My current place (for the moment, ’cause we’re scheduled to close sale of it at the end of this month) was built on land formerly occupied by other residences, and the owners of those places were able to get homes in the new complex. However, for them, it wasn?€™t a complete swap; they got the title to a new apartment, but received only a heavy subsidy to the new home?€™s purchase price ?€“ not the home in full.

Nearby, another building is going through the zoning process for development and construction. It will take perhaps seven years or so before the process runs full-term. I?€™ve watched this from its inception, and the landowners directly affected are quite pleased, since they?€™ll get dramatically better dwellings, worth much more than their current places. The landowners nearby ?€“ those who will be impacted by the new development ?€“ are generally displeased, for a few reasons.

i was gonna write something nasty but quite sensible for living in Korea, but I’ve forgot what that was. Do what you think is right - all that matter is karma. things in Korea are what they are. When in Rome… ( I was how things are in Rome/Korea is…).

Ohm Nara Shivaya

As for renters rights here in Korea, I am sure there are others here that can enlighten you further but having dealt with this recently myself I have learned some interesting facts about it. In the case the owner wants the tenants to move out before the end of their lease, the owner is usually required to give the tenants money to move with and usually 45-60 days notice. The tenants do not have to move and can fight it. On this issue, Korean courts tend to side with the tenant rather than the landlord, particularly if the lease money has been attached to the title of the property in the form of a lien (?????¸??¤???). Not surprisingly, a large percentage of landlords do not want to put a lien on their property because it limits the landlords net worth on paper, limits the landlords use of the property to borrow against (which would in effect be akin to borrowing double against the property) and guarantees the tenants rights a little more definitely. A key issue here is whether or not the tenants accept the money to move. Once that money has been accepted, that is the same as indicating the tenants agree to the request of the owner to move out. In the case of apartments that are slated for redevelopment, the same principals hold true-the tenants must be given money to move out and they have to get their lease money back. I don?€™t think it too bold to say that redevelopment takes time, from the time that an area is marked for redevelopment until the time it is actually redeveloped usually it takes at least a few years and then there are always demonstrations by the people who don?€™t want to move or the businesses that will suffer as a result of the people leaving or the people who live nearby whose homes are not slated to be redeveloped who do not want the noise or dust that would accompany the redevelopment.

Because there is the risk that the government will back away from a redevelopment project or that it may take them a very long time to get to it there are some risks involved with investing in this type of property UNLESS you can purchase it when it is just a run down apartment and then see its value skyrocket because of speculation at which point you can sell and take what gains you make with out having to wait. Usually, the value of the apartment is very high while the amount that these homes bring in the form of leases tends to be low. The understanding is, and usually there is a clause in the lease contract to this end, that should the area be redeveloped the tenant waives all rights to stay in the apartment and they will still be given their moving money plus notice to move.

I own an older ????ŒŒ??¸ that I would love to have torn down and rebuilt into a Brownstone or Prugio or Chai. But that’s a little different, because I actually own the place. If I had a renter here, they might not be so keen on moving out, especially if they had lived here a long time (this actually was an issue when I bought the place and played landlord for four months).

Do the renters have rights? What are the right? Do the owners have the right to refuse? In the case of people who own older ????ŒŒ??¸ where things are already zoned for ????ŒŒ??¸, they are usually getting a sweet deal (bigger and newer places in exchange for a share of the actual land they own). But what about people whose regular homes or small semi-commercial buildings are being knocked down in the name of redevelopment? Like the people who owned or lived in the apartment blocks along the Ch’??nggyech’??n River, or the people living in the older homes in Ich’on-dong just south of the military base (just to the northwest of Ich’on Station on the blue line).

Last year I went to the Ichon area to take pictures of the old colonial-era and post-war era homes there, before they got torn down, and some people cautiously came out of some homes and followed me around a bit and then asked me if I was from the BBC (why the BBC specifically, I’m not sure). My Korean is less than perfect, but I’m pretty sure that they were saying they owned these places and the government was forcing them out and thugs were being sent in on a regular basis by the construction companies to push them out by August (last year). Apparently they weren’t being offered a fair settlement for their homes, which were old but which were also on very valuable land. Some of the people had been there for half a century.

Anyway, I wonder what is considered a fair settlement when redevelopers decide you’re going to move. I wonder who is on the side of the law in this case. (And for those foreign citizens among us who think that unfair treatment during encounters with the law is primarily “because I’m a foreigner,” this kind of thing demonstrates that powerless Korean citizens also get reamed by people with power and/or means).