Urban renewal bill discussion almost concluded, likely to come into force on Jan. 1
The Second Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL) has generally concluded the discussion over the bill that aims to establish the legal regime for urban renewal in Macau, the president of the committee, lawmaker Chan Chak Mo said yesterday in a media briefing after the committee meeting.
According to Chan, the discussion yesterday went “swifter than initially expected.” As such, the committee has already concluded the review of all the bill Articles. The only remaining matters are “a few details to be settled between the two juridical advisories [of the government and the AL].”
The president said that the committee has reviewed the new text delivered by the government at the end of the last legislative year and that the members were pleased with the changes made to the original bill.
Chan said that since the work is going more swiftly than expected (there was a second meeting scheduled for today to debate the bill that was canceled as unnecessary), he hopes that the bill can be raised to the plenary session for final voting in time for it to enter into force as planned on January 1, 2023.
Among the changes promoted by the government is the scope of the bill, which had sparked substantial criticism during the first reading.
Chan explained that the government has now amended the bill to include not only building reconstruction (as stated in the original text) but also building repairs, preservation, and other maintenance works.
“Before this section, the object and scope [of the bill] was very simple and only mentioned reconstruction. But now in addition to some new writing and clear mention of urban renovation in number 1 [of Article 1], there is also a new number 2 which clearly mentions the other types of restoration and rehabilitation works included in this law,” Chan explained, adding that this new draft has satisfied the lawmakers.
Another change relates to the clarification of the role of the Macau Urban Renewal Limited (MUR). Chan noted that earlier iterations were unclear on the participation and role of the company. However, “now in Article 4, numbers 1 and 2 have a clarification of the role of MUR.”
Simplified kick-off for urban renewal process
One of the most significant changes in the new version of the bill is the simplification of the initial procedures. Chan explained that the first version of the bill required the promoter of an urban renewal project to present a project and estimation of costs by a registered technician (architect, engineers, etc.). Now, the bill has dispensed with this requirement by allowing this first phase of the urban renewal project to be completed with a draft project and a rough estimation of costs, without the need to hire a professional office or company to complete this first step.
He explained that the purpose of this is to facilitate the process and ease the financial burden, as the initial step is intended only to gather opinions of unit owners to inform the decision regarding whether to commence an urban renewal project for a certain building.
“This first phase is a consultation with the unit owners. This is just to ascertain if the owners are likely to agree with the rebuild. We thought that the demand for a specialized technician was both time consuming and costly, so this requirement has been dropped. If there is enough consensus and the process can finally start, then there will be the need for the real project plan, but not at this early stage,” Chan explained.
Another important change has to do with protecting the rights of individual owners to live in their homes in the event of a change in the purpose of the building.
In the first version of the bill, if a majority of the owners agreed to reconstructing a building and changing its purpose from residential to commercial or industrial, they could go through an arbitration tribunal if a minority of owners did not agree. Conversely, in the final version of the bill, this will not possible when the right to live in a residential unit owned by an individual is on the line.
Changes in building purpose can only be made with 100% agreement of the owners or when the government is proposing to change the purpose of a certain land plot to reorganize a certain area or place.
“This will protect the right of a person, even if it is just one individual, and remove the risk of them losing their home if the purpose of the building is changed from residential to commercial,” Chan explained.
Rights of tenants also secured
Changes were also promoted regarding the right of the tenants occupying units of a building that is being proposed to be rebuilt or changed.
If a consensus has been achieved among owners and the proposal receives approval, owners must notify any tenants according to the civil code. This prescribes a notice period of 180 days for contracts of three or more years, 90 days for contracts between one and three years and more than 10 days for monthly contracts.
Chan said that members agreed that not only will this change accelerate the urban renewal process, but also eliminate the need to wait for the rental contract to expire while also protecting the rights of the tenants who will be entitled to receive compensation.
He also remarked that after the arbitrage or full consensus has been reached by all owners, no rental contracts can be signed. Any such agreements that are signed after consensus has been achieved will be considered void.
