文化資產保存法下的建物保存決策

文化資產保存於國際間逐漸受到認同，從過去單點凍結式保存走向區域活化式保存。有形文化資產被認為可以提供都市開放空間、凝聚社區意識、發展美學歷史文化場景，對都市房價有正面效果。然而，文化資產帶來的外部效益無法內部化回饋予文化資產與其坐落土地所有權人，現有獎勵與補助措施無法與都市開發壓力抗衡，所有權人不願其建物被公告為文資的情況時有所聞。2021年底，司法院釋字813號解釋亦判定現有文資法對人民財產權之限制形成個人特別犧牲，文資法應修法以符合憲法15條保障人民財產之意旨。為釐清現行文資法對私有文資所有權人財產權之影響程度，本研究蒐集自民國101年8月至民國111年3月總計98件私有文化資產作為樣本。以最適保存年期之觀點建立模型，分析文資法有關「建物不得拆除」管制與獎勵補助規定對地主收益能力之影響。個案分析結果發現，在具備獨立開發條件案件中，文資使用收益僅達重開發收益之14至52%，且現行房屋稅、地價稅減免未能有效增加地主保存誘因。另一方面，本研究認為再利用計畫規劃產業進駐，除了活化空間利用外，其經濟效益值得肯定，效果更勝稅賦減免。未來在文化資產保存政策上，除了容積移轉手段，發展完整之文化創意產業鏈，以市場機制推動文化資產保存工作將更有助於建物保存。

關鍵字

文化資產保存；財產權保障；古蹟；歷史建築

並列摘要

The importance of cultural heritage preservation has been recognized internationally. Cultural heritage can provide urban open spaces, cumulate community consciousness, and develop scenes of aesthetics and history. Also, numerous pieces of research found that conservation brings a positive effect on urban housing price. However, the external benefit from cultural heritage cannot be internalized by private cultural buildings and their landowners. The subsidies and incentives often fall short of expected gains from urban redevelopment. Therefore, the owners tend to refuse their properties to be designated as monuments or historic buildings. At the end of 2021, the Constitutional Court of R.O.C issued Interpretation no.813. The court interpreted that part of the regulations in the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act place improper limits on citizens’ property. The government should amend the law to be permissible under the Constitution. This research aims to clarify the principles, cost, and benefits of the Cultural Heritage Preservation Act in the hope to establish valid strategies for government to compensate the private heritage owners. This is undertaken following a methodology that collects data of 98 private heritages listed from August 2012 to March 2022 and systematically looks into five cases of them from an economic perspective. In terms of an optimal duration of heritage conservation, this research takes regulations, incentives, and subsidies into account, and builds a model to measure how “regulatory taking” influence private heritage owners. The study finds that the compensation provided by the government to conservation cultural heritage only accounts for 14-52% of potential if rental income the building is redeveloped. The deduction of house tax and land value tax can hardly increase incentives of private owners to conserve heritage. In contrast, the operation reuse of monuments not only can make a better use of unoccupied spaces but also bring additional revenue. The effect of reusing buildings may be even higher than tax deduction.