Conflict over livelihood cooperatives in the Gwangmyeong–Siheung development zone is intensifying. The Gwangmyeong–Siheung Representative Livelihood Cooperative, which officially launched in February, began organizing to secure majority support among residents. At the same time, rival groups have been urging residents to join their separate organizations and promising inflated dividends. Some of these groups estimate the demolition volume at 100 billion KRW (approximately $75 million) and claim they can distribute tens of millions of KRW to each resident (approximately $7,500–$37,500), a line of promotion that lacks credibility.
The Representative Livelihood Cooperative Emergency Response Committee has asked LH to intervene, warning that residents are being misled. LH has been reluctant, saying intervention could be perceived as favoring a particular group. Critics argue that the state-owned firm’s stance amounts to irresponsible passivity.
It appears LH has misread what neutrality requires. A public enterprise should not endorse or oppose specific organizations. But explaining the legal framework, outlining how the system works, and setting realistic expectations based on past cases does not violate neutrality — it fulfills the agency’s responsibility. The livelihood cooperative mechanism is established under the Special Act on Public Housing, and it has been implemented in places such as Hanam Gyosan and Sejong. In those precedents, payouts were on the order of several hundred thousand KRW per household (approximately $150–$750). LH’s obligation is not to adjudicate competing claims, but to provide residents with objective information about the statutory basis and real-world outcomes.
If LH continues to stand aside, the risk of resident harm will grow. Residents who enroll under exaggerated promises may suffer financial losses when expectations collide with reality. If the public enterprise shirks its responsibilities, the policy’s purpose will be undermined and conflicts will deepen. LH can, without endorsing any party, explain the legal basis and past experience to residents. Offering objective facts and clarifying the program’s intent would reduce confusion and protect the public interest. Overinterpreting neutrality produces irresponsibility. LH should protect residents through clear explanation, not omission.
