我的征尘是星辰大海。。。

The dirt and dust from my pilgrimage forms oceans of stars...

-------当记忆的篇章变得零碎，当追忆的图片变得模糊，我们只能求助于数字存储的永恒的回忆

作者:黄教授

手机视频列表

从平江路古街的繁荣看懂什么是现代版的与民争利竭泽而渔

视频

音频

原始脚本

从平江路古街的繁荣看懂什么是现代版本的与民争利、竭泽而渔。
司马光当年批判王安石变法，提出的核心论点十分直白。
天下财货总量恒定，官府多拿一分，民间便少得一分。
这套道理恰好可以用来解释国内绝大多数人造古街、文旅商业街。
从喧嚣走向空置的底层逻辑。
平江路之所以能够长盛不衰，表象上是街巷肌理、区位、风景，最根本的分水岭。
其实就是一条，项目设计之初，究竟是让商业收益留在民间，还是提前把民间数十年的商业利润一次性抽走变现。
一条原生街巷正常的利益链条，本应当是这样。
房屋产权大多掌握在原住民手中，原住民出租铺面收取租金，小商户支付租金，投入资金装修经营，赚取商品交易的利润。
整条街区的收益逐层沉淀在本地居民、小微商家手里，利润持续在民间循环。
租金会随客流缓慢上涨，但上涨是市场发展之后自然生长出来的结果。
商户拥有足够的容错空间，可以做特色业态，做长期生意。
街区的生命力依靠民间自发的经营不断滋养壮大，这就是平江路的底层状态。
整片街区是城市存量老城，没有整片土地拍卖开发的环节，产权分散，大量民房依旧掌握在原住民手里。
国资平台仅做点状选择性的收储修缮，目的是保护古城风貌，而不是全盘垄断街区的商业收益。
国资收取的租金主要回流用于古建维护、街巷基础设施更新，不是作为短期财政收益。
民间资本、原住民依旧掌握街区商业的基本盘。
利润留在民间，活水自然源源不断。
而当下国内绝大多数新建仿古商业街、人造古镇，走的是一套完全反向的利益收割链条。
也就是现代意义上的与民争利。
地方政府先将土地整体挂牌出让，一次性收取巨额土地出让金，提前兑现这片土地未来数十年的增值收益。
地产开发商拍下地块，斥资建造仿古建筑街区，再把商铺高价售卖，或是自持物业设置极高的基础租金，再次攫取一层开发溢价。
还没有迎来客流，这片街区未来几十年可以产生的商业利润，就已经被政府卖地、开发商卖房两层提前瓜分完毕，留给最终入住商户的只剩下一块已经被反复榨取过利润的。
嚼过的馒头。
商户是最后一环，却必须承担前面所有环节转嫁下来的刚性成本。
无论将来客流旺或者淡，高额租金是硬性底线。
商户想要生存，只有两条路，要么把商品售价抬到远高于正常市场的水平。
依靠高溢价宰客，要么只敢选择毛利率极高、全国通用的流水线网红小吃、量产文创、特色小店，长期经营的本土业态根本无力承担成本，不敢进场。
于是街区陷入死循环，物价虚高，业态千篇一律，游客来过一次便不愿再来，客流持续衰减。
客流下滑之后，商户更难盈利。
大批闭店撤场，最终街铺大面积空置，项目沦为一地鸡毛。
这套模式最致命的问题在于现金流的顺序被颠倒。
健康的街区是先养人流。
人流产生收益，收益在各方分配。
地产驱动的文旅街区，事先锁定未来几十年的全部预期收益，一次性套现离场。
之后才寄希望于未来的客流来消化已经定下的巨额成本。
开发主体的核心目标从长期运营街区变成了快速完成资本变现。
街区后续的兴衰已经不在其首要考量范围之内。
这就是典型的竭泽而渔。
财力的总量是固定的，商业经营能够产生的利润就这么多。
政府与资本提前把民间本可以长期分享的收益拿走，民间的经营主体失去生存土壤，商业活水自然枯竭。
风景规划宣传全部都只能是放大器，无法逆转这条底层的利益逻辑。
哪怕一条仿古街造得和平江路样貌一模一样，只要它从立项之初就走上了这条与民争利的路径。
衰败就是必然的结局。
当然，这并不是说政府不应当获取收益。
城市建设、文物保护都需要财政投入，关键的分野在于收益获取的时序。
一种是先放水养鱼，在民间商业已经持续产生活力之后，通过税收长期稳定的资产收益，慢慢获取回报。
另一种是开塘之日就先把塘里未来数十年的鱼全部打包卖掉。
之后再指望塘里能够自己长出鱼来。
平江路走的是前一条路，国内绝大多数失败的文旅街区，走的恰恰是后一条。

修正脚本

从平江路古街的繁荣看懂什么是现代版本的与民争利、竭泽而渔。
司马光当年批判王安石变法，提出的核心论点十分直白。
天下财货总量恒定，官府多拿一分，民间便少得一分。
这套道理恰好可以用来解释国内绝大多数人造古街、文旅商业街从喧嚣走向空置的底层逻辑。
平江路之所以能够长盛不衰，表象上是街巷肌理、区位、风景，最根本的分水岭其实就是一条，项目设计之初，究竟是让商业收益留在民间，还是提前把民间数十年的商业利润一次性抽走变现。
一条原生街巷正常的利益链条，本应当是这样。
房屋产权大多掌握在原住民手中，原住民出租铺面收取租金，小商户支付租金，投入资金装修经营，赚取商品交易的利润。
整条街区的收益逐层沉淀在本地居民、小微商家手里，利润持续在民间循环。
租金会随客流缓慢上涨，但上涨是市场发展之后自然生长出来的结果。
商户拥有足够的容错空间，可以做特色业态，做长期生意。
街区的生命力依靠民间自发的经营不断滋养壮大，这就是平江路的底层状态。
整片街区是城市存量老城，没有整片土地拍卖开发的环节，产权分散，大量民房依旧掌握在原住民手里。
国资平台仅做点状选择性的收储修缮，目的是保护古城风貌，而不是全盘垄断街区的商业收益。
国资收取的租金主要回流用于古建维护、街巷基础设施更新，不是作为短期财政收益。
民间资本、原住民依旧掌握街区商业的基本盘。
利润留在民间，活水自然源源不断。
而当下国内绝大多数新建仿古商业街、人造古镇，走的是一套完全反向的利益收割链条。
也就是现代意义上的与民争利。
地方政府先将土地整体挂牌出让，一次性收取巨额土地出让金，提前兑现这片土地未来数十年的增值收益。
地产开发商拍下地块，斥资建造仿古建筑街区，再把商铺高价售卖，或是自持物业设置极高的基础租金，再次攫取一层开发溢价。
还没有迎来客流，这片街区未来几十年可以产生的商业利润，就已经被政府卖地、开发商卖房两层提前瓜分完毕，留给最终入驻商户的只剩下一块已经被反复榨取过利润的嚼过的馒头。
商户是最后一环，却必须承担前面所有环节转嫁下来的刚性成本。
无论将来客流旺或者淡，高额租金是硬性底线。
商户想要生存，只有两条路，要么把商品售价抬到远高于正常市场的水平。
依靠高溢价宰客，要么只敢选择毛利率极高、全国通用的流水线网红小吃、量产文创，长期经营的本土特色小店根本无力承担成本，不敢进场。
于是街区陷入死循环，物价虚高，业态千篇一律，游客来过一次便不愿再来，客流持续衰减。
客流下滑之后，商户更难盈利。
大批闭店撤场，最终街铺大面积空置，项目沦为一地鸡毛。
这套模式最致命的问题在于现金流的顺序被颠倒。
健康的街区是先养人流。
人流产生收益，收益在各方分配。
地产驱动的文旅街区，事先锁定未来几十年的全部预期收益，一次性套现离场。
之后才寄希望于未来的客流来消化已经定下的巨额成本。
开发主体的核心目标从长期运营街区变成了快速完成资本变现。
街区后续的兴衰已经不在其首要考量范围之内。
这就是典型的竭泽而渔。
财货的总量是固定的，商业经营能够产生的利润就这么多。
政府与资本提前把民间本可以长期分享的收益拿走，民间的经营主体失去生存土壤，商业活水自然枯竭。
风景规划宣传都只能是放大器，无法逆转这条底层的利益逻辑。
哪怕一条仿古街造得和平江路样貌一模一样，只要它从立项之初就走上了这条与民争利的路径。
衰败就是必然的结局。
当然，这并不是说政府不应当获取收益。
城市建设、文物保护都需要财政投入，关键的分野在于收益获取的时序。
一种是先放水养鱼，在民间商业已经持续产生活力之后，通过税收获得长期稳定的资产收益，慢慢获取回报。
另一种是开塘之日就先把塘里未来数十年的鱼全部打包卖掉。
之后再指望塘里能够自己长出鱼来。
平江路走的是前一条路，国内绝大多数失败的文旅街区，走的恰恰是后一条。

英文翻译

From the prosperity of Pingjiang Road Ancient Street, we can clearly understand what the modern version of competing for interests with the people and draining the pond to catch all fish really means.
When Sima Guang criticized Wang Anshi's reform in ancient times, his core argument was extremely straightforward.
The total amount of wealth in the world is fixed. If the government takes one more cent, the public will get one cent less.
This principle perfectly explains the underlying logic why most man-made ancient streets and cultural tourism commercial streets in China have gone from bustling to vacant.
The reason why Pingjiang Road has remained prosperous for a long time is, on the surface, its street texture, location and scenery. But the most fundamental dividing line is actually only one: at the beginning of the project design, whether the commercial benefits are retained in the private sector, or the decades of commercial profits that should belong to the private sector are extracted and cashed out all at once in advance.
The normal interest chain of an original street should be like this.
Most of the property rights are held by original residents. Original residents rent out storefronts to collect rent. Small merchants pay rent, invest in decoration and operation, and earn profits from commodity transactions.
The benefits of the entire block are gradually deposited in the hands of local residents and small and micro businesses, and profits continue to circulate among the private sector.
Rent will rise slowly with passenger flow, but such growth is the natural outcome after market development.
Merchants have enough room for tolerance, so they can operate characteristic businesses and run long-term business.
The vitality of the block is continuously nurtured and expanded by spontaneous private operation, which is the fundamental state of Pingjiang Road.
The entire block is part of the city's existing old town, there is no process of auctioning and developing the whole plot. Property rights are scattered, and a large number of residential houses are still held by original residents.
State-owned platforms only carry out point-based selective acquisition and renovation, aiming to protect the style of the ancient city, rather than completely monopolizing the commercial benefits of the block.
The rent collected by state-owned assets is mainly reused for the maintenance of ancient buildings and the renewal of street infrastructure, rather than taken as short-term fiscal revenue.
Private capital and original residents still hold the majority of the commercial share of the block.
When profits stay in the private sector, the source of vitality naturally keeps flowing.
However, most of the newly built antique commercial streets and man-made ancient towns in China today follow a completely reverse interest harvesting chain.
This is the modern version of competing for interests with the people.
Local governments first put the entire land up for listing and transfer, collect a huge one-time land transfer fee, and cash out in advance the value-added income of this land for the next decades.
Real estate developers win the bid for the land, invest heavily to build blocks of antique buildings, then sell the shops at high prices, or set extremely high base rent for self-held properties, grabbing another layer of development premium.
Before any passenger flow arrives, the commercial profits that this block can generate in the next decades have already been divided up in advance by the government's land sale and the developer's shop sale. What is left for the merchants that eventually settle in is just a chewed bun whose profit has been repeatedly squeezed.
Merchants are at the last link, but they have to bear the rigid costs passed on from all previous links.
No matter whether the passenger flow is strong or weak in the future, high rent is a rigid bottom line.
For merchants to survive, there are only two options: either raise commodity prices to a level far higher than the normal market level,
rip off customers with high premiums, or only dare to choose assembly-line internet-famous snacks and mass-produced cultural and creative products with extremely high gross margins that can be found across the country. Long-term operating local characteristic small shops simply cannot afford the cost and dare not enter.
As a result, the block falls into a vicious cycle: inflated prices, identical business formats, tourists will not come again after one visit, and passenger flow continues to decline.
After passenger flow declines, it is even harder for merchants to make profits.
A large number of stores close down and move out, and eventually a large area of street shops are vacant, leaving the project in a total mess.
The most fatal problem of this model is that the order of cash flow is reversed.
A healthy block cultivates passenger flow first.
Passenger flow generates revenue, and revenue is distributed among all parties.
A real estate-driven cultural tourism block locks in all expected income for the next decades in advance, cashes out all at once and exits.
After that, it pins its hopes on future passenger flow to digest the huge predetermined cost.
The core goal of the developer has changed from long-term operation of the block to rapid realization of capital.
The subsequent rise and fall of the block is no longer within their primary consideration.
This is a typical case of draining the pond to catch all fish.
The total amount of wealth is fixed, and that is all the profit that commercial operation can generate.
When the government and capital take away in advance the benefits that the private sector could have shared for a long time, private business entities lose the soil for survival, and the source of commercial vitality naturally dries up.
Scenery planning and publicity can only be amplifiers, and cannot reverse this underlying interest logic.
Even if an antique street is built to look exactly like Pingjiang Road, as long as it has taken this path of competing for interests with the people from the very beginning of project initiation,
decline is its inevitable outcome.
Of course, this does not mean that the government should not obtain benefits.
Urban construction and cultural relic protection all require financial input. The key dividing line lies in the timing of obtaining benefits.
One approach is to first release water to farm fish: after private commerce has continuously generated vitality, the government obtains long-term stable income through taxation and gets returns slowly.
The other approach is, on the day the pond is opened, to sell all the fish that will grow in the pond in the next decades in one package first,
and then expect that new fish will grow on their own in the pond.
Pingjiang Road took the first path, and the vast majority of failed cultural tourism blocks in China took exactly the second one.