各位朋友，
在大家的協助之下，王家昨日（4/25）於被拆除原址蓋上組合屋，並計畫於今天（4/26）下午二點舉行落成典禮及記者會，但今日凌晨卻遭建設公司、部份同意戶及許多黑衣人「強行將圍籬圍起來…凌晨三時工人搭完鐵皮後，並未離開。兩架推土機後來推進工地，三點初直接駛入逼近有人在內的組合屋，未經申請夜間施工的情況下，深夜三點多，僅距離四、五公尺的距離，直接進行開鑿挖土動作。滂沱大雨中，近兩百名來自各地聲援的朋友，再次肉身包圍保衛組合屋，才使怪手暫時停工。然而，在場員警並未針對此一未申請夜間開工的動作做出盤查或開罰的動作。凌晨三時五十分許，許多路過市民看見這群年輕的不明人士在文林路轉角便利商店前領錢陸續離開（直接引自台灣都市更新受害者聯盟FB）。」
針對建設公司的威脅挑釁、及宣稱要「完全負責」的台北市政府郝市長卻是如此擺爛，我們都應給予強烈的譴責！
2012年4月26日 星期四
2012年4月17日 星期二
Public not allowed to define their own interest
Following the forced demolition of two houses owned by the Wang (王) family in Taipei’s Shilin District (士林), the Taipei City Government has been criticized for its approach to urban renewal programs. Numerous protests have also erupted over other cases of land expropriation. In light of these incidents, serious thought needs to be given to the issue at their core, namely, how best to define public interest.
The public interest is an abstract and indeterminate legal concept. It should be formed and expressed through rigorous administrative processes in which information is freely available and members of the public have a chance to participate. In other words, public interest is a consensus that is arrived at through fair and open participation, communication and discussion.
In pursuit of the public interest, most advanced democracies have abandoned the traditional model in which a minority of experts had a monopoly on policymaking. Instead, they actively encourage public participation.
This reflects the acceptance of various knowledge systems, like traditional knowledge, and value choices, such as the idea that one’s land is one’s home. This more inclusive approach justifies and rationalizes the public interest.
In contrast, Taiwan has long been used to authoritarian rule. Our government and institutions have a cast-iron grip on decisions involving the public interest. As a result, scant attention is paid to the decision-making process — a state of affairs that hasn’t changed since the Martial Law era ended in 1987.
The government in Taiwan has long been in the habit of acting arbitrarily, forming and executing plans as it sees fit in pursuit of economic growth and efficiency.
Those plans could be operational, like the fourth phase of the National Science Council’s Central Taiwan Science Park; town plans, such as the one in Ji-an Township (吉安) in Hualien County; or land expropriation plans, like the compulsory purchase of farmland at Dapu Village (大埔), Miaoli County and Puyu (璞玉) and Erchongpu (二重埔) in Hsinchu County. They could also be plans for the reassignment of urban land, such as the site of the Nantun (南屯) Catholic church in Greater Taichung, or urban renewal plans like the Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) development in which the Wangs’ house was demolished.
The system gives the public little opportunity to participate and even when they can, it is just done to fulfill legal requirements and has very little real meaning. The Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) became law in 1999. Originally, it was supposed to mimic similar French and German laws by incorporating legally binding planning procedures. Later, however, the government deleted most of the relevant clauses on the grounds that Taiwan’s administrative system and culture were very different from those of France and Germany.
Although the Ministry of Justice later drafted regulations in this regard, the government and associated institutions remained unwilling to cede their powers. As a result, public participation remains no more than an empty slogan. When ordinary people are excluded from the process and find their constitutional rights being violated or denied, they naturally take to the streets to protest such unjust treatment.
Given the failings of the current system, it is important that legally binding planning procedures be incorporated into the relevant laws, so that all the people whose interests are affected can take part. The introduction of meaningful public hearings would allow all parties concerned to work out between them where the public interest lies.
Translated by Julian Clegg.
Published in The Taipei Times, 2012/04/17, P. 8.
The public interest is an abstract and indeterminate legal concept. It should be formed and expressed through rigorous administrative processes in which information is freely available and members of the public have a chance to participate. In other words, public interest is a consensus that is arrived at through fair and open participation, communication and discussion.
In pursuit of the public interest, most advanced democracies have abandoned the traditional model in which a minority of experts had a monopoly on policymaking. Instead, they actively encourage public participation.
This reflects the acceptance of various knowledge systems, like traditional knowledge, and value choices, such as the idea that one’s land is one’s home. This more inclusive approach justifies and rationalizes the public interest.
In contrast, Taiwan has long been used to authoritarian rule. Our government and institutions have a cast-iron grip on decisions involving the public interest. As a result, scant attention is paid to the decision-making process — a state of affairs that hasn’t changed since the Martial Law era ended in 1987.
The government in Taiwan has long been in the habit of acting arbitrarily, forming and executing plans as it sees fit in pursuit of economic growth and efficiency.
Those plans could be operational, like the fourth phase of the National Science Council’s Central Taiwan Science Park; town plans, such as the one in Ji-an Township (吉安) in Hualien County; or land expropriation plans, like the compulsory purchase of farmland at Dapu Village (大埔), Miaoli County and Puyu (璞玉) and Erchongpu (二重埔) in Hsinchu County. They could also be plans for the reassignment of urban land, such as the site of the Nantun (南屯) Catholic church in Greater Taichung, or urban renewal plans like the Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) development in which the Wangs’ house was demolished.
The system gives the public little opportunity to participate and even when they can, it is just done to fulfill legal requirements and has very little real meaning. The Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) became law in 1999. Originally, it was supposed to mimic similar French and German laws by incorporating legally binding planning procedures. Later, however, the government deleted most of the relevant clauses on the grounds that Taiwan’s administrative system and culture were very different from those of France and Germany.
Although the Ministry of Justice later drafted regulations in this regard, the government and associated institutions remained unwilling to cede their powers. As a result, public participation remains no more than an empty slogan. When ordinary people are excluded from the process and find their constitutional rights being violated or denied, they naturally take to the streets to protest such unjust treatment.
Given the failings of the current system, it is important that legally binding planning procedures be incorporated into the relevant laws, so that all the people whose interests are affected can take part. The introduction of meaningful public hearings would allow all parties concerned to work out between them where the public interest lies.
Translated by Julian Clegg.
Published in The Taipei Times, 2012/04/17, P. 8.
2012年4月15日 星期日
Taiwanese property ownership in jeopardy
Urban renewal has never been a zero-sum game and the same goes for the relationship between land expropriation and protecting private property rights. The key element is whether urban renewal furthers the public interest and meets the requirements for land expropriation.
However, over the past few days, some commentators have said that criticism and protests against the forced demolition of the Wang (王) family’s property in Taipei City’s Shilin District (士林) show that Taiwan has the world’s strongest protection of private property rights, which overrides all else. These views are not only far from the truth, they are also devoid of any intellectual inquiry based on democracy and the spirit of public debate.
The reason why the Taipei City government’s forceful demolition of the Wang property caused so much fear and panic is that the public suddenly realized how incredibly weak government and systemic protection of private property is in Taiwan. A decision made by the majority can deprive the minority of a basic human right.
Also, after committing this big mistake, the Taipei City Government remains unwilling to face up to it. Department of Urban Development Commissioner Ting Yu-chun (丁育群) said it all when he said the administrative procedures pertaining to the case were completed and that we could not go back to the way things were. Such an attitude shows that the city government feels all it needs to do is ask for everyone to put up with their mistakes.
There are two main points when it comes to the Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) urban renewal project. The first is that the Taipei City Government, relying on self-government ordinances and regulations written by itself, forced the use of the whole block as the renewal unit for the project. The other point is that the developer relied on Article 25 of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) to force a minority that did not agree to move — in this case the Wang family — to carry out a transformation of rights. When the Wang family refused to submit, the city government hit them with Article 36 of the act and demolished their property on behalf of the developer.
What exactly does “a block” mean? The definition is very abstract and unclear, allowing the city government to do as it pleases. On the block where the Wang family residences once stood, there are another three buildings. If the entire block was supposed to be used as the renewal unit, then these other three buildings should also have been pulled down. This is not what happened.
Even more important is the question of whether the renewal of the entire block is the same as the legislative prescription for planning of land for renewal as given in Article 6 of the Urban Renewal Act. Where in that article does it say that the entire block must be used as the unit for urban renewal? The city government has obviously exceeded legal regulations; it violated not only the principle of prohibiting inappropriate contracts, but also the protection of property rights outlined in the Constitution.
These things were made clear last year in a ruling by the Taipei High Administrative Court, so how are we supposed to believe that the Taipei City Government did not know about this?
The forced demolition of the Wang property could have been avoided. However, the Taipei City Government has kept making mistakes and remains unwilling to admit to having done so.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Published in The Taipei Times, 2012/04/15, P. 8.
However, over the past few days, some commentators have said that criticism and protests against the forced demolition of the Wang (王) family’s property in Taipei City’s Shilin District (士林) show that Taiwan has the world’s strongest protection of private property rights, which overrides all else. These views are not only far from the truth, they are also devoid of any intellectual inquiry based on democracy and the spirit of public debate.
The reason why the Taipei City government’s forceful demolition of the Wang property caused so much fear and panic is that the public suddenly realized how incredibly weak government and systemic protection of private property is in Taiwan. A decision made by the majority can deprive the minority of a basic human right.
Also, after committing this big mistake, the Taipei City Government remains unwilling to face up to it. Department of Urban Development Commissioner Ting Yu-chun (丁育群) said it all when he said the administrative procedures pertaining to the case were completed and that we could not go back to the way things were. Such an attitude shows that the city government feels all it needs to do is ask for everyone to put up with their mistakes.
There are two main points when it comes to the Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) urban renewal project. The first is that the Taipei City Government, relying on self-government ordinances and regulations written by itself, forced the use of the whole block as the renewal unit for the project. The other point is that the developer relied on Article 25 of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) to force a minority that did not agree to move — in this case the Wang family — to carry out a transformation of rights. When the Wang family refused to submit, the city government hit them with Article 36 of the act and demolished their property on behalf of the developer.
What exactly does “a block” mean? The definition is very abstract and unclear, allowing the city government to do as it pleases. On the block where the Wang family residences once stood, there are another three buildings. If the entire block was supposed to be used as the renewal unit, then these other three buildings should also have been pulled down. This is not what happened.
Even more important is the question of whether the renewal of the entire block is the same as the legislative prescription for planning of land for renewal as given in Article 6 of the Urban Renewal Act. Where in that article does it say that the entire block must be used as the unit for urban renewal? The city government has obviously exceeded legal regulations; it violated not only the principle of prohibiting inappropriate contracts, but also the protection of property rights outlined in the Constitution.
These things were made clear last year in a ruling by the Taipei High Administrative Court, so how are we supposed to believe that the Taipei City Government did not know about this?
The forced demolition of the Wang property could have been avoided. However, the Taipei City Government has kept making mistakes and remains unwilling to admit to having done so.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Published in The Taipei Times, 2012/04/15, P. 8.
2012年4月14日 星期六
郝市長及李部長尚未出面公開道歉！（暴力強拆後第503天）
各位朋友，
今天（2013/8/13）是暴力強拆之後的第503天，郝市長僅於2012/4/3口頭表達遺憾，2012/4/11並於市議會答詢時表示，王家拆遷過程「我從來沒道歉過」，態度相當強硬蠻橫；而李部長迄今也尚未出面公開道歉。
3月28日北市府暴力強拆王家，嚴重侵害及剝奪人民憲法上所保障之基本人權，我和一群朋友以為台北市郝龍斌市長及內政部李鴻源部長皆需立即向王家及台灣社會公開道歉，並迅求彌補之道。
在他們二位尚未出面公開道歉之前，我將每天在本部落格留下記錄，並盼望這項要求能夠獲得社會各界的支持與響應。
此外，在大家的協助之下，王家於4/25在被拆除原址蓋上組合屋，並計畫於4/26下午二點舉行落成典禮及記者會，但4/26凌晨卻遭建設公司、部份同意戶及許多黑衣人「強行將圍籬圍起來…凌晨三時工人搭完鐵皮後，並未離開。兩架推土機後來推進工地，三點初直接駛入逼近有人在內的組合屋，未經申請夜間施工的情況下，深夜三點多，僅距離四、五公尺的距離，直接進行開鑿挖土動作。滂沱大雨中，近兩百名來自各地聲援的朋友，再次肉身包圍保衛組合屋，才使怪手暫時停工。然而，在場員警並未針對此一未申請夜間開工的動作做出盤查或開罰的動作。凌晨三時五十分許，許多路過市民看見這群年輕的不明人士在文林路轉角便利商店前領錢陸續離開（直接引自台灣都市更新受害者聯盟FB）。」
針對建設公司的威脅挑釁、及宣稱要「完全負責」的台北市政府郝市長卻是如此擺爛，我們都應給予強烈的譴責！
徐世榮敬上
2013/04/26引自蘋果日報即時新聞
文林苑王家聲請釋憲，大法官今作出709號解釋，宣告《都市更新條例》第10條第1、2項，第19條第3項前段，違反正當行政程序，違背《憲法》保障人民財產權、居住自由，1年內應修正，逾期失效。
解釋文指出，都市更新攸關公益，也影響建物所有權人財產權及居住自由，為使主管機關核准都市更新概要，計畫前，能確實符合法律規定並提高居民接受度，都更條例應修法成立適當組織審議都更案，並確保利害關係人能知悉所有資訊，並可以言詞或書面向主管機關陳述意見。
另居民申請都更時，僅須相關權利人及面積逾1/10即可，大法官認為同意比率太低，不服尊重多數的民主精神。此外主管機關應公開舉辦聽證會，再核定是否准予都更。
今天（2013/8/13）是暴力強拆之後的第503天，郝市長僅於2012/4/3口頭表達遺憾，2012/4/11並於市議會答詢時表示，王家拆遷過程「我從來沒道歉過」，態度相當強硬蠻橫；而李部長迄今也尚未出面公開道歉。
3月28日北市府暴力強拆王家，嚴重侵害及剝奪人民憲法上所保障之基本人權，我和一群朋友以為台北市郝龍斌市長及內政部李鴻源部長皆需立即向王家及台灣社會公開道歉，並迅求彌補之道。
在他們二位尚未出面公開道歉之前，我將每天在本部落格留下記錄，並盼望這項要求能夠獲得社會各界的支持與響應。
此外，在大家的協助之下，王家於4/25在被拆除原址蓋上組合屋，並計畫於4/26下午二點舉行落成典禮及記者會，但4/26凌晨卻遭建設公司、部份同意戶及許多黑衣人「強行將圍籬圍起來…凌晨三時工人搭完鐵皮後，並未離開。兩架推土機後來推進工地，三點初直接駛入逼近有人在內的組合屋，未經申請夜間施工的情況下，深夜三點多，僅距離四、五公尺的距離，直接進行開鑿挖土動作。滂沱大雨中，近兩百名來自各地聲援的朋友，再次肉身包圍保衛組合屋，才使怪手暫時停工。然而，在場員警並未針對此一未申請夜間開工的動作做出盤查或開罰的動作。凌晨三時五十分許，許多路過市民看見這群年輕的不明人士在文林路轉角便利商店前領錢陸續離開（直接引自台灣都市更新受害者聯盟FB）。」
針對建設公司的威脅挑釁、及宣稱要「完全負責」的台北市政府郝市長卻是如此擺爛，我們都應給予強烈的譴責！
徐世榮敬上
2013/04/26引自蘋果日報即時新聞
文林苑王家聲請釋憲，大法官今作出709號解釋，宣告《都市更新條例》第10條第1、2項，第19條第3項前段，違反正當行政程序，違背《憲法》保障人民財產權、居住自由，1年內應修正，逾期失效。
解釋文指出，都市更新攸關公益，也影響建物所有權人財產權及居住自由，為使主管機關核准都市更新概要，計畫前，能確實符合法律規定並提高居民接受度，都更條例應修法成立適當組織審議都更案，並確保利害關係人能知悉所有資訊，並可以言詞或書面向主管機關陳述意見。
另居民申請都更時，僅須相關權利人及面積逾1/10即可，大法官認為同意比率太低，不服尊重多數的民主精神。此外主管機關應公開舉辦聽證會，再核定是否准予都更。
2012年4月13日 星期五
〈澄社評論〉請問：誰是「公共」？
北市府實施都市更新，在暴力強拆王家之後，引發強烈批評；同時，土地徵收及市地重劃也爆發多起激烈抗爭。我們應當認真思考這些爭議的核心課題：公共利益該如何界定？
公共利益是抽象詞彙及法律不確定概念，其體現必須經由嚴謹的行政程序，在資訊公開及民眾公平參與的情況下，共同來形塑；也就是說，公共利益是經由公平公開的參與、溝通及討論，最後所獲得的共識之謂。為了捕捉公共利益，先進民主國家大都已拋棄過往由少數學者專家來獨斷的傳統方式，而是積極鼓勵民眾參與，在尊重不同的知識體系（如地方及傳統知識）、多元的價值選擇（如土地是家），來正當化及合理化公共利益。
惟我國已習於威權統治，政府及其聯盟牢牢掌握公共利益的詮釋權，非常缺乏對於計畫形成過程的關注，這個情況並未因解嚴而有根本變革。長久以來，為了追求經濟成長及增進效率，政府往往便宜行事，隨意訂定興辦事業計畫（如國科會中科四期）、都市計畫（如花蓮吉安）、土地徵收計畫（如苗栗大埔、新竹璞玉及二重埔）、市地重劃計畫（如台中南屯天主堂）、都更計畫（如文林苑）等。制度上，甚少有民眾參與的機會，縱然是有，也僅是為了滿足「跑程序」的形式要件而已，相當缺乏實質意義。
多年前，我國在制訂「行政程序法」時，原本欲師法德國法制，將「計畫確定程序」納入，惟後來政府基於「行政體制及行政文化差距甚大」理由，將大多數條文刪除，僅保留第一六三及一六四條。法務部後來雖曾擬定相關草案，但是政府及其聯盟仍不願意將權力釋出，這使得民眾參與至今依舊只是個口號。當民眾無法參與，憲法所保障權利遭受侵奪，自然被迫走上街頭，透過抗爭來陳述其所受的冤屈與不平。
因此，將計畫確定程序納入相關法規，讓相關利害關係人都能夠參與，經由聽證程序來共同形塑公共利益，應該是當務之急。
發表於自由時報，2012/04/13，A17。
公共利益是抽象詞彙及法律不確定概念，其體現必須經由嚴謹的行政程序，在資訊公開及民眾公平參與的情況下，共同來形塑；也就是說，公共利益是經由公平公開的參與、溝通及討論，最後所獲得的共識之謂。為了捕捉公共利益，先進民主國家大都已拋棄過往由少數學者專家來獨斷的傳統方式，而是積極鼓勵民眾參與，在尊重不同的知識體系（如地方及傳統知識）、多元的價值選擇（如土地是家），來正當化及合理化公共利益。
惟我國已習於威權統治，政府及其聯盟牢牢掌握公共利益的詮釋權，非常缺乏對於計畫形成過程的關注，這個情況並未因解嚴而有根本變革。長久以來，為了追求經濟成長及增進效率，政府往往便宜行事，隨意訂定興辦事業計畫（如國科會中科四期）、都市計畫（如花蓮吉安）、土地徵收計畫（如苗栗大埔、新竹璞玉及二重埔）、市地重劃計畫（如台中南屯天主堂）、都更計畫（如文林苑）等。制度上，甚少有民眾參與的機會，縱然是有，也僅是為了滿足「跑程序」的形式要件而已，相當缺乏實質意義。
多年前，我國在制訂「行政程序法」時，原本欲師法德國法制，將「計畫確定程序」納入，惟後來政府基於「行政體制及行政文化差距甚大」理由，將大多數條文刪除，僅保留第一六三及一六四條。法務部後來雖曾擬定相關草案，但是政府及其聯盟仍不願意將權力釋出，這使得民眾參與至今依舊只是個口號。當民眾無法參與，憲法所保障權利遭受侵奪，自然被迫走上街頭，透過抗爭來陳述其所受的冤屈與不平。
因此，將計畫確定程序納入相關法規，讓相關利害關係人都能夠參與，經由聽證程序來共同形塑公共利益，應該是當務之急。
發表於自由時報，2012/04/13，A17。
2012年4月10日 星期二
文林苑熱點：何謂整個街廓？
都市更新從來不是○與一的零和賽局，土地徵收與保障私人財產權的關係也是如此，其關鍵乃是在於是否有增進公共利益及符合徵收所必備的嚴謹要件。然而，近日來，一些輿論卻將批評強拆王家的活動與論述，冠上「台灣成為世界上為維護私產權最堅強堡壘」、或是「無限上綱私有財產權的保護」，這些論點不僅與事實相距甚遠，也缺乏民主思辨與公共辯論的風度。
此次北市府暴力強拆王家之所以會引起社會的震驚與恐慌，乃是大家突然驚覺，我們的政府與制度對於私人財產權的保護竟然是如此的薄弱！多數決就可剝奪少數人的基本人權。而台北市政府在犯了這麼大的錯誤之後，卻依舊不願意面對錯誤，都發局長至今仍然大言不慚，表示「此案行政程序已走完，現在已無法走回頭」，其意思乃是只能將錯就錯了。
士林文林苑都更案有二個關鍵重點：一為台北市政府透過自己訂定的自治法規及規則，強迫在台北市進行的都市更新案，一定要以「整個街廓」為更新單元；另一則為建商透過都市更新條例第二十五之一條，強迫少數不同意戶（王家）進行權利變換，在王家抵死不從的情況下，市府則是祭出第三十六條，強力代為拆除。然我們的社會大抵只看到後者，卻嚴重忽略了前者。
何謂整個街廓？其定義非常的抽象模糊，台北市政府竟然可以恣意為之。在王家所坐落之街廓內，其實還包括了其他三棟建築物，倘要以整個街廓為更新單元，自然要將這三棟建築物也一併納入，但是事實並非如此。更為關鍵者，乃是整個街廓的更新是否與都市更新條例第六條，劃定為更新地區之立法意旨一致？第六條中，有那一款是要求以整個街廓為更新單元？台北市政府明顯已經逾越法律規定，不僅違反了不當聯結禁止原則，也牴觸了憲法財產權保障意旨。這一點其實在去年台北高等行政法院一百年訴字第八八三號判決已經清楚指明，台北市政府難道會不知道嗎？
王家暴力強拆個案其實是可以避免的，但是台北市政府卻是將錯就錯，一錯再錯，而且至今還不認錯！
（發表於自由時報，2012/04/10，A13）
此次北市府暴力強拆王家之所以會引起社會的震驚與恐慌，乃是大家突然驚覺，我們的政府與制度對於私人財產權的保護竟然是如此的薄弱！多數決就可剝奪少數人的基本人權。而台北市政府在犯了這麼大的錯誤之後，卻依舊不願意面對錯誤，都發局長至今仍然大言不慚，表示「此案行政程序已走完，現在已無法走回頭」，其意思乃是只能將錯就錯了。
士林文林苑都更案有二個關鍵重點：一為台北市政府透過自己訂定的自治法規及規則，強迫在台北市進行的都市更新案，一定要以「整個街廓」為更新單元；另一則為建商透過都市更新條例第二十五之一條，強迫少數不同意戶（王家）進行權利變換，在王家抵死不從的情況下，市府則是祭出第三十六條，強力代為拆除。然我們的社會大抵只看到後者，卻嚴重忽略了前者。
何謂整個街廓？其定義非常的抽象模糊，台北市政府竟然可以恣意為之。在王家所坐落之街廓內，其實還包括了其他三棟建築物，倘要以整個街廓為更新單元，自然要將這三棟建築物也一併納入，但是事實並非如此。更為關鍵者，乃是整個街廓的更新是否與都市更新條例第六條，劃定為更新地區之立法意旨一致？第六條中，有那一款是要求以整個街廓為更新單元？台北市政府明顯已經逾越法律規定，不僅違反了不當聯結禁止原則，也牴觸了憲法財產權保障意旨。這一點其實在去年台北高等行政法院一百年訴字第八八三號判決已經清楚指明，台北市政府難道會不知道嗎？
王家暴力強拆個案其實是可以避免的，但是台北市政府卻是將錯就錯，一錯再錯，而且至今還不認錯！
（發表於自由時報，2012/04/10，A13）
2012年4月7日 星期六
拆了民宅再釋憲
士林文林苑暴力強拆事件對王家及社會都造成了巨大的傷害，郝市長雖然於事後宣稱要「完全負責」，但是，日前他卻要求中央主管機關—內政部提起釋憲。
都市更新事業的進行，台北市政府其實擁有相當大的權力。因為，在都市更新條例及其施行細則之外，台北市政府自訂了《台北市都市更新自治條例》、《自行劃定更新單元審查原則》、《申請自行劃定更新單元（重建區段）作業須知》、《自行劃定更新單元建築物及地區環境評估標準》等十八種相關自治法規及規則，這才是台北市都更事業執行的依據。
王家暴力強拆案非常值得檢討的關鍵因素，乃是此「更新單元」完全是由台北市政府劃定。台北市都發局長日前表示，「都市計畫委員會審議都更單元劃定案時，會以『整個街廓』的未來開發做為考量，王家寬、深度不足，又不臨建築線，未來要單獨建築非常困難，所以當時委員會將整個街廓劃為更新單元。」
由此可知，市府乃是主觀的將王家土地視為畸零地，強迫其加入更新單元之中。這表示，王家之所以被劃入更新單元，乃是源自於台北市政府自行頒佈之自治法規及規則。
試問，房屋不臨建築線為何就一定要加入更新單元？未來單獨建築非常困難，就一定要加入更新單元嗎？單獨建築非常困難，難道就表示無法建築嗎？其實，王家正面對著台北捷運淡水線，依據台北捷運法規，還是可以申請建築，也就是說，不臨建築線根本不是問題，台北市政府怎可以此理由強迫王家加入更新單元？
再者，王家土地其實相當方整，為何會被定義為畸零地？畸零地一定要納入更新單元的法源依據為何？另，「整個街廓」的開發想像，難道就符合都市更新的目的？它能夠凌駕基本人權的保障？
郝龍斌，不要當個完全卸責的市長！
(發表於自由時報，2012/04/07，A17）
都市更新事業的進行，台北市政府其實擁有相當大的權力。因為，在都市更新條例及其施行細則之外，台北市政府自訂了《台北市都市更新自治條例》、《自行劃定更新單元審查原則》、《申請自行劃定更新單元（重建區段）作業須知》、《自行劃定更新單元建築物及地區環境評估標準》等十八種相關自治法規及規則，這才是台北市都更事業執行的依據。
王家暴力強拆案非常值得檢討的關鍵因素，乃是此「更新單元」完全是由台北市政府劃定。台北市都發局長日前表示，「都市計畫委員會審議都更單元劃定案時，會以『整個街廓』的未來開發做為考量，王家寬、深度不足，又不臨建築線，未來要單獨建築非常困難，所以當時委員會將整個街廓劃為更新單元。」
由此可知，市府乃是主觀的將王家土地視為畸零地，強迫其加入更新單元之中。這表示，王家之所以被劃入更新單元，乃是源自於台北市政府自行頒佈之自治法規及規則。
試問，房屋不臨建築線為何就一定要加入更新單元？未來單獨建築非常困難，就一定要加入更新單元嗎？單獨建築非常困難，難道就表示無法建築嗎？其實，王家正面對著台北捷運淡水線，依據台北捷運法規，還是可以申請建築，也就是說，不臨建築線根本不是問題，台北市政府怎可以此理由強迫王家加入更新單元？
再者，王家土地其實相當方整，為何會被定義為畸零地？畸零地一定要納入更新單元的法源依據為何？另，「整個街廓」的開發想像，難道就符合都市更新的目的？它能夠凌駕基本人權的保障？
郝龍斌，不要當個完全卸責的市長！
(發表於自由時報，2012/04/07，A17）
Urban renewal system is flawed
Taiwan’s urban renewal system is seriously flawed. This state of affairs was highlighted by the violent clashes in Taipei’s Shilin District (士林) over an urban renewal project on Thursday last week. Here are a few points to be considered in that context:
First, this project is a forced joint construction undertaking initiated by the developer.
Urban renewal in Taiwan has almost nothing in common with the US or European system. The Taiwanese system places urban renewal in the hands of developers. The developer is in control of defining key components of such projects, such as the “renewal unit” mentioned in articles 10 and 11 of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) and the creation of an “urban renewal project plan” and a “rights transformation plan,” mentioned in articles 19 and 29 respectively of the same act. Although the act also stipulates procedures for organizing related public exhibitions and public hearings, the developer controls the system and holds the power, and not many people are able to stand up to that.
Second, this is a land expropriation project initiated by the developer.
Although the term “land expropriation” is nowhere to be found in the Urban Renewal Act, the act essentially allows land expropriation that deprives individuals of their property rights. It is particularly frightening because land expropriation for the purpose of urban renewal does not follow the stringent requirements otherwise required, and this lies at the heart of the current urban renewal controversy. Only the government can initiate land expropriation and the law does not allow the private sector to do so. However, the government created a loophole in the Urban Renewal Act by stating in Article 22 and Article 25, clause 1, that if a certain proportion of the owners of private land or buildings in an area designated for urban renewal agree to the project, those who oppose it can be forced to join, thus depriving people of a constitutionally protected right.
Land expropriation offers the state a legal procedure for depriving people of their constitutionally protected right to property for a public cause. However, land expropriation affects not only the rights of someone whose land rights have been invaded, but also their rights to subsistence and work. As such, land expropriation requires that five important conditions be met: public interest, necessity, proportionality, a last resort and full compensation. All these five conditions must be met, without exception.
In Taiwan, however, an “agreement ratio” has been invented to replace these five crucial conditions in the case of urban renewal, wrongfully legitimizing it by relying on the decision by a majority. This is in all likelihood unconstitutional.
Third, Taiwan’s Urban Renewal Act is the product of neo-liberalism and privatization ideas. In systemic terms, the government on the one hand gives free rein to developers, while on the other hand uses its public authority to assist them.
Article 36 of the act says that the developer may request that the municipal, county or city authorities tear down buildings or evict tenants that have not been removed or left within a stipulated period, and that local authorities must comply with the request. This means the government has to tear down buildings or remove tenants, thus becoming an accomplice in promoting the interests of the developer.
Fourth, our land is our home. Land carries great significance, as well as diverse and complex implications. For example, it can be an economic resource and a profit-bringing asset; it can also be a sustainable environmental resource and a necessary element for our continued survival. However, even more important than land is the space that we subjectively identify with; it is our home, and the place our souls are connected to and are sustained by. In addition to not being for sale, it is our roots.
In addition to property-rights concerns, then, land is closely connected to and cannot be separated from an individual’s right to subsistence and their character.
In other words, there is an absolute relationship between an individual’s subsistence and character and their property ownership and freedom of disposal and use thereof. That is why a violation of property rights also involves the deprivation of their rights to subsistence and their character. Martial law has long been lifted, and Taiwan has returned to a constitutional government. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has signed two UN human rights conventions, and the public’s basic rights should now enjoy ample protection. Despite this, the Taipei City Government forcibly demolished property last week in a great and shameful setback for human rights in Taiwan.
Published in Taipei Times, April 04, 2012, P. 8.
First, this project is a forced joint construction undertaking initiated by the developer.
Urban renewal in Taiwan has almost nothing in common with the US or European system. The Taiwanese system places urban renewal in the hands of developers. The developer is in control of defining key components of such projects, such as the “renewal unit” mentioned in articles 10 and 11 of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) and the creation of an “urban renewal project plan” and a “rights transformation plan,” mentioned in articles 19 and 29 respectively of the same act. Although the act also stipulates procedures for organizing related public exhibitions and public hearings, the developer controls the system and holds the power, and not many people are able to stand up to that.
Second, this is a land expropriation project initiated by the developer.
Although the term “land expropriation” is nowhere to be found in the Urban Renewal Act, the act essentially allows land expropriation that deprives individuals of their property rights. It is particularly frightening because land expropriation for the purpose of urban renewal does not follow the stringent requirements otherwise required, and this lies at the heart of the current urban renewal controversy. Only the government can initiate land expropriation and the law does not allow the private sector to do so. However, the government created a loophole in the Urban Renewal Act by stating in Article 22 and Article 25, clause 1, that if a certain proportion of the owners of private land or buildings in an area designated for urban renewal agree to the project, those who oppose it can be forced to join, thus depriving people of a constitutionally protected right.
Land expropriation offers the state a legal procedure for depriving people of their constitutionally protected right to property for a public cause. However, land expropriation affects not only the rights of someone whose land rights have been invaded, but also their rights to subsistence and work. As such, land expropriation requires that five important conditions be met: public interest, necessity, proportionality, a last resort and full compensation. All these five conditions must be met, without exception.
In Taiwan, however, an “agreement ratio” has been invented to replace these five crucial conditions in the case of urban renewal, wrongfully legitimizing it by relying on the decision by a majority. This is in all likelihood unconstitutional.
Third, Taiwan’s Urban Renewal Act is the product of neo-liberalism and privatization ideas. In systemic terms, the government on the one hand gives free rein to developers, while on the other hand uses its public authority to assist them.
Article 36 of the act says that the developer may request that the municipal, county or city authorities tear down buildings or evict tenants that have not been removed or left within a stipulated period, and that local authorities must comply with the request. This means the government has to tear down buildings or remove tenants, thus becoming an accomplice in promoting the interests of the developer.
Fourth, our land is our home. Land carries great significance, as well as diverse and complex implications. For example, it can be an economic resource and a profit-bringing asset; it can also be a sustainable environmental resource and a necessary element for our continued survival. However, even more important than land is the space that we subjectively identify with; it is our home, and the place our souls are connected to and are sustained by. In addition to not being for sale, it is our roots.
In addition to property-rights concerns, then, land is closely connected to and cannot be separated from an individual’s right to subsistence and their character.
In other words, there is an absolute relationship between an individual’s subsistence and character and their property ownership and freedom of disposal and use thereof. That is why a violation of property rights also involves the deprivation of their rights to subsistence and their character. Martial law has long been lifted, and Taiwan has returned to a constitutional government. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has signed two UN human rights conventions, and the public’s basic rights should now enjoy ample protection. Despite this, the Taipei City Government forcibly demolished property last week in a great and shameful setback for human rights in Taiwan.
Published in Taipei Times, April 04, 2012, P. 8.
2012年4月6日 星期五
都市更新之實施，台北市政府具備相對自主性—請郝市長勇於承擔責任，出面公開道歉！
今天是士林王家遭受台北市政府暴力強拆後的第9天，事件發生之後，不僅對王家造成巨大傷害，也引發社會相當大的震撼，郝市長雖於事後宣稱要「完全負責」，但是，觀其昨日（4/4）之舉動，卻是建議中央主管機關—內政部，針對《都市更新條例》部份條文提起釋憲，本人以為這個動作的目的恐有推卸責任予中央政府之嫌（或可稱為「完全卸責」！），因為，不論未來釋憲的結論是合憲或違憲，郝市長皆是贏家，台北市政府皆可宣稱自己僅是執行單位，是依中央所立之法行政。
三、同一更新單元的劃定原則，缺乏一致性
但是情況真是如此嗎？台北市政府在實施都市更新時僅能依法行政，完全缺乏相對自主性嗎？答案是否定的。
為了實施都市更新，台北市政府自訂了《台北市都市更新自治條例》、《自行劃定更新單元審查原則》、《台北市土地及合法建築物所有權人申請自行劃定更新單元(重建區段)作業須知》、《自行劃定更新單元案涉及「台北市都市更新自治條例」第12條第1 項第4 款規定之審查原則》等相關自治法規及規則，而士林王家暴力強拆案，其中之重大關鍵問題其實都是直接與《自治條例》、《審查原則》、《作業須知》相關，而不完全是《都市更新條例》。因此，當我們今日於立法院大陣丈的檢討《都市更新條例》修正方向時，本人要特別提醒，請不要忽略了台北市政府自訂之自治法規及規則，及其應當承擔的責任。
一、更新單元之劃定，完全是由北市府決定
《台北市都市更新自治條例》第12條規範更新單元之劃定基準，其下羅列五項，台北市政府並且另定《自行劃定更新單元審查原則》，其第5點規定，「更新單元非屬完整街廓時，不得造成更新單元鄰接土地為畸零地，並應由建築師簽證確認之。」《作業須知》也指陳，「更新單元鄰接土地不得造成畸零地情事，並於申請書敘明檢討情形 (畸零地係指面積狹小或地界曲折之基地，得由申請人委託建築師檢討，並出具證明文件)。」
台北市都市發展局丁育群局長日前接受媒體採訪時表示，「都市計畫委員會審議都更單元劃定案時，會以『整個街廓』的未來開發做考量，『每一個案子都一樣。』他說，王家寬、深度不足，又不臨建築線，未來要單獨建築非常困難，所以當時委員將整個街廓劃為更新單元。（中國時報，2012/04/02 ）」由此可知，市府是將王家之土地視為畸零地，強迫其加入更新單元之中。這也表示，王家之所以被劃入更新單元，乃是源自於台北市政府自行頒佈之自治法規及規則，不是《都市更新條例》，而這恐也無法完全歸責於實施者（樂揚建設公司）。
試問，房屋不臨建築線為何就一定要加入更新單元？未來單獨建築非常困難，就一定要加入更新單元嗎？為何居民之意願可以不受尊重？其實，王家正面對著台北捷運淡水線，依據台北捷運法規，鄰近捷運線的住戶要興建房屋時，可用「交通設施境界線」申請建築，也就是說，不臨「建築線」根本不是問題，王家依然可以興建房舍，台北市政府怎可以此理由來強迫王家加入更新單元？眾所皆知，土地所有權乃是受到憲法明文保障，台北市政府自行訂定之自治法規及規則何以具有如此龐大之效力？王家土地為何被定義為畸零地？畸零地又為何一定要納入更新單元？其法源依據為何？這是否已涉及違憲？
又，《都市更新條例》第11條僅授權土地及合法建築物所有權人針對「其」所有之土地及合法建築物來劃定更新單元：
未經劃定應實施更新之地區，土地及合法建築物所有權人為促進其土地再開發利用或改善居住環境，得依主管機關所定更新單元劃定基準，自行劃定更新單元，依前條規定，申請實施該地區之都市更新事業。
第11條並未授權可以把別人土地及合法建築物劃入更新單元，但台北市政府卻是擴大解釋，逾越母法之規定，在自訂自治法規及規則中，為了整個街廓的開發，要求實施者把非屬於自己之土地及建築物劃入，本人以為這已經明顯違法！
二、居民意願的調查與審查，並不詳實
《台北市都市更新自治條例》第3條規定：
依都市更新條例實施都市更新事業之機關、機構或團體（以下簡稱實施者）於都市更新事業計畫擬定前，應進行詳細調查，並應於都市更新事業計畫內敘明調查結果。
前項調查項目，應包括每宗土地及建築物使用性質、強度、權屬、人口組成、公共設施、地區環境及居民意願等。
依此，實施者（樂揚建設公司）對於居民意願應予調查，並將詳細調查資料敘明於其所提出之都市更新事業計畫之中。由於王家自始至終就是反對參與都市更新，試問，樂揚建設公司對於王家二戶之意願是如何敘明？而台北市都市更新審議委員會又是如何予以審查？今年2月10日在營建署的會議中，曾做出三點會議結論，其第三點即為「關於實施者涉嫌呈報不實資訊，恐違反與北市府簽訂之都市更新切結書，台北市政府應針對各計畫書圖內容不實之各項疑點進行逐點釐清。」試問，台北市政府對此釐清了嗎？有對外說明了嗎？樂揚建設公司真的沒有予以敘明嗎？倘若樂揚建設公司有予以敘明，那為何仍然被劃入？都市更新審議委員會到底是如何審查的？
三、同一更新單元的劃定原則，缺乏一致性
與王家同一街廓內，就有其他三棟大樓被排除在更新單元之外。根據《台北市都市更新自治條例》第14條第1項規定：
主管機關劃定為應實施更新之地區，其土地及合法建築物所有權人自行劃定更新單元者，除應符合第十二條之規定外，並應以不造成街廓內相鄰土地無法劃定更新單元為原則。
據查，其他三棟建築物與王家二棟建築物一樣，皆無法單獨成立更新單元，但是為何其他三棟建築物可以劃出更新單元，而王家卻是無法劃出？其理由為何？什麼是原則？什麼又是例外？同樣的，今年2月10日營建署的會議，在三點會議結論中，其第一點即為「關於同宗基地是否可排除士林王家之可行性疑慮，可透過王家簽署切結書，同意未來無法自成都市更新單元獲得解套，請北市府與實施者做慎重考量。」但是，台北市政府為何不予考量？
綜上，針對王家被北市府暴力強拆一事，倘北市府針對上述三點皆能慎重考量，並做出合法適情之裁量，悲劇及傷害或就可以避免。本人因此以為台北市政府應該承擔最大之責任！郝龍斌市長應勇於承擔責任，出面公開道歉，並迅求彌補之道。
（本文發表於立法院公聽會，2012/04/06）
（本文發表於立法院公聽會，2012/04/06）
2012年4月3日 星期二
郝市長及李部長尚未出面公開道歉！（暴力強拆後第503天）
各位朋友，
今天（2013/8/13）是暴力強拆之後的第503天，郝市長僅於2012/4/3口頭表達遺憾，2012/4/11並於市議會答詢時表示，王家拆遷過程「我從來沒道歉過」，態度相當強硬蠻橫；而李部長迄今也尚未出面公開道歉。
3月28日北市府暴力強拆王家，嚴重侵害及剝奪人民憲法上所保障之基本人權，我和一群朋友以為台北市郝龍斌市長及內政部李鴻源部長皆需立即向王家及台灣社會公開道歉，並迅求彌補之道。
在他們二位尚未出面公開道歉之前，我將每天在本部落格留下記錄，並盼望這項要求能夠獲得社會各界的支持與響應。
徐世榮敬上
2013/04/26引自蘋果日報即時新聞
文林苑王家聲請釋憲，大法官今作出709號解釋，宣告《都市更新條例》第10條第1、2項，第19條第3項前段，違反正當行政程序，違背《憲法》保障人民財產權、居住自由，1年內應修正，逾期失效。
解釋文指出，都市更新攸關公益，也影響建物所有權人財產權及居住自由，為使主管機關核准都市更新概要，計畫前，能確實符合法律規定並提高居民接受度，都更條例應修法成立適當組織審議都更案，並確保利害關係人能知悉所有資訊，並可以言詞或書面向主管機關陳述意見。
另居民申請都更時，僅須相關權利人及面積逾1/10即可，大法官認為同意比率太低，不服尊重多數的民主精神。此外主管機關應公開舉辦聽證會，再核定是否准予都更。
今天（2013/8/13）是暴力強拆之後的第503天，郝市長僅於2012/4/3口頭表達遺憾，2012/4/11並於市議會答詢時表示，王家拆遷過程「我從來沒道歉過」，態度相當強硬蠻橫；而李部長迄今也尚未出面公開道歉。
3月28日北市府暴力強拆王家，嚴重侵害及剝奪人民憲法上所保障之基本人權，我和一群朋友以為台北市郝龍斌市長及內政部李鴻源部長皆需立即向王家及台灣社會公開道歉，並迅求彌補之道。
在他們二位尚未出面公開道歉之前，我將每天在本部落格留下記錄，並盼望這項要求能夠獲得社會各界的支持與響應。
徐世榮敬上
2013/04/26引自蘋果日報即時新聞
文林苑王家聲請釋憲，大法官今作出709號解釋，宣告《都市更新條例》第10條第1、2項，第19條第3項前段，違反正當行政程序，違背《憲法》保障人民財產權、居住自由，1年內應修正，逾期失效。
解釋文指出，都市更新攸關公益，也影響建物所有權人財產權及居住自由，為使主管機關核准都市更新概要，計畫前，能確實符合法律規定並提高居民接受度，都更條例應修法成立適當組織審議都更案，並確保利害關係人能知悉所有資訊，並可以言詞或書面向主管機關陳述意見。
另居民申請都更時，僅須相關權利人及面積逾1/10即可，大法官認為同意比率太低，不服尊重多數的民主精神。此外主管機關應公開舉辦聽證會，再核定是否准予都更。
2012年4月2日 星期一
請郝市長及李部長出面公開道歉！（暴力強拆後第503天）
各位朋友，
2012/3/28北市府暴力強拆王家，嚴重侵害及剝奪人民憲法上所保障之基本人權，我和一群朋友以為台北市郝市長及內政部李部長皆需立即向王家及台灣社會公開道歉，並迅求彌補之道。在他們二位尚未出面公開道歉之前，我將每天在本部落格留下記錄，並盼望這項要求能夠獲得社會各界的響應。
徐世榮敬上
2013/04/26引自蘋果日報即時新聞
文林苑王家聲請釋憲，大法官今作出709號解釋，宣告《都市更新條例》第10條第1、2項，第19條第3項前段，違反正當行政程序，違背《憲法》保障人民財產權、居住自由，1年內應修正，逾期失效。
解釋文指出，都市更新攸關公益，也影響建物所有權人財產權及居住自由，為使主管機關核准都市更新概要，計畫前，能確實符合法律規定並提高居民接受度，都更條例應修法成立適當組織審議都更案，並確保利害關係人能知悉所有資訊，並可以言詞或書面向主管機關陳述意見。
另居民申請都更時，僅須相關權利人及面積逾1/10即可，大法官認為同意比率太低，不服尊重多數的民主精神。此外主管機關應公開舉辦聽證會，再核定是否准予都更。
2012/3/28北市府暴力強拆王家，嚴重侵害及剝奪人民憲法上所保障之基本人權，我和一群朋友以為台北市郝市長及內政部李部長皆需立即向王家及台灣社會公開道歉，並迅求彌補之道。在他們二位尚未出面公開道歉之前，我將每天在本部落格留下記錄，並盼望這項要求能夠獲得社會各界的響應。
徐世榮敬上
2013/04/26引自蘋果日報即時新聞
文林苑王家聲請釋憲，大法官今作出709號解釋，宣告《都市更新條例》第10條第1、2項，第19條第3項前段，違反正當行政程序，違背《憲法》保障人民財產權、居住自由，1年內應修正，逾期失效。
解釋文指出，都市更新攸關公益，也影響建物所有權人財產權及居住自由，為使主管機關核准都市更新概要，計畫前，能確實符合法律規定並提高居民接受度，都更條例應修法成立適當組織審議都更案，並確保利害關係人能知悉所有資訊，並可以言詞或書面向主管機關陳述意見。
另居民申請都更時，僅須相關權利人及面積逾1/10即可，大法官認為同意比率太低，不服尊重多數的民主精神。此外主管機關應公開舉辦聽證會，再核定是否准予都更。
2012年4月1日 星期日
郝市長，福林路到文林路，不遠的！
郝市長，去看看王家吧，您住的福林路離王家的文林路，不遠的，步行不會超過二十分鐘的，去看看王家，去關懷王家吧。
建議您這時要見的是王家，而不是學者專家；也建議您這時要主動，千萬不要如今日報紙所報，還需等王家提出要求，才要與王家碰面。
如果真是如此，那就太讓人失望了，因為您與人民的期待與距離都太遙遠了！
建議您這時要見的是王家，而不是學者專家；也建議您這時要主動，千萬不要如今日報紙所報，還需等王家提出要求，才要與王家碰面。
如果真是如此，那就太讓人失望了，因為您與人民的期待與距離都太遙遠了！
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)