"The sanctity of private property is a basic principle of the Constitution", is this sentence right or wrong? Why?

Wrong. The lack of subject should be that citizens' private property is sacred and inviolable, and not everyone's private property is inviolable.

Article 13 stipulates that citizens' legitimate private property is inviolable. The state protects citizens' private property rights and inheritance rights according to law. In order to meet the needs of public interests, the state may, in accordance with the law, expropriate or requisition citizens' private property and compensate them.

With regard to land, Article 6 of the Urban Real Estate Management Law stipulates that in order to meet the needs of public interests, the state may expropriate the houses of units and individuals on state-owned land, and give compensation for demolition according to law to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the expropriated people; Expropriation of individual houses should also guarantee the living conditions of the expropriated person. Specific measures shall be formulated by the State Council.

At present, there is no clear legal definition of "public interest", and even the new law "Property Law" avoids this problem, and historical experience is quantified step by step; At present, there is no unified standard of expropriation and compensation in the country, and the present situation cannot be unified. Therefore, local legislation stipulates that compensation standards should be levied, and reasonable compensation should be generally given, which must be levied! Concern is reasonable rather than consideration, which can be low or high here. As long as it conforms to the market rules, the government has absolute initiative.