Explosive Opinions on the 'One Household One Home Act'... Ongoing Controversy Over Infringement of Private Property Rights

23000 Opinions in Ten Days 'Unprecedented'
Mostly Opposed... Controversy Over Violation of Private Property Rights
Some Support... "Housing Speculation Must End"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Moon Jiwon] Over 23,000 opinions were submitted within ten days regarding the amendment to the Housing Basic Act, which explicitly states the fundamental principle of 'one household, one house' ownership and residence. Most of the feedback opposed the bill. Although the amendment aims to improve the increasingly unequal housing ownership structure, there are opinions that its passage will not be easy due to growing opposition citing 'infringement of private property rights' and other concerns.

According to the National Assembly Legislative Notice System as of 3:30 PM on the 2nd, 23,397 people submitted opinions on the partial amendment to the Housing Basic Act, which was primarily proposed by Jin Seong-jun, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea. The legislative notice period for this bill was from December 23 of last year until this day. Receiving over 20,000 opinions in ten days is highly unusual. Other bills typically receive fewer than 100 opinions even when there is significant interest.

The amendment mainly adds the following to the current basic principles of housing policy: ▲ one household, one house ownership and residence ▲ priority supply of housing to the homeless and actual residents ▲ prohibition of using housing for asset accumulation or speculative purposes.

In explaining the reason for the proposal, Representative Jin stated, "According to the 2019 Housing Survey, about 4 out of 10 households in Korea are homeless households," and added, "To ensure that citizens are effectively guaranteed the right to housing, housing should be prioritized for actual residents who are homeless, and housing should not be used as a means of asset accumulation or speculation."

Opinion on the Partial Amendment to the Basic Housing Act Proposed by Jin Seong-jun, Member of the Democratic Party of Korea (Photo by National Assembly Legislative Notice System screen capture)

The amendment sparked controversy over infringement of private property rights immediately after its proposal. Kim, who opposed the bill, said, "It is not right for the state to interfere and dictate without recognizing individual property." Kang stated, "This is a malicious law that makes multi-homeowners illegal through continuous regulation," and added, "Please listen to public opinion and expert groups and strive for effective supply measures."

Given that multi-homeowners are already being regulated through capital gains tax and comprehensive real estate tax, some argue that explicitly stating one household, one house ownership in the basic principles of housing policy is excessive. There is also significant criticism within the ruling party, as some lawmakers themselves own multiple homes. In fact, controversy arose when it was revealed that two of the twelve co-sponsors are multi-homeowners.

If the ruling party's wish to legislate the one household, one house principle is realized, there is concern that interest in the 'smart single house' will increase further, causing the value of houses in less preferred areas and types to decline, and demand to concentrate on apartments in Seoul or the Gangnam area, which many people prefer. Additionally, it is pointed out that if every household owns only one house, theoretically, private rental housing would disappear, making the policy unrealistic.

Although few, there are also opinions supporting the amendment. Yang said, "The country will survive only if speculators are eliminated by limiting ownership to one house per household," and added, "Lawmakers themselves must take the lead in normalizing housing prices, or the country's future is bleak." Kim stated, "Only when speculative buying and selling of houses disappear will fair housing be distributed to all."

The amendment merely declaratively adds 'one household, one house' to the basic principles pursued by the Housing Basic Act; it does not define multi-home ownership as illegal or impose penalties. Some of the submitted opinions may be used in the legislative review process but have no binding force. Nevertheless, the reason many people oppose it is interpreted as reflecting significant distrust in the ruling party and government’s real estate policies.

Opinions within the ruling party are also divided. After the controversy arose following the bill’s proposal, Kim Tae-nyeon, the Democratic Party floor leader, attempted to ease tensions by stating that "even if it is a private proposal, major livelihood bills such as those related to real estate must be discussed with the Policy Committee." On December 31 of last year, Noh Woong-rae, a senior member of the Democratic Party, evaluated the Moon Jae-in administration’s real estate policy on a radio show, saying it was "difficult to give it more than 50 points."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.