Environmental justice applies to all

Political commentator Yang Hsien-hung (楊憲宏) once presented what he called the “golden toilet theory”: What if someone were to give you a pure gold, high-tech toilet on the condition that it must be placed in the center of your living room, so that anyone who wants to go to the loo will have to do it in the living room. Would you accept it?

Yang said the point is no matter how valuable, high tech or advanced the toilet is, no one can deprive you of the right to choose whether to accept the offer.

Yang’s theory shows that the quality of a toilet and where it should be placed are two different matters, but people often confuse one with the other and think that as long as it is advanced technology, it can be placed anywhere. The proposed relocation of Taipei International Airport (Songshan airport) is such a fallacy.

Supporters of the relocation view themselves as members of the scientific elite. They believe the scientific basis for their arguments to be objective facts. For instance, they say the airspace of Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport and that of Songshan airport overlap, the primary runway of Songshan airport is so short that big airplanes cannot land or take off — and think these are facts that cannot be challenged. Hence, Songshan airport must be relocated and all aircraft should use Taoyuan airport instead. The real goal of those elites is to repackage a public policy issue and turn it into a scientific issue. They reckon that public policies are purely the domain of scientific research, that they are value-neutral, and can only be discussed and determined within the scientific context that they have established. Whoever dares to object is anti-science and uneducated.

In fact, this is an example of technological determinism, an idea that was popular in the past century.

Political elites and technocrats usually manipulate this discourse to replace democracy and take away the public’s right to choose. Given the magnitude of air traffic that would be transferred to Taoyuan airport, has anyone ever asked the opinions of residents of Taoyuan — especially, those living in Dayuan District (大園)? And is there really no way to resolve the issue of overlapping airspace? If not, why are there still airplanes in the air right now? Moreover, must all airports be built to accommodate big airplanes? Why must there only be big airports and no small or medium-sized ones? Perhaps these elites have forgotten that technology is used to help people make choices and not to make the choices for them, just as you have an absolute right to choose to reject a gold toilet.

This discourse is not only intended to prevent democratic choice, it is also designed to hide the oppression of the disadvantaged by the advantaged, a matter that belongs in the realm of environmental justice. In 1987, the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice published a report on toxic waste and race in the US, showing that toxic waste sites were predominantly near minority communities.

This posed a serious threat to their health and lives, and subjected them to much higher risk than other ethnic groups and communities. In the late 1980s, hazardous waste facilities, incinerators and landfill sites were primarily situated in black communities in the southern US. Moreover, 11 out of 14 proposed nuclear waste sites were in native American communities.

This utterly unfair distribution of risk shocked the US. Academics started calling for environmental justice, opposing the various means that majority groups and capitalists used to badger minority groups into accepting unfavorable facilities, including airports. In light of this, then-US president Bill Clinton ordered that certain public constructions not only have to undergo environmental impact assessments, but also environmental justice assessments, to protect socially disadvantaged groups.

As National Dong Hwa University professor Chi Chun-chieh (紀駿傑) has said: “Environmental justice basically advocates for the minority and disadvantaged groups’ freedom from environmental injustice, the proportionate distribution of social resources and sustainable usage of resources, all of which will improve the quality of life for all.”

Development in Taiwan is extremely imbalanced. That the north is prioritized over the south is a well-known phenomenon. For a long time Taipei has received a great many benefits: air quality, water quality, transportation infrastructure, medical facilities, arts and entertainment, etc, all are the best of the nation. How can it be so merciless that it would remove something it does not want and place it in another city?

Everyone wants Taiwan to be a better place, but it should be a better place for all, not just for Taipei, leaving other cities in shambles and on the receiving end of evils that Taipei does not want.

Hsu Shih-jung is a professor in National Chengchi University’s land economics department.

Translated by Ethan Zhan

發表在《Taipei Times》，2015/12/05。

台灣要好 就要一起好

政論家楊憲宏先生以前曾說過一個「金馬桶理論」的譬喻，他說，有人要送你一個純金打造的先進科技馬桶，惟他有一個條件，即這個馬桶必須放在你們家的客廳當中，也就是以後你們家任何人上廁所的地方就都是你們家的客廳。你願意嗎？

遷建松機壓迫弱勢

他說，縱然馬桶再值錢、再科技、再先進，卻也不能剝奪了你是否接受的選擇權利。這個譬喻在提醒我們，純金的科技馬桶與它要放在什麼地方，這是二個不同的議題，惟我們卻時常將其混在一起，認為只要是先進科技，就可以隨意把它放在任何的地方。松山機場的遷建就是落入這個謬誤。

主張松山機場遷建者是立基於科技菁英的思維，他們將所建構的科技知識稱之為客觀「事實」，例如，桃機與松機空域重疊、松機主跑道太短以至於大型客機無法起降等，這些皆不容挑戰，因此，松機非搬遷不可，所有的飛機都必須飛至桃機。這批菁英隱藏其真正目的，故意把公共政策問題包裝及轉化為科技問題，認為公共政策純為科學研究的領域，是「價值中立」的，僅可以在他們所設定的科學範疇裡面來討論，並決定政策的方向，凡是膽敢反對者，就是反科學，就是沒讀書。

其實，這就是上世紀流行的「科技決定論」，政治菁英及技術官僚往往操弄這套論述，其目的就是要取代民主政治，剝奪人民的選擇權利。試問，當那麼大的容量要遷至桃機時，桃園市，尤其是大園居民，他們的聲音在哪裡？有去問過他們嗎？現行對空域重疊難道沒有解決辦法，不然現在是怎麼在飛的？又，所有的機場都一定要飛大飛機嗎？為什麼一定只能有大機場，而不能有中小型機場呢？這批菁英忘了，科技是用來幫助人們做選擇，而不是取代人們做選擇，這就如同你絕對有權利來拒絕前述的金馬桶一樣。

這套論述除了要排除民主選擇之外，也隱藏了強勢者對於弱勢者的壓迫，而這就涉及「環境正義」觀點。1987年，美國「聯合基督教會種族正義委員會」發表「有毒廢棄物與種族」研究報告，指出有毒廢棄物的最終處置場大抵都是集中於少數族群所居住社區周遭，這使得他們的身體健康及生命都招致嚴重威脅，承擔了遠高於其他族群及社區的風險比率。

資源分配獨善台北

例如，在1980年代末期，美國南方的有毒廢棄物處理場所、垃圾焚化爐或掩埋場，絕大部分是集中於黑人社區。另外，全美14個曾被考慮的核能廢料儲存場，竟然有11個都是位於原住民社區。

這種風險承擔極不公平的現象震驚全美，學者由此提出「環境正義」的呼聲，他們反對強勢群體及資本家以各種手段強行迫使弱勢群體接收包括機場在內的嫌惡設施。柯林頓總統也因此要求特定公共建設除了需進行環境影響評估之外，還必須進行「環境正義評估」，避免對於社會弱勢的迫害。如同紀駿傑教授所述，「環境正義的基本主張包括少數民族及弱勢團體有免於遭受環境迫害的自由，社會資源的平均分配，資源的永續利用以提升人民的生活素質。」

台灣的發展已呈現非常不均衡的現象，「重北輕南」大家皆琅琅上口。長期以來台北市已經獲得極多的好處，空氣、水質、交通、醫療、藝文等等，都是首屈一指，怎忍心還把自己不要的東西往外送呢？台灣要好，應該是大家一起好，而不是只有台北向上提升，卻讓其他縣市往下沉淪，承擔台北不要的惡。 

政治大學地政學系教授

（發表於《蘋果日報》，2015/11/27）

Confronting the nation’s land policy conundrum

A group of government officials, business people and academics specializing in land administration and real estate have formed the Taiwan Land Social Alliance.

The group recently held a press conference and unveiled its Taiwan Land Manifesto. During the conference, alliance founders demonstrated how the nation’s lack of a comprehensive land policy has contributed to numerous social problems and called on the central government to carry out an immediate land policy review.

The problems with Taiwan’s current land policy can be broken down into three areas.

First, land policy has overlooked the universal value of land ethics. Land is a purchasable commodity, but it is also an important environmental resource that provides Taiwanese with a place to call home.

For this reason, the manifesto makes particular mention of the fact that in a society based on the rule of law, land is the key basis for orientating a nation toward democratic governance, human rights, economic development, social equality, cultural preservation and environmental conservation.

Unfortunately, because governments are focused on achieving a fixed set of goals, land policy always ends up being dependent on other policy areas. This has resulted in the important issue of land ethics being cast to one side.

In Taiwan, land has now been reduced to a tool for investment and speculation. This has widened the wealth gap and caused Taiwanese society to develop in an unbalanced way.

Second, current land policy lacks both a strategic and legal framework fit for modern times. The alliance’s manifesto calls for land use to be planned and used in a rational manner in order to enhance public welfare. When the authorities intervene, they should do so with due legal process to ensure the public’s basic human rights are upheld.

Although the Martial Law era ended many years ago, the systems that are currently in place are an echo of that authoritarian age. The right to interpret what is in the public interest is still in the hands of a favored few. For instance, a variety of committees, made up of a handful of people, make decisions that affect the lives of the majority. The side effect of this system is excessive land expropriation, forced demolitions for urban renewal projects and other serious infringements of fundamental human rights.

Third, the government has forfeited its chance to use land policy to shape an ideal vision for the future by building a better society and doing something worthwhile. It is well known that increases in land values are generally a social effect, so these profits should be shared with all of society. Instead, land is almost entirely privately owned, which is unreasonable. Therefore, there is an urgent need to build a just and fair system of real-estate taxation so that the fruits of land value increases can be shared with all of society.

Furthermore, in accordance with land use zoning rules, agricultural land should be used for farming. Instead, much of the nation’s best agricultural land is now covered in luxury villas. This has contributed to a severe erosion of the agricultural environment.

A robust and rational land policy is needed in order to develop a better society.

The alliance recommends that the government gather together experts from industry, government and academia and convene a national land conference to fully review issues concerning land in Taiwan.

The government should then formulate a clear policy on land to address the nation’s land issues and the related social problems.

Hsu Shih-jung is a professor of land economics at National Chengchi University.

Translated by Edward Jones

（發表於《Taipei Times, 2015/11/19, P.8）

土地政策總體檢

多位地政及不動產產官學界合組了「台灣土地社會聯盟」，鄭重發表「台灣土地宣言」，並舉辦記者會。會中，共同發起人指陳我國根本沒有明確的土地政策，由此衍生許多嚴重的社會問題，要求政府應即刻檢討改進。目前土地政策的問題至少有下述三項：

第一、忽視土地多元價值及土地倫理。土地雖是買賣的商品，但也是重要的環境資源，更是人民安身立命的家園，因此，「宣言」中特別指出，在現代法治社會，土地是政治民主、人權保障、經濟發展、社會平等、文化保存與環境保育等面向的重要基礎。但很可惜的，掌權者為了達成特定目的，土地政策往往成為附庸及花瓶，這使得重要的土地倫理被棄之一旁，土地也淪為投機炒作的對象，造成貧富階級差異及社會不均衡發展。

第二、欠缺合乎民主時代的法規制度與計畫體系。「宣言」主張，土地本應依合理的計畫使用，以此增進公共福祉，惟當公權力介入時，亦應符合正當法律程序，確實保障人民基本權利。遺憾地，我國雖已解嚴多年，但現行相關制度卻仍不脫過往威權時代色彩，致使公共利益的詮釋權依舊是由少數菁英所掌控，例如，極少數人組成的各式委員會竟然就可以決定多數人的命運，其造成的後果是浮濫土地徵收、都市更新強拆等，嚴重侵害基本人權。

第三、喪失經由土地政策來建構良好社會的理想願景與實際作為。眾所皆知，土地自然增值大抵是社會的貢獻，理應由社會所共享，但如今卻幾乎完全歸私，相當不合理，因此亟需建構合理的不動產稅制，讓土地自然增值回饋社會。又，依土地使用分區管制精神，農地本應農用，但現今許多優良農田卻是蓋滿了高級農舍，嚴重侵蝕農業生產環境，未來應重整農地政策。再者，住宅、環境、產業用地、原住民、公有土地政策等，皆與人民福祉緊密相關，惜皆未受到重視。

健全合理的土地政策是實現美好社會的關鍵，「聯盟」因此建議政府應以行政院層級，結合產官學界，儘速召開「全國土地會議」，全面檢討土地問題，擬定明確土地政策，由此來解決嚴重的土地及社會問題。

（作者為政治大學地政學系教授、台灣土地社會聯盟共同召集人）

（發表於《自由時報》，2015/11/16）

台灣專制保守的都市計畫

近年來許多激烈的抗爭，看似是針對土地徵收、都市更新、或市地重畫，但是，其實都是源自於現行偏頗的都市計畫。都市計畫的發布實施會產生強大的法律效果，它會影響人民的財產權、生存權及工作權，也會改變了人民的生活環境與方式。都委會在審議時，往往會作出「附帶決議」，例如，規定後續採用一般徵收、區段徵收或自辦市地重畫的方式來進行土地開發，成為行政指導，後續的各式計畫必須遵循，但這卻使得基本人權遭致了嚴重的侵害。目前都市計畫的主要問題大致有三：

第一、我國都市計畫非常欠缺實質民眾參與的機制。都市計畫是公共事務，關鍵在於人民的價值抉擇，而不是在於工程技術或是成本效益，因此皆很重視民眾參與。我國《都市計畫法》第19條規定，主要計畫擬定後，送該管政府都市計畫委員會審議前，應公開展覽30天及舉行說明會。須注意的是，它是在「主要計畫擬定後」才讓民眾參與，也就是在政府內部已經定案之後，才對外公開，並徵求民意，這是否牴觸了儘早參與的原則？另外，現行不論是公開展覽或說明會，多為消極被動參與方式，缺乏實質的溝通對話及討論，因此監察院及學界多建議應依照《行政程序法》之規定，將其改為聽證會。

第二、我國都市計畫非常缺乏公正合理的審議機制。政府故意把都市計畫形塑成非常「專業」的事務，致使都市計畫僅能由極少數的專家學者及行政官僚所組成的都市計畫委員會來進行審議。都委會成員中，政府行政官僚幾乎佔了半數，而其他委員的遴聘也完全是由首長決定，這使得都委會的審議如同是球員兼裁判，結論總是偏向政府這一方，犧牲人民的權益。而政府所遴聘的學者專家有許多位皆是熟面孔，他們不僅游走於中央的都委會、區委會、環評會，身兼數職；也穿梭於中央與地方政府，如內政部、環保署、台北市及新北市，這邊做完，換那邊做，如同是「萬年委員」。

無法提出行政救濟

第三、我國都市計畫非常欠缺行政救濟保障。當人民的權益因都市計畫而遭致剝奪時，卻不能依法提出訴願或行政訴訟，這影響人民權益甚鉅。都市計畫的法律性質到底為法規命令？還是行政處分？學說上見解分歧，在司法院作成釋字第156號解釋之後，行政部門與行政法院判決多認為都市計畫之擬定或定期通盤檢討，不為行政處分；而僅肯認都市計畫個案變更，尚具行政處分之性質。這樣的區分使得大多數的都市計畫皆被視為是法規命令，人民無權提起行政救濟。然而，這樣的區分卻遭致學界嚴厲的批評，許多學者主張不論是主要計畫或是細部計畫之新訂或是變更，皆應以一般處分視之，並讓權益受侵害之利害關係人得以提起行政救濟，惟至今這項呼聲卻依舊得不到政府的青睞。

欠缺實質民眾參與、欠缺公平合理審議及欠缺行政救濟保障，可謂我國都市計畫的嚴重問題，而這也違背了美國都市計畫學界及實務界非常強調「規劃的道德倫理守則（Ethical Principles in Planning）」。很遺憾地，21世紀的今日，我國依舊在施行非常專制保守的都市計畫體制，而這也是人民會屢屢走上街頭抗爭的主因！

發表於《蘋果日報》，2015/8/19， A16。

Land rights ignored in the hunt for quick profit

Many Taiwanese might find themselves in a difficult situation as government plans nominally intended to benefit the public interest actually deprive people of their land and the homes which they rely on for their survival.

Why do we have this problem? It is primarily due to financial and political factors. As the government is laden with debt, it constantly makes plans for major construction programs, overstates economic efficiency and population growth and relies on urban planning measures to turn non-taxable farmland into urban land in order to collect land tax and the incremental land tax.

In 1990, the Executive Yuan ordered that farmland should be converted into urban land, all of it by means of zone expropriation. Through this process, the government created large lots of land that could be sold off to private buyers for construction purposes, thus giving the government a financial boost. In the words of former Miaoli County commissioner Liu Cheng-hung (劉政鴻), this strategy was a “cash cow” for his government. To increase the self-liquidating rate of public construction projects, land development has been used to finance construction. Regular expropriation has also been used.

Land has huge underlying profit potential that can be converted through political forces. This is the reason over half of all local political factions are engaged in industries related to land development. Local politics is tantamount to land politics, in which urban planning has become a field for political-economic interest exchange and for co-opting local power brokers.

Local development is dominated by an alliance of political-economic interest groups that promote land development and view land as a lucrative commodity. This alliance of interest groups are like vultures that, aside from using urban planning projects and land expropriation, use self-managed urban land rezoning and urban renewal measures and have savagely devoured the land and homes of good people.

Although the Constitution explicitly stipulates that “The right of existence, the right to work and the right of property shall be guaranteed to the people,” the alliance between government and business does not only ignore their importance, it also intentionally misinterprets them. For example, zone expropriation has been misleadingly interpreted as cooperative land development between the government and the private sector in order to avoid the strict requirements that are placed on land expropriation. In addition, self-organized rezoning committees are full of nominal members and as long as the directors and supervisors control half the property rights and members, they also control the remaining property rights.

These practices are quite shocking and could possibly be serious constitutional violations. In particular, rezoning plans that do not go through fair, just and open democratic review processes, but are instead passed by a majority vote, is nothing less than bullying the minority.

Unfortunately, national plans and programs that should be in the public interest have now developed into a system of land exploitation controlled by the alliance of political and business interests. This is a severe invasion of basic human rights, which has led to an increase in difficulties for a number of people. Pope Francis recently said that the poor should be given the right to work, abode and land and that these rights should be protected, calling them “sacred rights.” One can only speculate as to whether this is enough to open the eyes of those in power to the suffering of the poor.

Translated by Zane Kheir

發表於Taipei Times，2015/07/17，P. 8.

兇殘禿鷹，難民哀嚎

國際間戰亂頻繁，造成嚴重的國際難民問題。不知在國際難民之外，是否也有國內難民呢？有的，許多以增進公共利益為名的國家各項計畫，強制剝奪了許多人賴以維生的土地及住家，致使其生活及生命皆遭致嚴重的打擊。

為何會發生國內難民？主要是財政及政治因素。由於政府負債累累，因此不斷地虛構國家重大建設計畫，浮報經濟效益及人口增量，經由都市計畫手段，將不用繳稅的農地變更為市地，得以課取地價稅及土地增值稅。1990年，行政院更下令農地變市地，一律採區段徵收，經此途徑，政府更可獲得大量可建築用地，經標售後，獲得財政挹注，而這就是劉政鴻口中的「金雞母」。晚近，為了提升公共建設的自償率，藉由土地開發來籌措建設經費，一般徵收也被運用。

由於土地隱藏龐大利益，可以透過政治力予以創造，因此，地方派系過半數以上皆是從事於土地開發相關行業，地方政治其實就等同於土地政治，都市計畫變成是政治經濟利益交換及拉攏選舉樁腳的場域。地方發展被以促進土地開發炒作的政商利益聯盟所掌控，其視土地為獲取暴利的商品。這個聯盟宛如禿鷹一般，除了運用都市計畫與土地徵收，更使用了自辦市地重劃及都市更新手段，兇殘的吞噬善良百姓的土地與住家。

  雖然憲法明文規定財產權及生存權應予保障，但是政商利益聯盟不僅未予重視，並刻意曲解。例如，區段徵收被誤導為「政府與民間合作的土地開發」，以此來規避土地徵收所需具備的嚴謹要件；另外，充斥人頭的自辦重劃會，只要理監事掌握過半產權及人數，竟然就可霸凌其他幾乎一半的產權，這真是駭人聽聞，恐有嚴重違憲之虞，尤其是重劃計畫書未經公平公正公開的民主審議程序，僅憑多數決就予通過，這為多數暴力。

    很遺憾地，原本應該是要追尋公共利益的國家各項計畫，如今卻都成為政商利益聯盟所共築的土地剝奪體制，嚴重侵害基本人權，造成國內難民四起。近日，天主教教宗方濟各大聲疾呼「賦予並確保窮人勞動、居住與土地是神聖權利」，不知這是否能讓掌權者聽見難民的哀嚎？

（發表於「自由時報」，2015/07/13，A15）