في ضوء الإعلان الأخير الذي كشف فيه وزير البلديات والإسكان ماجد الحقيل عن النطاقات الجغرافية لرسوم الأراضي البيضاء في مدينة الرياض، بدا واضحاً أن مرحلة جديدة من التنظيم العقاري قد بدأت. هذا التطوير لا يُقرأ بوصفه خبراً عابراً، بل كخطوة إستراتيجية تنموية تستهدف تحويل الأرض من مجرد مخزن للثروة إلى رافعة حقيقية للعمران.
على مدى سنوات طويلة، ظلّت الأراضي البيضاء في قلب المدن الكبرى مجمّدة بلا تطوير، ما أدى إلى ارتفاع أسعار الأراضي وتعطيل عجلة الإسكان. ومع تطبيق الرسوم بصيغتها الجديدة، يتقدّم النظام خطوة نوعية لتصحيح مسار السوق وإعادة التوازن بين المصلحة الفردية والاحتياج العام.
وقد جاءت الآلية الجديدة واضحة ومرتبة بحسب الأولويات العمرانية: 10% للأراضي ذات الأولوية القصوى، و7.5% للأراضي ذات الأولوية العالية، و5% للمتوسطة، و2.5% للمنخفضة، في حين تُعفى الأراضي الواقعة خارج نطاق الأولويات من الرسم، مع احتسابها ضمن مجموع الأراضي البيضاء المملوكة داخل النطاق الحضري.
هذا التفصيل يُبرز أن الرسوم ليست عبئاً مالياً بقدر ما هي أداة تحفيز حضري. كلما كانت الأرض في موقع أشد تأثيراً على التنمية العمرانية، ارتفعت نسبة الرسم، بما يدفع المالك إلى اتخاذ قرار عملي يتمثل في: إما أن يُطوّر أرضه، أو يتحمّل تكلفة تعطيلها عامًا بعد عام.
كما تتجلى بوضوح إيجابية القرار في أنه يُوازن بين الملكية الخاصة والمصلحة العامة. فالمالك يحتفظ بخياره، لكنه يُدرك أن الاحتفاظ غير المنتج لم يعد بلا تكلفة. وفي المقابل، يستفيد المجتمع من تحريك عجلة التطوير العمراني وزيادة المعروض العقاري، وهو ما ينعكس مباشرة على قدرة الأسر على الحصول على سكن ملائم بأسعار أكثر عدلاً.
ومن زاوية أخرى، يمكن النظر إلى القرار باعتباره فرصة لا تهديداً. فالملاك والمطورون أمامهم مجال واسع للاستفادة من الجانب المضيء لهذه الخطوة: الدخول في شراكات تطويرية، أو إعادة تخطيط الأراضي بما يحقق قيمة مضافة، أو حتى بيعها لمستثمر يرغب في تفعيلها. الرسوم، في نهاية المطاف، ليست اقتطاعاً من الثروة بقدر ما هي دعوة لتحويلها إلى استثمار منتج يدرّ عوائد مستدامة، بدل أن تبقى أصولاً صامتة لا تنمو ولا تساهم في حركة الاقتصاد الوطني.
كما أن من الإيجابيات اللافتة في هذا النظام أنه يعيد رسم العلاقة بين السوق العقاري والتمويل البنكي. فالأراضي المطوّرة أقدر على جذب التمويل والاستثمار، بعكس الأراضي الخام المجمّدة التي لا تحقق سوى قيمة دفترية جامدة. وتسهم الرسوم في تحقيق عدالة بين الملاك، إذ لا يعقل أن يبقى من يحتفظ بأرض في قلب المدينة في وضع أفضل ممن استثمر في بناء أو تطوير يخدم الناس. وإضافة إلى ذلك، فإن النظام الجديد يخلق فرصًا لشركات المقاولات والاستشارات والتطوير العمراني، مما ينعكس على تحريك قطاعات اقتصادية مرتبطة بالعقار، ويدعم بالتالي نمو الناتج المحلي غير النفطي.
ولا يمكن قراءة هذه الخطوة بمعزل عن المسار الإستراتيجي الأوسع الذي تقوده الدولة في إطار رؤية 2030. فالمستهدف النهائي ليس مجرد تحريك سوق العقار، بل تحقيق التوازن الحضري الذي يتيح لكل مواطن فرصة السكن الملائم. إن الرسوم هنا ليست غاية بحد ذاتها، بل وسيلة لضمان أن تتحوّل المدن إلى فضاءات أكثر عدلاً في توزيع الفرص العمرانية، وأكثر قدرة على استيعاب تطلعات المجتمع.
إن الرسالة التي يرسلها النظام واضحة: الأرض البيضاء لم تعد بيضاء. إما أن تتحوّل إلى عمران حقيقي، أو تتحمل عبء تعطيلها.
فراس طرابلسي
حين تتحوّل الأرض من مخزن للثروة إلى رافعة للعمران
5 سبتمبر 2025 - 00:00
|
آخر تحديث 5 سبتمبر 2025 - 00:00
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
In light of the recent announcement by the Minister of Municipal and Rural Affairs and Housing, Majid Al-Hoqail, regarding the geographical zones for white land fees in Riyadh, it has become clear that a new phase of real estate regulation has begun. This development should not be seen as a fleeting news item, but rather as a strategic developmental step aimed at transforming land from merely a store of wealth into a real lever for urban development.
For many years, white lands in the hearts of major cities remained frozen without development, leading to rising land prices and hindering the housing wheel. With the implementation of the new fee structure, the system takes a qualitative step to correct the market trajectory and restore balance between individual interests and public needs.
The new mechanism is clear and organized according to urban priorities: 10% for lands with the highest priority, 7.5% for lands with high priority, 5% for medium priority, and 2.5% for low priority, while lands located outside the priority zones are exempt from the fee, but are counted within the total of white lands owned within the urban area.
This detail highlights that the fees are not a financial burden as much as they are an urban incentive. The more impactful the land is on urban development, the higher the fee percentage, which encourages the owner to make a practical decision: either develop their land or bear the cost of leaving it idle year after year.
The positive aspect of the decision is clearly evident in that it balances private ownership with public interest. The owner retains their choice, but they realize that unproductive retention is no longer without cost. Conversely, the community benefits from the activation of urban development and an increase in the real estate supply, which directly reflects on families' ability to obtain suitable housing at fairer prices.
From another perspective, the decision can be viewed as an opportunity rather than a threat. Owners and developers have ample room to benefit from the positive side of this step: entering into development partnerships, or re-planning lands to achieve added value, or even selling them to an investor who wishes to activate them. The fees, ultimately, are not a deduction from wealth but rather a call to transform it into a productive investment that generates sustainable returns, instead of remaining silent assets that do not grow or contribute to the national economy.
Another notable positive aspect of this system is that it redraws the relationship between the real estate market and bank financing. Developed lands are more capable of attracting financing and investment, unlike raw, frozen lands that yield only static book value. The fees contribute to achieving fairness among owners, as it is unreasonable for someone who retains land in the heart of the city to be in a better position than someone who has invested in construction or development that serves the public. Additionally, the new system creates opportunities for contracting, consulting, and urban development companies, which in turn stimulates economic sectors linked to real estate, thus supporting the growth of non-oil GDP.
This step cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader strategic path led by the state within the framework of Vision 2030. The ultimate goal is not merely to activate the real estate market, but to achieve urban balance that allows every citizen the opportunity for suitable housing. Here, the fees are not an end in themselves, but a means to ensure that cities transform into spaces that are fairer in distributing urban opportunities and more capable of accommodating community aspirations.
The message sent by the system is clear: white land is no longer white. It must either be transformed into real development or bear the burden of its idleness.
For many years, white lands in the hearts of major cities remained frozen without development, leading to rising land prices and hindering the housing wheel. With the implementation of the new fee structure, the system takes a qualitative step to correct the market trajectory and restore balance between individual interests and public needs.
The new mechanism is clear and organized according to urban priorities: 10% for lands with the highest priority, 7.5% for lands with high priority, 5% for medium priority, and 2.5% for low priority, while lands located outside the priority zones are exempt from the fee, but are counted within the total of white lands owned within the urban area.
This detail highlights that the fees are not a financial burden as much as they are an urban incentive. The more impactful the land is on urban development, the higher the fee percentage, which encourages the owner to make a practical decision: either develop their land or bear the cost of leaving it idle year after year.
The positive aspect of the decision is clearly evident in that it balances private ownership with public interest. The owner retains their choice, but they realize that unproductive retention is no longer without cost. Conversely, the community benefits from the activation of urban development and an increase in the real estate supply, which directly reflects on families' ability to obtain suitable housing at fairer prices.
From another perspective, the decision can be viewed as an opportunity rather than a threat. Owners and developers have ample room to benefit from the positive side of this step: entering into development partnerships, or re-planning lands to achieve added value, or even selling them to an investor who wishes to activate them. The fees, ultimately, are not a deduction from wealth but rather a call to transform it into a productive investment that generates sustainable returns, instead of remaining silent assets that do not grow or contribute to the national economy.
Another notable positive aspect of this system is that it redraws the relationship between the real estate market and bank financing. Developed lands are more capable of attracting financing and investment, unlike raw, frozen lands that yield only static book value. The fees contribute to achieving fairness among owners, as it is unreasonable for someone who retains land in the heart of the city to be in a better position than someone who has invested in construction or development that serves the public. Additionally, the new system creates opportunities for contracting, consulting, and urban development companies, which in turn stimulates economic sectors linked to real estate, thus supporting the growth of non-oil GDP.
This step cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader strategic path led by the state within the framework of Vision 2030. The ultimate goal is not merely to activate the real estate market, but to achieve urban balance that allows every citizen the opportunity for suitable housing. Here, the fees are not an end in themselves, but a means to ensure that cities transform into spaces that are fairer in distributing urban opportunities and more capable of accommodating community aspirations.
The message sent by the system is clear: white land is no longer white. It must either be transformed into real development or bear the burden of its idleness.


