Move to a different village and give farmers a suite. Can I return the homestead if I don't want it now?

After the relocation, I don't want a new house, but I want to go back to my old place and my homestead, okay? This question, I communicate with you from three aspects.

1. Why do some people want to go back to their old places? First of all, the environment is not adapted. People have nostalgia, especially some middle-aged and elderly people, who are used to the places where they once lived. It's hard to leave your hometown. Because of poverty alleviation and relocation, we have to move from places with poor conditions. In a new place, although school and medical care have improved, I have also moved into a new house. However, in the face of the new external environment around you, you will still feel strange and unable to find the feeling of "home".

Secondly, employment is difficult. There is a scientific basis for the location of ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation, but every family is different. Some family members are strong and strong, but they are temporarily identified as poor households because of special circumstances. Some families will also be identified as poor households because the main labor force is weak and sick. In short, although the identification of poor households is centered on "two worries and three guarantees", the situation of each family is inconsistent. Whether it is going out to work or setting up a small business near a new home, it cannot be generalized and is not suitable for every family. Some families are very likely to find that there is nothing to do and return to their old places to continue farming their own "one acre and three points". The old house has been demolished again, so the road won't be too close. Losing the source of life, it is normal to want to "go back to the original place". After all, solving the problem of "eating" is fundamental.

I was annoyed again. It is not excluded that some poor households did not have a correct understanding of themselves, ignored the facts, "followed the trend", "compared with others" and "unrealistic" before voluntarily signing up for relocation, which led to the idea of going back now.

Second, don't want a new house, can you go back to your previous homestead? At present, it is unlikely, mainly in the following aspects:

The first is the pressure transmission of policies. Ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation is produced under the policy background of poverty alleviation and development. Its original intention is to help poor households living in poverty-stricken areas with poor ecological conditions, so as to achieve the goal of "moving out, staying and getting rich". In reality, many poor households have benefited from this opportunity, enjoyed dividends, developed and got rid of poverty. 2020 is the last year to get rid of poverty. "Two worries and three guarantees" is the basis for poverty-stricken households to get rid of poverty, and it is also a mandatory requirement of leaders at all levels. One of the guarantees in the "Three Guarantees" is that "the housing is safe and secure". Poverty alleviation is a problem of the whole society, but also a "political" problem. Therefore, it is difficult to return to your homestead without a new house at present.

The second is the property right of homestead. According to the requirement of "one household, one house", the original homestead has been returned to the collective. From a legal point of view, it is no longer your property, it is collective. Some are cultivated, some are planted, and some are reserved for collective development. Therefore, even if the old homestead is still there, it is no longer your own property.

The third is the property right of the new house. Strictly speaking, the property right of the new house belongs to the fixed property of the relocated households. But due to the contribution of the country, some of them are not entirely their own. For example, some poor households such as "five guarantees" have never paid money themselves, and property rights must be collective. Most relocated households have different policies in different places. Some places stipulate that relocated households can only sell, transfer or donate after several years of use. So, don't do stupid things rashly, otherwise, you will find it difficult to stay.

Third, how to solve this problem depends on ourselves. I think it makes sense to ask for help rather than help yourself. "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Everyone has shortcomings and advantages. "When God closes a door for you, he will open a window for you." There are difficulties, but there are always more ways than difficulties. Forget it, everything is difficult, and ten fingers are different. Now that I have moved, I am determined to start over, give full play to my advantages and find a suitable one. Don't be arrogant, love leisure and hate work, and expect the world to lose pie. Through relatives and acquaintances, you may find a job to support your family by running more and grinding more.

The second is to rely on policies. The government should not only help poor households get on the horse, but also give them a ride. The policy of "getting rid of poverty" is his promise and his duty. He should reflect his practical difficulties to the staff of the village (neighborhood) Committee and let them help themselves through the difficulties within the existing policy system. But be grateful and don't take it for granted. In addition, many places have special training work, covering a wide range of contents and types of work. At worst, do some public welfare work, such as sanitation and greening maintenance. Although the salary is not high, it is enough to solve the problem of "eating".

The third is to return to the old business. Although the old house is gone and the homestead is not their own, in some places, the land is still there. Besides, many young people are reluctant to engage in agricultural production now. You can also move a little, build a simple production room in the field, leave the children at the relocation site, and let them receive a good education and return to their original jobs. Why not? Otherwise, it won't be too expensive to rent people's idle land and take over business near the relocation site, which is also a way to make a living.

In short, ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation vary from person to person, with advantages and disadvantages. After moving, it is impossible to check out and return to your homestead. It is most true that the life after relocation is mainly solved by your own hands. What you said should be called "relocation". At that time, farmers were given a suite, and the homestead of the old house was collectively recovered. Now that farmers don't want houses, can the homestead be returned to farmers? According to our practice here, this kind of situation cannot be returned to the homestead.

First of all, we know some reasons from the name of the policy. "Relocation" refers to relocation and replacement of old houses with new suites. Therefore, since the original choice of "relocation" is equivalent to changing the old housing base into collective ownership, farmers have got new houses. Now that new house, whether farmers want it or not, is already owned by farmers. The homestead has long been owned by the collective. Whether a new house is needed or not has little to do with the homestead.

Secondly, if the homestead is returned to farmers, farmers will inevitably return to poverty. The policy of "relocation" takes care of the situation that the housing is old and farmers have difficulty in maintenance; Or the farmers themselves don't want to rebuild their new houses in situ, but want to live in another place. Now farmers want to retire their suites and return to their homesteads. What is this for? Go on living in the village? To continue living in the old house? Housing security can not be guaranteed, how can we live in peace of mind? The poverty alleviation standard of "two guarantees and three guarantees" means that food and clothing are secure, and housing, medical insurance and education are guaranteed. Going back to the homestead and living in an old and leaky house without housing security, isn't that a return to poverty? Do you mean going back to the homestead and raising money to build a new house? If there is money, it is fraudulent use of the "resettlement" policy.

After living in a new house, some new problems may appear in life. As long as the problem is raised to the local poverty alleviation office, there will be a solution to ensure that farmers have a stable income, because there is a follow-up policy behind every relocation policy, but there is no mechanism for "relocation" policy. Therefore, instead of checking out and asking for a homestead, it is better to find a way out by living in a new house.

I hope the answer will help you.

Relocation for poverty alleviation in different places is actually called relocation for poverty alleviation in different places. It means that some poor farmers who live in places where "one party can't support the other" or farmers with extremely poor living conditions live in another place to promote poverty alleviation in places with better conditions. There is also relocation, not all farmers can move, it must be the poor people in rural areas who have set up files and set up cards, and they must be willing to move. For farmers who are unwilling to relocate their original land, the state will not force them to relocate.

But only poor households are included in the relocation scope, and I am willing to move. The state will move them to new places with better environment and put them in new houses. The original homestead in poverty-stricken mountainous areas is recovered, and houses are demolished for re-cultivation or other construction. For the poor households who have agreed to relocate, if they have already relocated, the homestead will be recovered, which means that the relocation agreement has been completed. If the relocated households regret it, they can't return the new house to their original homestead.

The places where the country moves are all places with poor living conditions and fragile ecological environment, such as deep mountains, rocky mountains, alpine regions, desertification areas, epidemic areas and other places that do not have basic development conditions. The object of relocation is the rural poor living in the above areas, and the principle is to relocate as much as possible on the basis of respecting the wishes of farmers. In other words, relocation must respect the wishes of farmers and will not be forced.

For the relocation procedures, the publicity shall prevail. The householder himself applies to the local village committee, and the village committee conducts preliminary examination and publicity. After the expiration of the publicity period, those who meet the conditions shall sign their opinions and report them to the Township People's Government for review and publicity. After the expiration of the publicity period, those who meet the requirements shall sign the summary report and report to the county poverty alleviation office. The county poverty alleviation office conducts key audits and spot checks on the application materials submitted by the township government, and finally reports them to the county people's government for approval. The county people's government shall make an announcement on the approved government website. The final relocation target should be signed by the township government and poor households.

The relocation agreement generally includes the following contents: the time and place of relocation, the resettlement method and subsidy standard, the requirements for the disposal of the original residence after relocation, the relevant obligations of poor households and the responsibility of self-financing. Once the agreement is signed, it must be fulfilled. Poor households that are easy to relocate in this problem have already given new houses, and the original homestead has been recovered, which proves that the agreement has been fulfilled and the relocation has been completed. Naturally, they can't break their word, quit their new house and return to their original homestead. For the relocation of farmers' original homestead, the land department generally completes the related work such as homestead recovery, original house demolition, land improvement and ecological restoration in the relocation area. This proves that the big plate that has been incorporated into government work cannot be changed at will.

In fact, everyone has a homeland complex, but as the old saying goes, trees will die if they move, and people will live if they move. The original living conditions are too bad. The government has given you such a good ex situ poverty alleviation policy to move to a new place with good conditions, arrange new housing for you, arrange employment opportunities and help you get rid of poverty. Why not? Why do you have to look at the place where the rabbit didn't shit, but also go back on our word? Man struggles upwards, but water flows downwards. This poverty-stricken household policy is a new measure of the country's precise poverty alleviation and a concrete embodiment of the party's policy of benefiting the people. We have reason to actively cooperate with and help the poor to get rich under the guidance of the Party.

As can be seen from the description in your question, your family is not only a poor household, but also the object of ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation, and has moved into ex situ poverty alleviation and resettlement houses. In other words, you have enjoyed the ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation policy, and you can't quit in this case.

The same poor households, why can't others enjoy ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation, and you can enjoy it? You are a poor household; Second, you move voluntarily; You live in a place where soil and water can't support one person. Only by meeting these three conditions at the same time can we enjoy ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation, so as to live in ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation resettlement houses.

If we quit now, the precise poverty alleviation work carried out by the state will be in vain. Besides, where will you live after you quit your job? Go back to where you used to live? It's impossible. You know, when you voluntarily choose to move to help the poor, people will tell you that when you enter a new house, the old house will be demolished. Now I have moved into a new house, the old house has been demolished, and there is no house to live in when I go back.

Even if the old house is not demolished, going back to live is not good for you to get rid of poverty. Why? Because you are poor because you live in a place where one side can't support one person, in order to fundamentally solve your poverty problem, you can enjoy the relocation policy of ex situ poverty alleviation and move you from a place where one side can't support one person to a place that is conducive to production and life.

The present place is conducive to production and life and poverty alleviation. The place where I once lived is not conducive to production and life and poverty alleviation. Then why give up the present place and want to move back to the original place? To tell the truth, this is not a knowing move, nor is it desirable.

More importantly, ex situ poverty alleviation and relocation respects the wishes of poor households and does not force them. You moved into a resettlement house, which means that you voluntarily chose to move to help the poor. Since it is a voluntary choice, is it too much to go back on our word and quit now? And dishonest.

Generally speaking, when poor households live in a place where one side of the soil and water can't support one side, they voluntarily choose to help the poor and move to resettlement sites, which is not only conducive to production and life, but also improves their living conditions and helps them get rid of poverty and become rich.

So after moving in, we should focus on making a fortune and how to plan a new way out of life. This is a positive attitude towards life, not something that has been formed in the past.

can