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

都市更新條例於108年參考先進國家都市更新經驗，各級都市更新主管機關積極辦理都市更新，新法修正第三章政府主導都市更新第11~21條。回顧釋字709號解釋發布以來官、產、學界之呼聲，新法增設政府主導都市更新專章，是以呼應各界對有公辦都市更新之稱的政府主導之都市更新深切的期待，又參照釋字732號解釋以及739號解釋，本文認為我國土地行政法制似已有重新檢討公部門主導都市計畫開發相關行政行為之必要；並就其都市更新、土地徵收、市地重劃等不同法制，比對相關經驗作為公辦都市更新修正改進之借鏡。首件由臺北市政府擔任公辦都市更新實施者之「斯文里三期公辦都市更新案」，同時身為都市更新條例主管機關之實施者-臺北市政府自行依都市更新條例第36條執行拆除，是否有違憲法規範行政機關之行政行為須保障人民之「財產權」與「生存權」，又是否有顧及《公民與政治權利國際公約》、《經濟社會文化權利國際公約》所欲保障之「適足居住權」。箱作業之疑慮。因此709號解釋重新闡釋同意比例、正當法律及行政程序在都市更新中的重要性，陳新民大法官709號協同意見書中就必要性不同，就發動門檻以及同意比率認依其攸關公共利益之層級需設有分級，頗值得不受同意比例門檻限制之公辦都市更新制度參酌。　 104年新任柯市長為加速推動公辦都市更新，臺北市政府105年3月31日發布「臺北市公辦都市更新實施辦法」政府部門主動承擔都市更新規劃、執行等變革，也在108年都市更新條例修法中加以落實，本文以行政機關依都市更新條例第12條辦理之公辦都市更新案為研究中心，兼論及以行政法人作為都市更新條例中之都市更新專責機構之推動現況。

關鍵字

司法院大法官709號解釋；司法院大法官739號解釋；公辦都市更新；市地重劃；財產權保障；生存權；適足居住權；都市更新專責機構；斯文里三期公辦都更案

並列摘要

The Urban Renewal Regulations refer to the advanced countries’ urban renewal experience in 2019, and the competent authorities of urban renewal at all levels actively handle urban renewal. The new law amends Chapter 3 of the government-led urban renewal Articles 11 to 21. Looking back on the voices of officials, industry and academia since the release of Interpretation No. 709, the new law adds a special chapter on government-led urban renewal to echo the deep expectations of all walks of life for government-led urban renewal known as public urban renewal. With the reference to Interpretation No. 732 and Interpretation No. 739, this article considers the necessity of re-examining the administrative actions related to public sector-led urban planning and development in the land administration legal system. Wth the comparision of Urban Renewal Act,Land Expropriation Act, and land readjustment,the relevant experience is used as a reference for the revision and improvement of public urban renewal. In the "Swenli Phase III Public Urban Renewal Project" , the first project in which the Taipei City Government acts as the implementer of public urban renewal and the implementer of the Urban Renewal Ordinance competent authority, concerns emerge whether the practice that the Taipei City Government executes the demolition in accordance with Article 36 of the Urban Renewal Ordinance is against the constitutional norm of the administrative organs to protect the "property rights" and "rights of life" of the people, and whether they have taken into account the " right to adequate housing " that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights intend to protect? sufficient residency”,casting oubts about box work。 Therefore, Interpretation No. 709 re-explains the importance of consent ratio, due law and administrative procedures in urban renewal. Justice Chen Xinmin's coordinating opinion No. 709 differs in necessity, and considers the threshold for activation and consent ratio according to the public interest. The hierarchy needs to be graded, and it is worth considering the public urban renewal system that is not limited by the threshold of consent ratio. In 2015, to accelerate the promotion of public urban renewal that the newly appointed Mayor Kea aimed for, the Taipei City Government issued the "Taipei City Public Urban Renewal Implementation Measures" on March 31, 2016. The government departments took the initiative to undertake urban renewal planning, implementation and other changes. To implement the revision of the law, this article focuses on the public urban renewal case handled by administrative agencies in accordance with Article 12 of the Urban Renewal Ordinance, and discusses the current status of the promotion of an administrative legal person as the specialized agency for urban renewal in the Urban Renewal Ordinance.

並列關鍵字

Interpretation No. 709 ； Interpretation No. 739 ； Government-led Urban Regeneration ； Land readjustment ； Property Rights Protection ； Right to Minimum Livelihood ； Right to Adequate Housing ； Urban Renewal Exclusive Institution ； The Government-led Urban for Phase3 ； Siwen Resettlement Housing