"听到对方律师说驳回原告诉求的时候，我火气一下子就大了。他们主张说没有披露（红线外不利因素）的义务，该说的都在'不利因素'里说了，说我们 购房者作为成年人，有义务去调查，我们怎么能调查出来（附近地块）有污染？" 9月10日上午，上海市浦东新区人民法院西漕第九法庭，业主周荔坐上了原告席，与上海浦发虹湾房地产开发有限公司（以下简称浦发虹湾）对簿公堂。 庭审结束后，她向《每日经济新闻》记者表达了强烈不满。 《每日经济新闻》曾于2024年11月报道《调查｜收房在即，隔壁竟是工业污染地块？》，业主们在预看房前后惊讶地发现：同在整个开发区域内的一块 地，土壤中有18种对人体有害的化学物质，地下水中有22种。 浦发虹湾交付的新房是否受到影响？污染地块究竟属于谁？ 据业主透露，开庭之前，原告方律师提交了1800多页书面证据，被告方也提交了从双方质证到陈述诉讼请求环节的证据，但双方在多项问题上分歧严重。 污染地块是否影响商品房？ 原告方提出了第一个争议点： 污染地块内原浦东电镀厂，为何不属于商品房所在地块环境初步调查报告中"地块周边企业的情况"？ 据周荔及现场旁听业主透露，原告代表律师向法庭表达了诉讼请求，被告应赔偿经济损失暂 ...

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal dispute between homeowners and Shanghai Pudong Huayuan Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. centers around the alleged failure to disclose environmental pollution risks associated with nearby land, which has led to significant financial claims from the homeowners [1][2][11]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The court hearing took place on September 10, where homeowner Zhou Li expressed dissatisfaction with the defense's argument that they had no obligation to disclose adverse factors outside the red line [1]. - The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for economic losses amounting to 612,863.3 yuan, while over 100 homeowners are considering similar legal actions, including claims for 10% of the total price of the affected properties [2][11]. - The case has been designated as a "demonstrative case," which will set a precedent for future similar lawsuits once a judgment is made [2]. Group 2: Environmental Concerns - Homeowners discovered that the nearby land contained 18 harmful chemical substances in the soil and 22 in the groundwater, raising concerns about the safety of the new residential properties [1][3]. - The original site of the pollution, the former Pudong Electroplating Factory, is adjacent to the residential developments, with the first phase of housing being less than 500 meters away from the contaminated site [5][8]. - Reports indicate that soil and groundwater contamination levels exceed acceptable human health standards, with specific pollutants identified [5][10]. Group 3: Disputes Over Evidence - The plaintiffs have submitted over 1,800 pages of evidence, while the defense has contested the relevance and purpose of this evidence, particularly regarding the environmental assessments [3][10]. - A key point of contention is whether the former electroplating factory should have been included in environmental assessments of the surrounding area, which could impact the legitimacy of the residential project [7][10]. - The defense argues that the plaintiffs had the responsibility to investigate potential environmental risks before purchasing the properties, emphasizing that the information was available through government channels [11][13]. Group 4: Misleading Information Claims - Homeowners allege that the developer misrepresented the nature of the adjacent land, indicating it was suitable for residential use, which they claim misled them during the purchasing process [16]. - The developer's representatives maintain that the land is designated for residential use after remediation, but homeowners argue that this was not clearly communicated at the time of sale [16][14]. - The ongoing legal battle reflects broader concerns about transparency and accountability in real estate transactions, particularly regarding environmental risks [14][17].