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）
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)