「房产证挡不住警察暴力：江西上饶社区强占小区大门（2025.12.04）」2025年12月4日，江西上饶汇佳学府名郡小区爆发了一起基层权力侵犯业主共有产权事件。当日，上饶经济技术开发区兴园街道滨河社区，纠集警察、特警、保安及政府工作人员共上百人，强行攻入小区，暴力占领了业主维权坚守了整整两个月的小区大门及原售楼部区域。冲突过程中，多名业主遭到殴打、抓捕，有人当场受伤倒地，现场一度失控。
据多名业主透露，9月15日，滨河社区悄然贴出一份告示，称将于月底正式入驻小区原售楼部一楼和二楼办公。然而，这份关乎全体业主重大利益的告示，并未张贴在必经区域，而是被刻意贴在了无人经过的角落，直到9月底才被偶然发现。
消息传开，业主群一片哗然。愤怒的核心在于对契约和产权的践踏： 首先，依据当初开发商的销售承诺及购房合同，售楼部撤走后，该区域大门出入口及相关建筑属于全体业主共有产权，计划建设图书馆与儿童游乐设施，合同中从未有过“社区入驻办公”的条款。 其次，程序完全非法。社区对外宣称“已与业主沟通”，但事实上，他们从未召开业主大会，从未征求业主签字同意，也拿不出任何合法的产权变更手续，一切仅凭一张暗贴的“告示”便要强行推进。
“承诺的游乐场和图书馆没了，我们自家的大门凭什么一声不吭就变成了政府办公场所？”多名业主愤慨地质问，“难道我们的房子是给社区买的办公楼吗？”
有业主透露，该社区此前曾试图以类似方式进入周边其他小区，因业主反对而失败。从9月底到12月初，面对业主的强烈法理质疑和集体抵制，滨河社区的入驻计划一度搁浅，业主似乎胜利在望。然而，业主最终等来的却是暴力。12月4日，社区人员联合百余名警力与安保人员突然集结，强行入驻。闻讯赶到大门前阻拦的业主迅速遭到镇压。现场视频显示，多名业主被警察强行抬走、拖离，还有业主被当场打倒在地，小区大门随即宣告失守。
在中共的权力体系中，社区处在最基层、最低端的位置。它不是严格意义上的行政机关，也不是独立自治组织，而是完全受制于街道办事处的末端执行单元。理论上，它只是“为居民服务的群众组织”；但在现实中，它是中共的黑手套，承担各种脏活，是中共维稳体系进入居民家中的最后一环。疫情期间，社区的这一功能被无限放大。它成为了各种极端管控措施的直接执行者。从物理上的封门焊门、深夜破门，到生存资源的断水断电；从人身自由方面的强制转运、强行集中隔离，再到基本权利方面的限制就医乃至人格羞辱，这些行为几乎全部发生在社区这一层级。
在汇佳学府名郡事件之前，社区强行入驻事件已经在各地多次发生。在今天的中国，即便是看似体面的商品房小区，即所谓的“城市中产”，在最底层权力面前依然毫无安全感可言。房产证挡不住警察暴力，业主大会敌不过社区“通知”，法律条文在一纸“工作需要”面前形同废纸。社区这个名义上“为居民服务”的组织，随时可以在上级授意下变成强制征用的执行者、暴力清场的前锋队。这起事件所真正令人不寒而栗的，并不仅仅是一次大门被夺、几名业主被打，而是它再次赤裸裸地提醒所有人：在中共统治之下，你所拥有的一切，都只是“暂时被允许拥有”。只要被“需要”，随时可以被收回，而你连说“不”的资格，都可能被直接清除。
Property Deeds Cannot Stop Police Violence: Shangrao, Jiangxi Community Joins Police to Seize Residential Compound Gate (Dec. 4, 2025)
On December 4, 2025, a grassroots abuse of power targeting homeowners’ collectively owned property erupted at Huijia Xuefu Mingjun Residential Compound in Shangrao, Jiangxi Province. On that day, the Binhe Community under Xingyuan Subdistrict of the Shangrao Economic and Technological Development Zone mobilized more than a hundred people—including police, SWAT units, security guards, and government staff—to forcibly storm into the compound. They violently seized the main entrance and the former sales office area, which homeowners had been defending through rights-protection efforts for a full two months. During the clash, multiple homeowners were beaten and detained; some were injured and fell to the ground, and the scene briefly spiraled out of control.
According to multiple homeowners, on September 15, the Binhe Community quietly posted a notice stating that it would officially move into the first and second floors of the former sales office by the end of the month for office use. However, this notice—affecting the significant interests of all homeowners—was not posted in a prominent area but deliberately placed in a remote corner, only being discovered by chance at the end of September.
Once the news spread, homeowners’ chat groups erupted with outrage. The core of the anger lay in the trampling of contracts and property rights. First, according to the developer’s original sales commitments and the purchase contracts, after the sales office was vacated, the entrance gate and related buildings belonged to all homeowners as jointly owned property, intended for a library and children’s recreational facilities. The contracts contained no clause allowing a “community office” to move in. Second, the process was entirely illegal. While the community claimed externally that it had “communicated with homeowners,” in reality it never convened a homeowners’ meeting, never sought homeowners’ signatures, and could not produce any legal documentation for a change in property rights. Everything was being pushed forward solely based on a secretly posted “notice.”
“The promised playground and library are gone—why did our own gate suddenly become a government office without a word?” several homeowners angrily asked. “Did we buy our homes to provide office space for the community?”
Some homeowners revealed that the community had previously attempted to enter other nearby compounds in a similar manner but failed due to homeowner resistance. From late September to early December, faced with homeowners’ strong legal challenges and collective opposition, the Binhe Community’s relocation plan was temporarily shelved, giving residents a sense of victory. However, what homeowners ultimately encountered was violence. On December 4, community personnel suddenly assembled with over a hundred police and security officers and forcibly moved in. Homeowners who rushed to the gate to block entry were swiftly suppressed. Videos from the scene show multiple homeowners being forcibly carried away and dragged off by police, while others were beaten to the ground; the compound gate soon fell.
Within the Chinese Communist Party’s power structure, community committees occupy the very lowest and most grassroots level. They are neither formal administrative organs nor independent self-governing organizations but are entirely subordinate enforcement units under subdistrict offices. In theory, they are merely “mass organizations serving residents.” In reality, they function as the CCP’s black glove, carrying out the dirtiest work and serving as the final link through which the stability-maintenance system penetrates directly into people’s homes.
During the pandemic, this function of community authorities was amplified. They became direct executors of extreme control measures—from physically sealing or welding doors shut, breaking into homes at night, to cutting off water and electricity; from forcibly transferring residents and imposing centralized quarantine, to restricting access to medical care and even carrying out public humiliation. Almost all of these abuses occurred precisely at the community level.
Even before the Huijia Xuefu Mingjun incident, forced community takeovers had occurred repeatedly across China. Today, even residents of seemingly respectable commercial housing estates—the so-called “urban middle class”—have no real security in the face of the lowest tier of power. Property deeds cannot withstand police violence; homeowners’ assemblies cannot resist a community “notice”; legal statutes become worthless in the face of a single phrase: “work needs.” This organization, nominally “serving residents,” can at any moment, under higher-level instructions, become the executor of forced requisitions and the vanguard of violent clearances.
What is truly chilling about this incident is not merely the seizure of a gate or the beating of several homeowners, but the stark reminder it provides: under CCP rule, everything you own is only “temporarily permitted.” Once deemed “needed,” it can be taken back at any time, and your very right to say “no” can be erased on the spot.