A Research On Starting Public Use Of Artificial Public Property

The starting public use of artificial public property, also meaning the naming of public property, is the administrative body declaring property in private law for public use, making the property in sense of public law. The establishment of artificial public property requires two elements, which are form and meaning. The set of artificial public property is a form of exercising public power, which involves the allocation of resources and relates to the people's interests and rights, and thus that process should follow certain due process, specifically including the plans of setting artificial public property, physical construction, completion acceptance, the title of public property, clearing rules and different user's rights and obligations. The naming of artificial public property at least results in the following legal consequences:the lack of consent from owners in civil law can not cause the naming invalid; establishing the general obligation of artificial public property managers; limiting the control right of owner; the full ownership of artificial public property not belong to a third person in good faith; means of resolving disputes including public law and private law means.The naming of public property at least exist the following problems in reality. First, the division of authority between the main body is unclear. The building authority has powers including bidding, construction and acceptance. Acceptance of authority is not the only. The naming authority at the same time is the management authority and the management authority is also an operating authority, regardless of management rights and management rights. Second, the title of artificial public property is over-commercialization, which not only damaging the function of place names, but also causing resources waste and harming public interests and the interests of others. Third, the ownership and use of the name fees of artificial public property are not clearly defined. The building authority, the administrative authority and even the name authority all advocate the right to receive name fees. The name fees can be used for daily office and maintenance of name signs and also as the profit of the operate authority. Fourth, the relief to the illegal name is not enough. Fifth, the division of responsibilities between the name authorities is unclear.To solve the above problem, we should take the following measures. First, the reasonable division of power in the relevant authorities is necessary, while strengthening public supervision. Second, it needs to standardize procedures for naming of public property. On the one hand strictly limited to the scope and number of title of public property by private, on the other hand ensure the procedures of title open, fair and impartial and receive name fees. Third, the ownership and use of the name fees should be explicated. According to the public trust doctrine, the title right should belong to all people and the people authorize the naming authority to exercise this right within the scope of public interest. Therefore, the name fees should belong to all people and be integrated into the national financial system, at the same time the name fees should serve the public interest for the public property of the construction, maintenance and management. Fourth, the relief to the illegal name should be improved. When the compensation authority is difficult to determine, the compensation obligator is inferred to be the naming authority of the artificial public property. Fifth, the definition and allocation of responsibilities on damages caused by the naming of artificial public property should be clear.