Participant Autonomy 21: "A 'New' Plan Must Be Established for the Eodeungsan Tourist Complex Development Project"

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Cho Hyung-joo] A civic group urged both Gwangju Metropolitan City and Seojin Construction to come up with new measures and concrete plans as the Eodeungsan Tourist Complex development project is faltering.

The Eodeungsan Tourist Complex development project, planned in 2005 and started in 2006, currently has only the golf course completed, and with a need to reconsider the project from scratch, negotiations are on the brink of collapse.

On the 25th, Participation and Autonomy 21 stated in a press release, "This breakdown should serve as an opportunity to establish clear standards and principles that everyone can agree on."

They added, "Gwangju Metropolitan City bears a significant responsibility for the prolonged stagnation of the Eodeungsan Tourist Complex project," pointing out that "the grand cause of the project, which is 'development of Eodeungsan for citizens' and the development of a tourist complex guaranteeing public interest, has continuously been pushed back by the logic of corporate profitability."

The priority development of the golf course is a result that shows the lack of principles and political power in Gwangju's administration, which has been pressured by the logic of ensuring corporate profitability.

The group argued, "The corporate behavior of demanding the guarantee of the status as the preferred negotiation partner without fulfilling basic obligations is a byproduct of such lack of principles and weak vision in Gwangju's administration," adding, "If principles are again compromised here, the Eodeungsan Tourist Complex development project is highly likely to degenerate into an interest-driven project, once again pushed by corporate demands prioritizing profitability."

They further demanded, "Gwangju should take this opportunity to renew the project's vision, principles, and goals," and "prepare a persuasive vision and principles that citizens can empathize with, and create a new development plan that can properly start with the participation and support of the Gwangju community members."

They also questioned Seojin Construction's social responsibility.

Participation and Autonomy 21 said, "Another reason for this breakdown is Seojin's attitude of caring only about maintaining its status as the preferred negotiation partner, disregarding citizens," explaining, "The conflict between Gwangju Metropolitan City and Seojin Construction revolves around how to interpret the bidding guidelines from the 2019 public offering; Gwangju insists on an interpretation based on the Tourism Promotion Act, while Seojin Construction claims its position is justified through an interpretation based on the Private Investment Act."

They continued, "The bidding guidelines are the most prioritized regulations in project progress, and the 2019 guidelines were prepared with the Tourism Promotion Act as the primary basis," pointing out, "Despite this situation, Seojin Construction's attempt to reduce the performance bond by citing other laws does not seem legitimate."

They also emphasized, "The performance bond is a fund that the project operator can fully recover if the project proceeds normally," and "If Seojin's commitment to the project is clear, the amount of the performance bond should not be a factor leading to the breakdown of negotiations."

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