2012年9月7日 星期五

讓每一條巷道都是自由巷、民主巷、及人權巷!

(各位朋友,我昨日參與文林苑都更受害戶記者會,底下為我的發言稿,謹供大家參考:)

1、王家依法擁有土地所有權
目前王家仍為這兩塊土地的合法土地所有權人,王家依法登記並擁有政府依法頒發的土地所有權狀。在此情況下,依據《中華民國憲法》第143條:「中華民國領土內之土地屬於國民全體。人民依法取得之土地所有權,應受法律之保障與限制。」《土地法》第10條第1項:「中華民國領域內之土地,屬於中華民國人民全體,其經人民依法取得所有權者,為私有土地。」《民法》第758條第1項:「不動產物權,依法律行為而取得、設定、喪失及變更者,非經登記,不生效力。」又,《土地法》第43條:「依本法所為之登記,有絕對效力。」在憲法及這些重要法律規定之下,王家的土地產權應予確定。

        如此,依據《民法》第765條:「所有人,於法令限制之範圍內,得自由使用、收益、處分其所有物,並排除他人之干涉」又《民法》第773條:「土地所有權,除法令有限制外,於其行使有利益之範圍內,及於土地之上下如他人之干涉,無礙其所有權之行使者,不得排除之。」很明顯的,樂揚建設的施工人員已經妨礙、甚且嚴重侵犯了王家之土地所有權能,王家及協助之朋友們自然有權利將其排除。倘有發生肢體上的衝突,也為正當之防衛,自然發生違法阻卻之法律效果;反之,樂揚所聘請的施工人員在發生侵權行為時,乃為現行犯,警方應該即刻予以逮捕,並要求樂揚建設承擔連帶之責任。

2、本案之都市計畫變更有嚴重違法問題,應予撤銷,並回復原狀
        都市更新事業必需與都市計畫之變更相互配合,並且是以後者為基礎。倘參酌《臺北高等行政法院100年度訴字第883號判決》《最高行政法院第101年度判字第647號判決》仁愛路都更案,台北市政府敗訴定讞),也可以發現文林苑都更案也面臨相同之問題,即本案之都市計畫變更嚴重違反了《都市計畫法》第27條第1項第4款之規定,台北市政府基本上是因這個重要判決而撤銷仁愛路都更案,本人以為文林苑都更案應該也要一體適用。本案撤銷之後,即可發生回復原狀之請求及法律效果。

3、台北市政府及郝龍斌市長應承擔最大之責任
        文林苑王家誤拆,已造成王家及社會非常大的傷害,近日樂揚建設施工人員動作頻仍,並有許多非常危險之舉動,倘稍有不慎,王家及協助之學生即刻發生生命及身體嚴重損傷,倘不幸發生此事,台北市政府及郝龍斌市長應承擔最大之責任!而郝龍斌市長,你又承擔的起嗎?
 
        為了表彰鄭南榕先生對於台灣民主言論自由的貢獻,郝龍斌市長特別將鄭南榕先生自焚受難的巷道命名為「自由巷」,並於前些時日親自參與「自由巷」揭牌儀式,對於郝市長這樣的勇氣與行為我們願意予以肯定。但是,郝市長,台北市的巷道並不是只有那一條,另外還有千千萬萬條巷道都需要你的關注,而現在最需要你關心的就是離你家不遠的文林苑巷道!
 
        我們衷心期盼台北市、及台灣的每一條巷道,都是自由巷、民主巷、及人權巷!

2012年9月5日 星期三

文林苑又起衝突!請打電話進市府抗議!

各位好朋友,今早得知文林苑昨天(9/4)又起嚴重衝突(請見PNN鐘勝雄先生的報導:http://pnn.pts.org.tw/main/?p=47078),幾名建築工人竟然粗暴的對一位聲援女子下手,而警察竟然是站在一旁觀看,這讓人相當的氣憤!

各位好朋友,可否麻煩大家打電話進市府,表達憤怒與抗議!謝謝!

徐世榮敬託

2012年9月4日 星期二

Land expropriations are robbery

Zone expropriations have sparked many fierce clashes in Taiwan over the last few years, such as those in Miaoli County’s Dapu Village (大埔), the Erchongpu (二重埔) area and the Puyu (璞玉) project in Hsinchu County, the Wunshan (文山) industrial zone in Greater Taichung, the zone around station A7 of the Metro line that will eventually run between Taipei and Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport and the Port of Taipei in New Taipei City’s (新北市) Bali (八里) District.

Unfortunately, the government has failed to reflect on these incidents and amend laws, regulations and policies to ameliorate them. On the contrary, it is preparing to launch a second wave of zone expropriations covering even bigger areas, such as the second-phase Danhai New Town (淡海新市鎮) development project, covering 1,154 hectares, and the Taoyuan Aerotropolis, with an area of 4,686 hectares. These expropriations are likely to provoke even bigger protests.

Zone expropriations are employed in government-led land development projects and involve the government forcing landowners to take part in joint construction. These members of the public are left with only two choices. One is to accept monetary compensation and move elsewhere, and the other is to apply for land ownership as alternative compensation.

Zone expropriations usually happen when agricultural land is re-categorized as urban land. The official value of farmland is generally well below its market value. Because farmers do not stand to get much in the way of monetary compensation, many people are forced to apply for land instead of money.

However, this option can be just as unfair. There are questions about where the land that will be awarded is located and how much will be given. These key issues should be settled when a joint construction project is initiated, but are often left completely blank and then decided by drawing lots at a later date. What kind of joint construction is that? It is not joint construction at all, it is daylight robbery.

Naturally, many people do not want to go along with this kind of deal, but the government still forcibly includes their land in the area covered by zone expropriations. Once that has happened, landowners have no way to refuse participating in the project. Due to this unfairness, land expropriations are often met with protests.

In order to avoid encountering too much resistance, the government takes into account such factors as the strength of those opposed, the benefits to be gained from developing the land and the influence of political factions and voter support before embarking on an expropriation.

Based on these considerations, the government often assigns extremely irregular and strangely shaped areas for zone expropriation, and this is another point that is frequently questioned by people whose land is being expropriated and who are wondering why their land was included, but their neighbor’s was not even though they are both part of the same block.

When people ask this kind of question and actually get the government to reply, it usually does so in very vague terms, using phrases such as “obstructing the overall developmental aims of the urban renewal project” or “altering the principles of surveying and selection in zone expropriation.”

As to what those aims and principles actually are, no clear explanation is offered. This way of handling things is extremely unreasonable and not at all in keeping with the basic requirements of administrative procedure in a democratic country.Given that zone expropriations are generally associated with newly formulated or revised urban plans, the high number of such projects is an indication of how urban planning has got out of hand.

A corrective measure proposed by the Control Yuan in July revealed that the total population quoted as being affected by urban planning in 2010 was 25,183,307, whereas the actual population of the areas involved was just 18,407,736. That is a difference of 6.78 million. As the Control Yuan document says, this discrepancy shows that population figures quoted in many urban plans are made up or inflated. Nevertheless, the government continues to quote inflated figures for population increases and to develop land in line with these bogus numbers.

The fifth item of the Official Guidelines For Applying to Formulate or Extend Urban Plans on Non-urban Land (非都市土地申請新訂或擴大都市計畫作業要點) says that when an urban plan is initiated or extended, the land allocated for that urban development, or the planned population, must make up 80 percent or more of the existing urban planning area of the township, city or district in which the area for which the application is being made is located. Do the aforementioned land expropriation cases that have already been or will be implemented comply with this regulation? None of them do.

A government should treat its citizens fairly, but unfortunately in Taiwan an individual’s property rights depend on how much political and economic power that individual has. The rights and interests of a minority of landowners in cities, and of developers and corporations, are fully protected, and the government offers them plenty of preferential treatment such as floor area incentives, exemption from floor area measuring and development rights. These perks allow them to make even greater profits from the difference between buying and selling prices than they otherwise would.

In contrast, for the great majority of farmers and other people who lack political and economic power, property rights go no further than the low value officials place on their land. Furthermore, the government uses zone expropriation to seize and occupy their property and deprive them of their basic rights.

The government has seriously diverged from its proper role in this issue and zone expropriations in their existing form are causing Taiwanese society to become mired in disputes and crises.

Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.

Translated by Julian Clegg

Published in The Taipei Times, 2012/09/04, P. 8.