating blend of socialism and common law in effect.
Back to the bars... clearly the rooms above the bars are worth more now that the bars are there. The bars attract high paying customers. Facilitate the renters in the auctioning off of their leases to the highest bidders. Then it will be the bartenders vs. the entire market instead of the bartenders vs the suffering renter. The renters would clean up on such a sale.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment