【新唐人2011年12月6日讯】中共喉舌媒体说，到今年10月底为止，有“1000万套保障房开工”。经济专家觉得匪夷所思，因为在各种基本条件相同的情况下，今年的生产力如何一下子比去年提高90%？业界人士说，这是又一次大跃进。
《新华网》12月4号报导，截至今年10月底，全国开工建设保障房超过1000万套，比原计划提前1个月完成目标任务。《新华网》说，中华大地上，迅速掀起了推进保障房建设的热潮。
不过，房地产界人士分析，1000万套保障房是“不可能完成的任务”。
12月2号，北京市“华远地产股份有限公司”董事长任志强，他在《华尔街日报》发表文章指出，如今“保障性住房”的大规模建设又进入了“大跃进”的时代，再一次重复着中国计划经济完全“不顾及经济发展条件”、“不顾生产能力”和“不讲科学道理”的错误。
任志强在文中详细分析，官方下达的1000万套保障房的指标，目前在土地、资金、生产能力这三个必要条件上都无法实现。
首先，保障房的土地无法用拍卖等方式收回投入的成本，征地相对比较困难，而如果都用商品房用地去充抵，就无法保障商品房的供给和降低商品房房价，因此会在经济上造成巨大损失，没有哪个地方政府愿意去干。
其次，住房建设部只计算了1000万套保障房的建安成本，没有包括土地的开发成本、征地拆迁的成本、市政交通，教育医疗配套的成本等等。因此地方政府的实际支出会翻倍，无疑钱是一个重要的限制性条件。
另外，根据1998年以来中国房屋新开工、施工、竣工面积的统计数据，新增住宅竣工面积每年仅仅以几千万平方米的速度在增长，而今年一下要新建1000万套保障性住房，按平均每套75平方米的面积计算，竣工建筑总量约为7.5亿平方米，几乎在2010年的基础上增加了90%，
政治经济评论家草庵居士：“中共要求建1000万套保障房啊，真的是一个大跃进。即使按照他们目前所规划的，大约在六、七十平米的话，这个是一个相当大的面积。在中国现在面临的经济危机，整个经济状况，地方财政缺钱的情况下，这个保障房的泡沫啊，是不可能实现的一个事情。”
住房与城乡建设部一位官员在稍早前接受媒体采访时承认，全国已开工的1000万套保障房中约三分之一属于“挖坑待建”。有些地方甚至将奠基仪式作为开工的标志，铲点土就算开工，或者只是给媒体做做样子。
而为了完成1000万套的开工计划，很多地方仓促采购、施工、和监理。11月16号，南京岱山保障房建设工地就被网友曝光使用“瘦身”钢筋。
南昌刘先生：“他那个钢筋瘦身以后，他就可以多卖钱。监管部门，请他们吃顿饭，塞一个红包，没事了！埋到水泥里面去，当时不说，后面人看不到。那么受害的还是消费者，买房子的人。你看看中国多少豆腐渣工程呢，都是这样造成的。”
根据国内媒体统计，2010年之前，中国住房开工量与国内钢材和水泥的销售数据是完全吻合的，但是在2011年却出现了巨大差异——政府公布的住房开工量对钢材和水泥的需求，总是超出市场上钢材和水泥的销售量。《民生周刊》评论说，保障房开工量有没有水分？数据面前不需要苍白的辩解。
新唐人记者刘惠、尚燕、孙宁采访报导。
China’sEconomic Housing in a “Great Leap Forward”
The CCP’smouthpiece released the information that by end of Oct. this year,
10 million economic apartments had started construction.
Economists feel that this is incredible, because that would
indicate a 90% increase in productivity, without changes in relevant conditions.
They believe it is only another “great leap.”
Xinhua News reported on Dec. 4 that by end of Oct. 2011,
over 10 million sets of economic apartments were
under construction, 1 month in advance of the date planned.
Xinhua said China was seeing a “boom” of economic housing.
However, real estate analysts have said
it is a “mission impossible."
Dec. 2, Ren Zhiqiang, president of Beijing Huayuan
Property Co., published an article in the Wall Street Journal,
saying that China’shousing construction had turned
another corner in the “Great Leap Forward."
He said the CCP is again showing its blindness and
disrespect for China’s Economic conditions, as well as for scientific principles.
Ren pointed out in the article that the CCP’sofficial
claim simply cannot be seen as realistic ,
due to inadequate land, capital, and production capacity.
First, the land for economic housing cannot redeem its input.
Therefore it is difficult to obtain the land needed.
To offset the shortage with commercial land would reduce the
supply of commercial housing and lower housing prices.
No local government would undertake the economic losses.
Secondly, besides the costs of building 10 million units, there
will also be costs of land acquisition, resettlement,
municipal transportation, medical and educational facilities, etc.
The actual expenditures will double the current budget.
Money is undoubtedly an important restrictive condition.
In addition, according to statistics since 1998, China’shousing
increases only by tens of millions of square meters every year.
10 million units would provide 750 million square meters,
90% more than 2010.
Recluse of Straw Cottage says:
“It is indeed a “Great Leap” with the CCP claiming to build 10 million units of economic apartments.
Even at 60-70 square meters each,
that would still amount to a large quantity.
Given the current economic crisis and local government deficit,
it would be impossible to realize such a promise.
An official of The Department of Housing and Urban
Development earlier acknowledged that construction of 1/3 of the 10 million apts had barely started.
Some places initiate construction simply by starting a sign-point.
They are performing for the media.
In order to fulfill the 10-million- unit goal, many places have
improperly Speeded up construction.
Daishan construction site in Nanjing is reported
to have used “thin" steel.
Mr. Liu from Nanchang has said:
“ ‘Thin’ steels can make more money. Regulation authorities
will ignore this practice if bribed . The victims are the consumers.
How many of China’sconstruction projects are not as shabby? ”
Before 2010, steel and cement sales on the open market matched
that consumed on construction sites, but after 2011 there was an enormous gap between these figures.
An article in Minsheng Week commented that data defies
false presentation. It questions the integrity of China’seconomic houses.
NTD Reporters, Liu Hui, Shang Yan and Sun Ning
