- 學位論文
公辦都更下的整建住宅產權排除與居住權益：以斯文里三期公辦都更案為例
Exclusion of Property Rights and Housing Rights in Government-led Urban Renewal：Case Study of Lanzhou-Siwen Village Resettlement Community
摘要
臺北市政府於2016年提出「公辦都更8+2旗艦計畫」，宣示開啟「公辦都更」元年，欲藉此解決過去民辦都更引起之爭議問題。在該計畫推動下，選定居民參與更新意願最高的斯文里三期整宅為優先推動單元，由市政府擔任實施者，於2018年中動工拆除，成為各界矚目的公辦都更首例。 由於現行法規只明訂所有權人之權益，然而實際長期居住在整宅的居民，大多為低收入、獨老、身心障礙等多重弱勢身份之非所有權人，但其在最初即被排除在外，在過程中不具協商資格亦不會獲得任何補償，只能被迫搬遷。本研究藉由次級資料收集、參與式觀察以及半結構式訪談的方式，探討斯文里三期公辦都更過程中，所有權人與非所有權人的權益差異，以及市政府如何回應弱勢家戶的居住權益。 研究成果發現，臺北市政府為兌現政策承諾，以及在短期內建立高曝光性之政績，於斯文里三期一案投入大筆經費與各項資源，透過社區駐點的直接溝通與中繼安置協助措施，整體而言解決過往意願整合不易、信任關係難以建立、中繼安置需求等課題，提高了弱勢地區居民參與更新之意願。然而市府與居民的溝通聚焦在財產價值經權利變換後之損益，未能產生跳脫產權之外的都市更新想像；此外，市府雖委外辦理中繼陪伴團隊來協助弱勢家戶搬遷，但其主要目標在於確保都更順利進展，並未積極回應弱勢家戶的居住權益問題。故本研究認為公辦都更應提升民眾對都市更新的多元想像，並限制所有權人的轉賣以避免投機行為，且須制度化中繼安置計畫，及保障原有居民具優先遷回承租公共住宅之資格，以具體保障其長遠的居住權益。
並列摘要
Since 2016, the Taipei City government has launched " Government-led Urban Renewal 8+2 Flagship Project" in order to resolve the problems caused by urban renewal from the 1990s. In the project, Lanzhou-Siwen village resettlement community has the highest willingness of property owners to participate in urban renewal, was selected as the first case to be implemented by the city government and demolished in mid-2018. As the current laws and regulations only specify the rights and interests of the property owners, however, the long-term residents in Lanzhou-Siwen village resettlement community are mostly non-owners with multiple disadvantaged identities such as low income, elderly alone, and physical and mental disabilities. They were initially excluded from the process of urban renewal and were not eligible for consultation or compensation and were forced to relocate. This study found that the Taipei City government has invested a great deal of money and resources in this case in order to fulfill its policy commitments and build up political achievements in the short term. By setting up workstations in the community and intermediate relocation assistance, the city government has solved some of the problems of promoting urban renewal in disadvantaged areas in the past. But in this case there was no imagination of urban renewal beyond property rights. Furthermore, the city government has commissioned a team to assist the disadvantaged families in their relocation, but their main task is to ensure the smooth progress of the urban renewal rather than to respond positively to the housing rights of the disadvantaged families. Therefore, this study argues that the government-led urban renewal should enhance the public's imagination of urban renewal, restrict the resale of ownership rights to avoid speculation, institutionalize the intermediary rehousing plan, and ensure that existing residents have priority to move back into public rental housing in order to protect their long-term housing rights.
參考文獻
延伸閱讀
- 蔡馥羽（2022）。公辦都市更新實務與法制研究-以斯文里三期公辦都更案為例〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202204059
- 李世雄（2016）。論「都市更新條例」第36條第3項之土地改良物價值或建築殘餘價值補償。土地問題研究季刊，15(2)，139-143。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=a0000011-201606-201607190008-201607190008-139-143
- 翁國軒（2016）。都市計畫公共設施保留地檢討變更原則適用性之研究〔碩士論文，逢甲大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6341/fcu.M0320226
- 郭奇正（2010）。Urban Crisis and State Intervention: A Preliminary Study about the Social Meaning of the Housing Committee of the Municipal Council of Shanghai。都市與計劃，37(2)，233-262。https://doi.org/10.6128/CP.37.2.233
- 陳明燦（1998）。An Analysis on the Issues of Property Rights Protection during the Process of Land Development: A Case Study of Urban Land Consolidation in Taipei County。國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報，(9)，57-80。https://doi.org/10.6154/JBP.1998.9.006