Amendments to the Article 100 Commission were announced – Tejaratnews
According to Tejarat News, the mission of the Article 100 Commission has reached its end with two moves by the parliament in the direction of amending the law on municipalities. Due to the “two-sided text” in the law of the 1930s, the commissions of Article 100, instead of denying the possibility of construction violations through the votes issued – according to the report of the Majlis Research Center – became a tool of abuse for the distribution of real estate rent in cities. The finalized plan to remove the Article 100 Commission has given all citizens “permission to report construction corruption” which, if approved by the parliament, municipalities will be required to issue only “destruction” orders instead of “fines”.
Whistling against city dwellers
The 2019 plan of parliamentarians to eliminate the property rent distribution tool in municipalities and of course between a group of buildings, after two years of considerable delay in the relevant commissions, will probably be considered in the floor until the end of this year. In a behind-the-scenes report on the misuse of Article 100 of the Municipal Law, the research arm of the Parliament has called for the approval of an updated version of this legal article in order to save cities from city dwellers. The prominent and progressive feature of this plan is the recognition of “whistleblowing” to identify and report construction violations, which, if an enforcement mechanism is provided, can be a factor in saving the city from the hands of city dwellers.
In its expert report regarding the necessity of amending this legal article, the research center has stated that this law is now used as a tool to circumvent the law by some businessmen active in the field of construction investment. . In this report, the Article 100 Commission is mentioned and emphasized as “a step in the process of construction violations”: “Over time, this commission has changed its nature as a legal tool for monitoring construction violations, and sometimes it has become a step in the process of construction violations for Builders and earning money for municipalities has been transformed, and practically the position and purpose of the legislator to prevent violations that were prepared with the tools of demolition and tin building or deterrent fines, has in practice become a “customary way to pay the costs of unauthorized constructions” and share It has an important role in urban disturbances.
As long as this amendment is not made, two groups will benefit from the current so-called “open end” rules in Article 100 of the Municipal Law; A group of owners and builders are always looking for urbanism; In the sense that they want to build beyond the criteria and permits given to them by the urban development rules. These extra-legal demands are often of over-density, over-building or change of use. The second group of beneficiaries of the current inefficient law are the municipalities, whose clear conflict of interest in the orders of the Article 100 commission causes them to impose fines instead of demolishing unauthorized constructions, and to compensate for their financial deficit, they turn this commission into an unhealthy source of income for the city. do The result of the exploitation of these two minority groups is the threat to the comfort, peace and safety of citizens due to the increase of extra-legal constructions and outside the rules of detailed plans.
Points of the amended version of Article 100
The plan that the parliament is pursuing to amend Article 100 of the Municipal Law contains outstanding strengths that, if approved, could lead to a fundamental change in the prevention of construction violations. One of the most prominent points of the new plan is that citizens get a “whistleblowing” permit and the municipality is also obliged to deal with the violations that are brought to their attention in this way. The purpose of whistle-blowing is that citizens can identify violations and corruption and bring it to the attention of the municipality from the foreseen sources. The municipality is also obliged to investigate these cases and deal with them immediately if found to be true.
According to the note of a proposed plan to amend this legal article, the municipality will be required to stop operations immediately after becoming aware of a violation of the provisions of the permit, whether it is announced by the supervising engineer or reported by citizens or organizations and executive bodies. to prevent civil and construction and to warn the owner or builder to take action within 10 days after notification to rectify the violation and bring the building into compliance with the construction permit.
If the owner or the builder refuses to fix the violation, in the next step it will be the responsibility of the municipality, after obtaining an order from the prosecutor, through its agents in the capacity of bailiffs and with the cooperation of the police officers, to destroy what was built against the provisions of the permit. Act. In this way, in the alternative plan, another long-standing problem in dealing with construction violations has been solved; However, if this note is approved, the municipal officials will be able to intervene in the judgment of the judicial officer. Also, the spirit of the new plan of the parliament for handling construction violations contains two other features for the benefit of the city and citizens. One feature is that the objectivity of the Article 100 commission has been lost, and in fact, contrary to the current law, a specific group to legalize construction violations has not been highlighted in it. In addition, the word “fine” has been removed from the content of the new plan, and contrary to the current law, municipalities have not been given the authority to deal with violations or not.
Of course, the research center advised the MPs to separate three groups of violations from minor violations in approving the amendment of the law, and as a rule, if a fine is foreseen in the law, it will be only for minor violations. The research arm of the parliament has considered major and speculative safety violations to require serious legal action and stated: by separating these violations from petty violations such as minor changes in the dimensions of stairs or doors and windows, in order to avoid creating a wave of dissatisfaction with the issuance of many cases of petty violations A solution should be thought of. This solution will usually be in the form of a fine, but it is not supposed to be used for major violations such as the construction of additional buildings outside of the permit conditions. The clarity of the parliament’s plan regarding the demolition of constructions outside the permit criteria is its strength, if it is approved in this way, it will save the cities from the hands of city dwellers.
Sourcethe world of economy