Residents: property is to be introduced for the district without consulting all owners
Escrows: $1 million advanced for property management and $1 million for maintenance
“is it lawful for us to pay without consulting us?” in recent days, a family home has reported to the chinese merchants that “we have both office and residential premises at house 129 of the goose tower road, which are of a `rehabilitation' nature and are registered under personal names. The entire courtyard was previously hosted by the shaanxi energy quality monitoring and inspection (eqec), and recently the institute had to introduce a market-based property industry without consulting all owners, and the proposed property company and fee rates had been publicized.”
Reason for event
Office and residential
It's full of parking
On the morning of 13 may, a journalist from the chinese merchant press arrived at the family home. There are four multi-storey residential buildings in the compound, the most significant of which are on the west side of the goose tower road and on the north side of the west side of the village, a multi-storey l-type office building, which is located in the energy complex. According to the owner, there are 167 family homes with a total building area of 11394. 47 square metres and office buildings with a total area of thousands of square metres。
In addition to these main buildings, there is a flat between building 1 and building 2 on the eastern side of the compound, which serves as a centre for activities for the elderly; a boiler room on the western side of building 1 and building 3 on the eastern side; a door in the easternmost part of the northern half of the l building, which is located on the northern side of the main gate in the northern part of the quarter; and two curtain garages on the western side of the aisle below building 4. It's also run by energy。
The largest spaces in the compound are between building 1, building 2, building 3, building 4, and office building on the north, where two rows of cars are parked on both sides of the residential building, leaving only one road in the middle and the entire yard looks full。
Many units used to work here
Now, the power house's home
According to the old owner of the compound, the yard was built in the 1980s in the former shaanxi department of standards. In october 1999, the former shaanxi provincial standards bureau merged with the shaanxi provincial metrology department to establish the shaanxi provincial quality technical oversight authority. Following the consolidation of the new institutions in november 2018, the former provincial quality technical supervisory authority was merged into the shaanxi provincial market supervisory authority. In this connection, there are several departmental departments, including the departmental department, the metrics institute, the quality inspectorate, the intelligence service and the energy institute. Following the changes, the homes in the compound were registered in their personal names。
The shaanxi energy quality monitoring and inspection centre, originally known as the provincial coal inspection station, was established in 1980 as a formal enterprise with a national and three provincial testing centres. Before the energy institute was located here, units such as the quality control institute were also located here, and only the energy institute is still here. Since it is the family home of the unit, ordinary property management is held by the unit, and owners are not required to pay property fees. When the other units were moved, they are now hosted by the energy station.”
"to introduce property for the community
But not all owners were consulted."
According to the owner, at the end of last year, the institute began to develop the social management of the brewery, and this year, in the form of a “pre-construction unit tender for property”, it commissioned an agency to tender for a small-area tender for property services, with the participation of three property enterprises, the results of which were published on 13 april and one property company winning the bid. The quotations were $0. 65/m2 for real estate, $6 for garbage/household/month, $150 for ground parking/car/month, and 70 per cent for vacant housing。
“if it is the legal introduction of a market for small areas, we can understand, but the problem is that all owners have not been consulted. Let us pay, but we are not consulted. In our view, this practice is clearly contrary to the relevant provisions of the civil code. The entire bidding process, without the participation of the owner, should be illegal and ineffective. The institute has previously organized two communication events with owners, but the number of owners present is small and does not represent the views of all owners.”
In response to a challenge from the owners, a written response was provided on 14 april by the agent tender agency and energy。
According to the reply, this was done in the light of the guidance on the separation of work for the family of employees of state-owned enterprises in the area of “3 for the first profession” (som (2016) 45), which explicitly requires that, from 2019 onwards, state-owned enterprises no longer in any way bear the costs associated with the “3 for the first profession” in the family of employees. The energy institute is the pre-construction property management unit commissioned by the construction unit and “the present selection is a transitional arrangement for the pre-construction property services phase and does not permanently determine the property company”
The response, however, did not dispel the owner's doubts that energy was a business, not a state enterprise, and could guidance on the separation of “three for one” transfers be applied? Second, in what capacity does the energy agency introduce “front property” to the community
In response to the re-challenges by the owners, the tender agent again provided a written response in may, but the reference continues to be based on guidance on the separation of state enterprises from the “three for one” sector, as well as on statements in the relevant laws and regulations regarding construction units and prior property. From the text of the reply, it appears that energy is aware that it is not a construction unit and considers itself to be “a permanent undertaking of pre-family property management services with the formal authorization of the construction unit”. But how can the “front property” authorize its own recruitment and introduction
Goose towers government: no commercial housing development unit, no previous property management system applicable by law
On 7 may, the gooseta district government provided a written response to the owner of the information via the citizens ' helpline 12345 regarding the selection of the property for the energy home。
According to the response, “the management model of the pre-payment, escrow sub-districts, which are subject to policy rigidity, is no longer sustainable, and it is imperative that the sub-districts introduce property management subjects through legal compliance to ensure the continuity of day-to-day management services”
The following information has been provided to the unit (i. E. The energy institute): housing in this sub-district is of a publicly owned nature (rehabilitation of houses) and belongs to the family homes of the unit, not the commercial housing sub-divisions of market-based development, and there are no cases in which real estate development enterprises (building units) choose to hire business services. “there are no commercial housing development units in this sub-region, and the previous property management system is not applicable by law. The introduction of property management is subject to a legal vote by the general assembly of owners and to the conclusion of a written property services contract between the board of owners (or a jointly commissioned representative of the owner) and the property service enterprise, specifying the content of the services, standards, fees and the use of maintenance funds. The community has made a clear recommendation to the energy institute to take the lead as soon as possible in organizing the owners of the sub-districts, to organize, in accordance with the law, their own assemblies, to guarantee the owners' rights to information, participation and choice, and to consult jointly with owners on the administration of the sub-district property.”
At the same time, it was made clear that “country offices will not be able to do so
The subject covered by document no. 45 is the removal of the family homes of state-owned enterprises.”
On 10 may, mr. Qi, a member of the house of family, signed an application for appointment to the regional housing authority of goose towers and a letter of complaint to the board of the market supervision authority of shaanxi province. According to the owners, in the absence of a conference of owners and without a vote by the owner, the energy provider, without the permission to produce the tender unilaterally, entrusts the tender agent to tender a tender to determine the presence of a property company in the district in order to impose the provision of property services and the collection of property fees, in serious violation of the relevant laws and regulations. On 8 may, the street office of the goose tower informed the energy department through the community that it was required to follow the procedure of joint decision-making by the owner, as required by the civil code, but that the energy department had ignored it, and on 9 may it issued an official notice confirming the award for a property company. “the authorities concerned are therefore requested to perform their supervisory duties in accordance with the law.”
“the institute organized two symposia, which have not yet been introduced”
On the afternoon of 13 may, journalists visited the goose tower road community and the goose tower street。
A deputy director of the goose taru community told the journalists that two previous seminars had been organized by energy, with the participation of some 20 residents, mainly to agree not to introduce property. If the owners of the selected property companies do not agree, the owners are allowed to set up self-governing organizations to hire and import the property themselves. But there are many elderly people living in the compound and no young people willing to come out and do this. Since then, energy has decided to introduce property, which has not yet been introduced。
On 15 may, the goose tower district housing authority provided a written response to the owner who had submitted his application for employment: “on the alleged irregularities in the selection of a property enterprise at family house 129. On 14 may 2026, our bureau issued a working contact letter on family home-related issues at goose tower street, requesting it to investigate and verify the process of selecting a property service enterprise at family house 129 and, if it is found that there is a problem involving the irregular selection of a property service enterprise, to direct and supervise the original management unit of the district to correct it in accordance with the law and to ensure legal compliance with subsequent selection.”
“on the identification of areas for the management of property at family college 129. Where the district belongs to an undivided property service area, it shall be determined and made public in accordance with article 17 of the shaanxi property services regulations.”
Statements by the parties
"the cost of managing the property advanced by energy is over $1 million."
On 19 may, 23 homeowners, energy houses, goose tower streets, the goose tower road community and chinese merchants, in contact with the parties, held a live communication meeting on the fourth floor of the energy institute. It was named “third symposium on social management of property at family college 129 goose tower road”。
The head of the energy office explained that since 2020, all property management costs in the family homes have been funded entirely by energy, and the provincial directorates and other units have not been apportioned. The cumulative cost of property management advanced by energy has amounted to more than $1 million, in addition to the cost of repairing the sinking of building 2. The 2025 audit report clearly identified these as non-compliant expenditures and ordered that the energy deadlines be changed. If the institute continued to do so, it would face even greater compliance risks and financial losses. The purpose of the introduction of market-based properties is to ensure that family homes continue to function well。
The first owner, speaking on the floor, asked whether the provisions relating to the transfer of “three for one” were applicable to state enterprises and whether energy was an enterprise and could be applied? The same question was raised by the second speaker。
The director of the energy institute said that reforms were now on the table, from the national to the provincial level, and that the institute was not an enterprise but a self-supporting unit. Thus, reference is made to the provisions relating to the “three for one” transfer of state enterprises. However, the owners of the questions did not agree that they could not be applied at will. The second speaker also suggested that, if a market-based property industry was to be introduced, it should be supported in setting up as soon as possible a general conference of owners, an elected business council and the legal introduction of market-based property。
It is also the view of the owners that employees with multiple units in the family home should share some of the costs, and that parking fees for the premises could also be used as a way to settle property management funds。
The owner has suggested that the other family homes of the provincial bureaus remain in the custody of the unit, and has not heard that there is a financial audit problem. Why can't energy houses be the same as these family homes
In response, the director of energy stressed that all households were owners of full ownership of the property certificate and that the socialization of property in the family homes was no longer an “optional question”, but a “necessary answer”。
“shall office buildings, garages, etc. Bear the cost of property by area?”
Another owner wrote several comments, which were read out on the spot:
1. The management of family homes by the energy institute is commissioned by the provincial directorates and is currently a rented office building, which is not owned by an owner. Is there a written commission from the provincial authority of the company that imported energy
2. According to feedback from the gooseta district self-regulation and housing authority, family college 129 gooseta road is a piece of land and is not divided into a property management area. Therefore, should office buildings, garages and old-age centres share the cost of property on a space-based basis
3. The introduction of market-based properties requires a vote by the owner, with a written commission from the energy ownership authority? If not, there shall be no voting rights。
4. Is parking services or space occupancy? In the case of space occupancy charges, the public proceeds shall be owned by the owner as a whole, after deduction of reasonable costs, the use of which shall be decided jointly by the owner; in the case of parking management fees, the service standards and accounting details of $150 shall be indicated。
In response, the responsible officials of ine responded that, in 2012, the then provincial directorate of quality monitoring had issued a document to ine on the management of property, entrusting it with management. Over the years, the provincial energy institute has developed a de facto management of the family home, so that the institute has the condition to organize a reform of the property society。
“on the issue of property rights, the property rights of all office buildings are vested in the provincial government, while the energy offices are paid for, and the property certificates and land certificates of the yard are in our hands. The compound belongs to a large certificate, which is divided below, the office building project belongs to the provincial government and the property title of the residential building belongs to all the residents. The energy institute, as the unit using the office building, shall have the right to use part of the parking space in the yard.”
With regard to whether or not the institute had voting rights, the officer-in-charge said that the office building was allocated by a higher authority and that all users had documents that should be considered as owners. The head of energy institute added that, in 2008, the provincial directorate of quality monitoring issued a document on the payment for the purchase of the premises of the former provincial inspection office, “we paid $7. 7 million later, equivalent to the purchase of the building, but the purchase of the right to use it. The property registration unit is the service centre for agency services in shaanxi province and the premises, including the back yard, are owned by the provincial government.”
Should a market-based property be introduced, should office buildings also pay property fees? On this issue, the energy managers are of the view that the office building should not be included in the property service area, but that the associated buildings in the energy complex should be paid for. The question is, however, how can office buildings be excluded from the division of property management areas, with relevant methods and prescribed criteria, which are usually managed as a property area on a whole plot
"you can't just take services without paying for property."
Journalists questioned the previous bidding exercise: if the property company came in, who should sign the property service contract? The self-government organization of owners had not yet been established, and if it had been signed with energy, could the contract bind all owners? In order to advance the socialization of property, it is necessary to establish self-governing organizations of owners, i. E., owner assemblies and boards, with legitimate subjects, in order to truly guarantee the rights of owners. The owner may decide, on the basis of the actual situation in the family home, whether to opt out of the property, exercise self-management or introduce a market-based property; he may also make a better decision on the specific model of management of the property that should be based on a fee-based, dry-up system before deciding to introduce a market-based property。
The head of the city of goose tower street social network centre said that the socialization of the property management of family homes was a trend and a necessity, so there was no need to dwell on the matter; rights and obligations had to be matched, and there was no need to simply take advantage of services but not to pay for them. The housing authority has sent a working letter to the neighbourhood, advising the neighbourhood and the community to intervene in the matter in the hope of self-government of the owners by convening a conference of owners as required by the civil code. “if owners need to set up an owner's congress, the streets and communities will be fully supported.”
Following live communication between the parties, three basic points of consensus were reached:
The first is that energy sources do not have the subject matter of bidding for the introduction of market-based properties, and that the current process of introducing property should be discontinued immediately。
The second is that the family home should organize, under the guidance of the streets and the community, a conference of temporary owners to determine the way in which property can be socialized by voting。
Thirdly, all parties should work in accordance with their respective responsibilities after the meeting。
Expert recommendations
Free community construction and social management of property
On 21 may, officials of the shaanxi department agency services centre informed the chinese newspaper correspondent that the registration of title to the energy office building was not at the shaanxi department agency services centre, but at the shaanxi department market supervision authority。
Following this live communication, journalists interviewed several owners. In order to advance the socialization of the property of the family home, the owners felt that there were a number of more critical issues that needed to be addressed: first, is the division of the property management area, or is the office building and the dwelling the same property management area? Second, property rights are subject to registration on the basis of a certificate, and the authorization of the property ownership unit is required if the energy firm is to participate as an owner in the autonomy of the owner. Thirdly, how can a family home with no habit of paying? Some of these issues need to be addressed by the relevant departments and others require much advocacy and guidance, which is not easy。
According to chen fengshan, a beijing community governance expert, there are serious difficulties in socializing the management of property in family homes that have long been unpaid. The former property fees were paid by the units, but the state's fiscal policy and financial auditing requirements are now becoming more stringent and do not allow for the exchange of property fees or reimbursement of property fees for employees. The unit's expenditure on property costs is not approved, and without a source of funding, it can only be charged to employees for property costs or supplemented by parking fees. The owners, who do not have to pay property fees for long periods of time, are now suddenly forced to pay property fees, which must be psychologically difficult. This requires a wide range of prior communication with owners。
He suggested that, on an experimental basis, a property company willing to do the pre-input could be invited to the family home for property management, wind lifting, maintenance of facilities and equipment, and greening, which would be equivalent to the pre-input free of charge for the purpose of the project, before the start of the fee period. Social property management is slowly being introduced through community-building. There is a problem with charging owners, whether in terms of legitimacy or reasonableness, if they are to be introduced directly into the market by property units. The chinese merchants are journalists
