The prohibition of reverse urbanization is open to question.

Jiang Daming, minister of land and resources and chief land inspector, said on January 10 that the reform of the rural homestead system should be based on the registration and certification of rights, adhere to the principle of one household and one house, and never allow urbanites to buy land and build houses in rural areas.

This statement caused an uproar on the Internet. Netizens almost overwhelmingly oppose the suggestion that "urbanites will never be allowed to buy land and build houses in rural areas".

So far, some officials do not know that what they say and do must be based on the law, still less do they know that clear legal concepts should be used to express policies. For example, here, as an official of the Ministry of Land, it is at least necessary to clarify how to define "urbanites" in law, and whether the "countryside" involved includes "villages in the city" and "urban-rural junctions". What about the areas where "peasant citizens" live in urban areas, who are college graduates who have transferred their hukou from the countryside and want to return to their hometown, real estate developers in the city and officials who approve the land? Is it a "city dweller"?

In fact, the term "city man" has no legal meaning. if officials want to carry out the new policy, they need to make a judicial interpretation of the concept of "city man" through legislation. In the absence of this point, the "new policy" issued by the Ministry of Land shows the characteristics of being unfounded in law. If such a "new policy" is to be launched strongly, we can only find a reason that is politically correct and has a certain authoritative status, so we use "anti-urbanization" as a hat to scare people.

We consider it "smooth urbanization" for farmers to live in cities and buy houses, and "reverse urbanization" for citizens to go to the countryside to operate and build houses, but both positive and negative causes and effects are included. "smooth urbanization" is not always progress, "anti-urbanization" may not be completely backward. Farmers leave their hometown to make a living in the city because their hope is not in the fields; urban residents go to the countryside to operate and live because they have found fields of hope. Officials, especially those at higher levels, should have an insight into this.

Housing prices in cities are ridiculously high, and citizens pay various costs to live in the countryside, which can actually reduce the number of homeless households and housing slaves and lighten the burden on the city. If the citizens give up the welfare of the government indemnificatory apartment to find their own way out, why should the functional departments of the government which are responsible for protecting people's livelihood and increasing the well-being of the people obstruct it?

Rural people can go to the city to buy houses, while urban people are not allowed to buy houses in the village, which obviously makes no sense. In the 1950s, some documents and laws deprived Chinese people of their freedom to live and move, stuck the path of rural residents moving to cities, and widened the gap between urban and rural areas in China, resulting in social and economic problems that are still difficult to eradicate. Now, after the state loosens the control on the relocation of farmers to cities for many years, the Ministry of Land is trying to control the relocation of urban residents to rural areas. This important statement or possible decision related to the future of society, what procedures will be legalized and how it will operate. We need to ask further questions.

In fact, if urban residents who cannot afford to buy houses in cities go to the countryside to buy land and build houses, it is bound to be beneficial to the people rather than to the local government. Because this will break the situation that some local officials monopolize land transactions, and then, local governments will charge less land transfer fees, the sales of houses built by real estate developers will be blocked, and the high housing prices in the city will be difficult to sustain. the unauctioned land in the city can no longer sell for a good price, the government's financial dividend on land will evaporate, and the government, banks, real estate developers and other strong groups will encounter the danger of breaking the interest chain.

The government expropriates land at a low price, sells it to real estate developers at a high price, and then sells it to urban residents at a high price after building a house. This joint venture model, which can best maximize the interests of strong groups, makes some officials desperate to defend it.

Some local officials and businessmen destroy and forcibly expropriate fertile land for profit, but show off under the banner of protecting cultivated land and safeguarding the interests of farmers. Isn't it necessary to protect the interests of farmers and the land? In fact, the best way is not to seize the farmers' right to dominate the land and the right to trade independently. Because farmers are the people who are most eager to protect their land, farmers know best how to dispose of and use their own land. Their autonomy is their fundamental interests, and with this right, they will naturally be able to achieve the dual goal of protecting land and affluent people.

The above remarks made by the Minister of Land and Resources are open to question.

At present, the "new urbanization" is being vigorously implemented, and one of its contents is to relax the restrictions on rural residents settling in small and medium-sized cities. this is undoubtedly an important reform measure to meet the aspirations of the majority of rural residents for a better life in cities and to give farmers the right to freedom of movement to a certain extent. However, if urban dwellers are still prohibited from choosing to settle in rural areas in an appropriate way, this is clearly a puzzling measure and is sending the wrong message.