Katsushika Ward’s “Land Lease Issue” Trial: “Was there any oral argument? The deputy mayor did not deny it.

Journalist Mitsutoshi Abe’s “Cutting through Local Politics!

Aoki said, “It is disadvantageous that we are paying a huge amount of rent every month to lease privately-owned land instead of utilizing land owned by the ward, which does not cost much to build a child consultation center.

On December 18, the current deputy ward mayor appeared as a witness.

The Katsushika Ward Child Guidance Center and Temporary Protection Center opened on October 1, 2011, on privately owned land. Although other municipalities do not build on privately-owned land leased for fixed-term business use, the Katsushika Ward Child Guidance Center was established by the “mayor’s exclusive decision” with a “single word from the crane.

The reason why other municipalities do not construct child guidance centers and temporary shelters on privately-owned land with fixed-term leases for business use is that the rights are unstable (e.g., the facilities must be dismantled before the end of the term) and it is not beneficial to the children who use the facilities.

Katsushika Ward is a large landowner that owns a large amount of land that can be utilized at the will of the ward. It remains a simple question as to why public facilities should be built on privately owned land with a fixed-term business-use lease.

Furthermore, the relationship between the landowner who owns the land and the ward is also under scrutiny.

Katsushika Ward pays approximately 2.2 million yen per month in rent for the construction of public facilities on the land leased on a fixed-term basis, and the land must be returned to the landowner after 35 years.

While the assessed value of the land is approximately 740 million yen, the total land rent for 35 years amounts to approximately 920 million yen. This amount of burden would create a situation in which the residents of the ward would be left with no assets.

During the deliberation stage, it was believed that the construction would be possible at minimal cost if the project utilized land owned by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, which was also an option. In fact, Edogawa Ward, where a child guidance center was opened earlier, purchased metropolitan-owned land to open the center.

When asked by the plaintiffs’ attorney about this point, the deputy ward mayor stated in court

The deputy ward mayor testified in court that he did not consult with the Tokyo Metropolitan Government because he thought the Tokyo Metropolitan Government would refuse his request for consultation.

The deputy mayor testified in court that he did not consult with the Tokyo Metropolitan Government because he thought it would refuse his request.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs made a specific proposal for the development of the facility on the site of the former Higashihorikiri Elementary School (ward-owned land), but this too was not adopted, and as a result, the decision was made to open the facility on privately owned land on a fixed-term business-use lease without utilizing the land owned by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government or the ward.

What surprised us when we observed the trial this time was that the deputy ward mayor testified that there were no documents to compare the process of deciding on the privately-owned leased land and the factors that led to the decision. The construction of the children’s home cost approximately 2.55 billion yen. The total land rent is approximately ¥920 million. There are no documents for land selection for such a large project.

The residents’ lawsuit points out the errors in administrative procedures and unfair appraisal.

Although the ward decided on May 26, 2005 to construct the children’s home on privately leased land, negotiations with the landowner of the privately leased land began around May 2006, after the decision to utilize the privately leased land was made.

A resident of Katsushika Ward who attended the meeting said

The landowner is a person who has influence over the ward. The landowner is an influential person in the ward.

The lawyer representing the plaintiffs repeatedly told the deputy ward mayor that the landowner is a person with influence over the ward.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs repeatedly asked the deputy mayor

The plaintiffs’ attorney repeatedly asked the deputy mayor, “The land must be returned to the landowner after 35 years after it has been cleared. According to the policy for formulating the Katsushika Ward Building Preservation Construction Plan, the useful life of public facilities is considered to be 60 years or more for utilization. Why not consider the cost?

The total land rent for 35 years is about 920 million yen while the assessed value of the land is about 740 million yen. Why did you decide to build on said privately owned land under a fixed-term business-use land lease when you had the choice of purchasing the land or using rent-free ward-owned land or cheaper metropolitan-owned land?”

The deputy mayor responded

The deputy mayor repeatedly answered, “The privately-owned land is located in the center of the ward, close to the police station, and a little away from the downtown area, which was the best condition.

The vice ward mayor repeatedly responded, “It is located in the center of the ward, close to the police station, and a little away from the downtown area. However, the fact that the site of the former Higashihorikiri Elementary School (ward-owned land) was not selected as a candidate, even though its location is comparable to that of the said land, is also questionable.

When we directly asked the deputy mayor about this point after the court session, he replied to the head of the Katsushika Ward General Affairs Department, “I told you about this in court.

I could not ask him about it because he interrupted me, saying, “I told you about it at the trial.

We were not able to ask him about it.

The attorney for the plaintiffs told us

When asked by the plaintiff’s attorney if he had received any favors from anyone during the selection process, the deputy ward mayor denied the question.

The deputy mayor did not clearly deny the question. The information that the case was introduced by an influential person was circulating within the agency, and the plaintiffs had heard about it.

If so, what was the background of the witness who clearly testified yes and no in court, but did not clearly deny the above question. ……

When the candidate sites were selected, the decision was made to go with privately leased land even though the purchase price, land rent, and lease term were not set in stone. The lack of documentation tracing the process could be seen as intentional.

Furthermore, contrary to the district’s policy of using district-owned facilities for 60 years, the land was dismantled after 35 years and returned to the landowner as vacant land. This is an inefficient contract with no economic rationale, and is wasteful spending that would be unthinkable in the private sector. We would like to call for thorough transparency, but we believe that the trial has amplified the sense of distrust of the plaintiffs, who are residents of the area.

The contract and the opening of the contract over the Katsushika Ward children’s home, which has yet to be clarified. The next trial is scheduled for February 28, 2012.