How can rural dilapidated housing renovation achieve secure living?

"No worries about food or clothing, education and healthcare are covered by the government, but the hard part of security is safe housing." In the fight against poverty, one major difficulty is housing: some remote mountain areas have harsh living conditions, yet a small number of residents are unwilling to relocate; people want to build big houses even without money, preferring to go deeply into debt.

For rural dilapidated housing renovation, should the wishes of the people be respected, or should long-term considerations be taken into account? A reporter recently conducted a related investigation in Huize County, Qujing City, Yunnan Province.

To relocate or not to relocate?

Government-led, guiding residents to move to livable areas

A dozen or so households, a stretch of mountain, harsh living conditions, "the land cannot support the people who live on it" - the poverty of many farming households in Yunnan is directly related to their living environment. Even so, a small number of residents are still unwilling to relocate. "I know it's convenient down there for transportation, and the conditions are good for kids going to school and elderly people seeing doctors, but I was born here, my land is here, I'm not moving!"

Xiao Shuyao, deputy secretary of Zhehai Town in Huize County, told reporters that some village groups are so remote that the money spent on building roads could relocate the entire village to a place with convenient transportation. The construction cost of public facilities such as water, electricity and roads is high, and if poor residents in remote mountain areas still live scattered, the problems of children going to school and residents seeing doctors will be difficult to fundamentally solve.

"Government-led, guiding residents to move to livable areas as much as possible." Huize County's approach is to give priority to including several types of farming households in the relocation scope - those threatened by natural disasters such as landslides and mudslides, those with poor transportation conditions, those living scattered with poor development conditions and high infrastructure construction costs - and to mobilize poor households to move to livable areas.

"There are subsidies for relocation, and those who stay put will have their dilapidated houses reinforced to ensure housing safety." In the Hengduan Mountain area of northwestern Yunnan, local authorities use policy differences to guide residents to move to livable areas.

Repair the old or build new?

What can be reinforced should not be demolished, avoiding blind comparisons

"Build a big house, and it's easier to get a bride." Wang Chunli, a villager from Wayao Village in Zhehai Town, told reporters that in rural areas, the sign of whether life is going well is housing.

Ensuring housing safety can be achieved either by repair and reinforcement or by demolishing the old and building new. Repair and reinforcement saves money, but not all poor households are willing to reinforce their houses. "Although it's safe after reinforcement, it's still an old house." The reporter's investigation found that in rural areas, especially poor mountain areas, there is a phenomenon of comparing house-building, and some households even build three stories for a family of three.

"The later it gets, the better the policies will be, and the more subsidies there will be, so let's wait and see." In recent years, government subsidies for rural house-building have been growing continuously, which has also led a small number of farming households to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

Blind comparisons will cause a waste of resources. Government subsidies are mainly to ensure housing safety; houses are not better the bigger they are, and meeting living needs is enough. Liu Zuming, deputy secretary of the Huize County Party Committee, said: "House-building subsidies only guarantee basic housing safety. If safety can be ensured through repair and reinforcement, then there will be no demolition and new construction; for those with slightly better economic conditions, they can contribute some themselves and the government will subsidize some to build new houses and improve housing conditions. In short, residents building houses should act according to their means, and it is best if the houses are suitable and safe without adding economic burden."

Return to the village or go to the city?

Precise policies, guiding residents to live in concentrated areas

The reporter learned that some residents take their whole family out, and some have even bought houses elsewhere, but still build new houses in their hometown to pass on to future generations. However, few young people are willing to return to the village. Some big houses built with years of savings are actually unoccupied.

From the perspective of economic, social and population development trends, the day a house in a remote rural area is completed is the day it depreciates. Liu Zuming told reporters: To guide villagers to live in centralized resettlement sites, Huize County gives each household 50,000 to 80,000 yuan in subsidies for centralized resettlement according to different circumstances such as degree of poverty and poor population, while subsidies for scattered house-building are far lower than for centralized resettlement; to guide residents to buy new houses in the county seat, Huize County stipulates: "Buying an existing house in the county seat, demolishing the old rural house, and not trading it within ten years - those who meet these three conditions will receive a subsidy of 60,000 yuan."

Liang Zhiqiang, secretary of the Huize County Party Committee, believes that changing residents' housing concepts requires not only the guidance of government policies, but also scientific village construction planning. Huize County adapts measures to each household, strictly enforces subsidy procedures, limits subsidy standards, focuses on helping the households with the most dangerous housing and the poorest economic conditions solve their most basic safe housing needs, and strives to spend money where it is most needed.