台灣都市更新法制之演變（1895-2012)－從知識繼受與在地經驗之觀點

The Transformation of the Legal System of Urban Renewal in Taiwan（1895-2012）－From the Perspective of Knowledge Reception and Local Experience

蕭淳尹(Chun-Yin Hsiao)

指導教授 ： 王泰升

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2013.01085

摘要

近年來台灣都市更新之實踐，不論在公有地為主之更新，亦或私有產權地區為主之更新，都再再引發諸多爭議。要如何解決這些制度與實踐之陰影，成為了社會關切的議題。對此，本文採取「結合台灣法律社會史與法律論證之法學」研究取徑，以求將法經驗科學和法釋義學結合起來，提出更合目的和更具可能性的制度建議。至於法經驗科學的研究，則採取「知識繼受」與「在地經驗」這兩個觀點，以求能深化對於現行制度與實踐何以如此的認識。

從在地經驗的觀點視之，都市更新需求並不是自然而然出現的，而是由於國治時期國民黨政權在快速都市化的過程中，對於都市計畫之因循怠惰，導致台灣都市計畫體制和實踐無法合理調控都市之發展，導致城市生活空間急速惡劣、公共衛生和公共安全低落、公共設施嚴重不足，於是城市空間較廣泛之「都市更新」需求，於焉產生。

配合此一需求，計畫界開始於1960年代繼受外國都市更新知識以為己用。在都市更新觀念於1964年都市計畫法中立法化後，在公有地為主之更新地區，國民黨政權先是未採納聯合國顧問所提之從社會和經濟面共同著手協助公有地更新時受拆遷之舊違章建戶，於是導致了「最低標準安置」政策下的整建住宅也在其後成為新貧民窟。而到了1970年代中期之後，更是在大量興建國民住宅政策失敗下，放棄了最低標準安置原則，導致對弱勢舊違章建戶之安置每下愈況；而在私有產權者為主之更新地區，美國之都更知識雖然在1970年代已經為學界和實務界所深入了解，而其中安置失敗之教訓及都市更新必須在都市計畫控制下進行之堅持也已為台灣之知識繼受者所深知，但對於都市更新之目的之繼受，則有欠缺脈絡性和批判性反思之問題，於是乃未能思索一個憲政主義政府，不應當以挽救窳陋地區住民之低落人格、刺激房價上揚、提升地方政府稅收、刺激投資、美化市容等理由以政策推行甚至強迫人民都更，僅應當以解決惡劣居住水平、提升公共衛生和公共安全、增加公共設施造福國民為出發點進行都更。

而後由於政府對於美國模式下之都更欠缺運作之經驗，於是1970年代乃至1980年代多數案例，都是以公辦區段徵收型都更為之。當計畫官僚不願在公辦區段徵收型都更之道路走下去時，其便有意借重本土民間協議合建作為都更之手段，惟效果不彰。於是計畫官僚乃透過日本都市再開發知識之繼受，以求改造協議合建，這包括改造日本權利變換制度後將之導入，以求民間更新時，能解決取得更新地區全體房地權利人同意不易之問題，但由於繼受權利變換制度之目的非常特定，於是變成了欠缺脈絡又欠缺反省之繼受。此外，計畫官僚亦以繼受之日本知識，來合理化其對協議合建之另一重改造，即放寬土地使用管制以刺激都更。同時，計畫官僚和部分學者，在1980年代末期亦以在地經驗為理據，將都更從較大面積的更新推向超小面積都更。

而後當1992年都市更新條例之制定重新啟動時，權利變換以及放寬土地使用管制這兩重對協議合建之改造，都很快成為草案內容。而隨著時間的過去，條例草案在建商之影響下，對建商之親和性愈來愈高，於是放任公有地被私人以私併公，以及放棄「都市計畫控制下的都市更新」的草案內容接踵而出。甚至在行政院將都市更新宣示為經濟發展一環後，粗糙地讓開發商得直接成為實施者，又將較完整的安置規範大打折扣。一時過去繼受自美國知識中值得保存者，幾乎皆被放棄；一切似乎只剩下開發和經濟利益。

而這樣的畸形制度顯然不會溫馴待人。都更條例雖然曾在921大地震震災重建有功。但眾多日後一般都市更新案例之陰影，都已在重建之路顯現出來。而當回歸一般之都市更新後，都更條例十幾年來之變遷，又是往對於參與之人民權益之保障愈來愈弱，而對建商之親和性，卻愈來愈強的方向走。在這樣的狀況下，因拼裝式繼受日本知識，導致建商作為實施者時其共同負擔報價和更新估價疑雲重重、選擇性繼受日本運用民間力量進行都市再開發，造成高度公益之更新地區進度牛步、因對繼受自美國之眾多都更目的未加省思，於是促成了都更之高級化以及無法在此浪潮中獲益的人民的痛苦、因放棄了繼受自美國的「必先有完善安置規劃方能進行都更」以及「都更必須要在都市計畫控制下進行」，於是在都更中極可能被迫離開原本生活空間的弱勢舊違章建戶和承租人能否得到妥適安置變成繫諸天命；而土地使用管制之放寬愈來愈毫無節制，造成都市計畫體系混亂的同時也影響了住民之生活品質。以符應在地需求為理據的超小面積都更，導致都更公益性的減損和有限、公有地自戰後以來以賣斷為主，欠缺更積極而具公益導向之管理規劃之經驗的延續，也造成了公有地強制加入都更之運作屢出現私有地以小併大，以及更新後房地運用欠缺公益甚至公產機關直接放棄管理之現象。

而在釐清眾多都更陰影之歷史源頭後，本文針對這些缺失提出的建議包括：

（1） 修法讓權利變換計畫必須經房地權利人多數決門檻同意，以及修法讓建商為實施者時，鑑價時估價單位之選定必須讓實施者和更新會都有話語權。

（2） 針對公辦更新規範予以強化，由中央政府編列預算，固定補助地方政府實施都更經費之一定比例，並在編制上擴充更新主管部門之人力。

（3） 將都更條例第6條第3款及第4款這兩款在實踐上僅是為了高級化地景而設之規定刪除，並將對弱勢舊違章建戶和承租人之安置工作義務化。

（4） 刪除現行實務實踐上已超出「合理放寬」限度之放寬土地使用管制事由。這包括都更條例第44條第1項第1款、都更條例第44條第1項第2款、第44條第2項。此外，為容積率放寬訂立總上限而不得再隨意加成。

（5） 對於超小面積都更，立法者可衡量是要為追求更高之更新公益而改弦易轍，還是考量目前實施者和住民對此種更新模式較為熟悉而維持。若為後者，則不應以整體規劃之名，強納不必然需要加入更新之產權者加入。

（6） 公有地強制加入更新之規定，應立即明定公有地超過多少比例，就必須由政府自行為實施者主導更新。於私有地產權者為主之更新地區，容許公有地強制加入更新規定之存續，但在政府機關未擬定更新後房地之管理使用計畫，並送議會或上級機關查核通過前，更新計畫不得實施。

關鍵字

都市更新 ； 知識繼受在地經驗 ； 協議合建型都更 ； 權利變換 ； 結合台灣法律社會史與法律論證之法學

並列摘要

The urban renewal practice in Taiwan has caused lots of controversies in recent years, no matter in area mostly composed of public or private lands, making the public start to concern those controversies. As to this social demand, the author tries to combine Taiwanese social history of law and legal reasoning for proposing better norms. With regard to Taiwanese social history of law, the author uses the perspective of knowledge reception and local experience, as to broaden our realization to the cause of recent norms and practice.

From the perspective of local experience, Necessity to urban renewal did not naturally appear. In Contrast, it appeared because of the insufficiency and inadequacy of urban planning in the period of rapid urbanization in Taiwan, and therefore caused the deterioration of living standard, sanitation and public security, and deficiency of infrastructure for urban lives in the city of Taiwan. This is the reason why there appeared widespread demand for urban renewal.

For meeting this demand, bureaucracy and scholars of Taiwan started to receive foreign knowledge for urban renewal. After legalization of the concept of urban renewal in the amendment of Urban Planning Act in 1964, in the area mostly composed of public lands, KMT regime did not adopt the recommendation to help illegal construction of household socially and economically, but remained the policy of “resettlement in lowest standard”, and therefore lead to the Resettled Tenements becoming slums afterwards. Even worse, in mid 1970s, KMT government gave up “resettlement in lowest standard” because of the failure to build a large amount of public housing, and consequently, bringing up the degeneration of resettlement of disadvantaged “old illegal construction of household.” In the area mostly composed of private lands, the American knowledge about urban renewal and its lesson had been realized by Taiwanese receivers, but in reference to the purpose to urban renewal, Taiwanese receivers received it without sufficient reflection. In a result, they did not realize that a government for the people ought not to promote or force citizens to urban renewal other than the necessity to promote better living standards, sanitation, public security and sufficient infrastructure.

Due to lacking the experience to use American model for urban renewal, the government applied sectional expropriation and then renew the area by themselves in most cases in 1970s and 1980s. When planning bureaucracy was not willing to adopt this model anymore, they intended to apply the experience of local co-construction as a method for urban renewal, but it seldom worked. To resolve this difficulty, planning bureaucracy utilized the reception of knowledge of urban redevelopment in Japan to reform the co-construction, including reforming Rights Transformation in Japan and taking it into Taiwan for resolving the difficulty of unanimous consent when renewal is done by civilians. However, this reception was without context and reflection. Besides, planning bureaucracy utilized Japan knowledge to justify another reform of co-construction, that was utilizing incentive zoning to promote urban renewal. Meanwhile, planning bureaucracy and some scholars also employed local experience as a reason to transform the scale of urban renewal to a “super small” one.

When the process of enactment of the Urban Renewal Act was reset in 1992, Rights Transformation and Incentive Zoning became the content of Draft Urban Renewal Act in the first place. However, as time passed, the Draft was more and more pro-construction company, causing the article enabling public lands annexed by private lands and article abandoning “urban renewal in the control of urban planning” to become the content of the Draft. Worse of all, After execution Yuan announced that urban renewal ought to be a policy for economic development, The Act recklessly enabled construction company to become implementers, and in the meanwhile abandoned most of norms concerning resettlement. At this point, Urban Renewal Act renounced most knowledge received from the U.S, which deserve to be remained, and the whole Act remained nothing but the interest of economic development.

Such law will absolutely not lead our society to a bright future. Although Urban Renewal Act had pushed the reconstruction after 921 Earthquake, the flaw embedded in the Act appeared in the process of reconstruction as well. Besides, the inclination of pro-construction company in Urban Renewal Act is more and more clear, but the protection to citizen participation becomes weaker. In this situation, all the defects of the legal system of urban renewal, resulting from knowledge reception and the continuity of local experience, cause the urban renewal in Taiwan in a shadow.

After understanding the historical origin of the shadows, the author recommends as below:

1.Revise the law to make the rights transformation plan to be consent by land owners in a majority, and make the selection of evaluation institution decided by both construction company and land owners when the construction company is the implementers.

2.Strengthen the norms for government implementing the urban renewal in finance and organization.

3.Nullify the Article 6, Clause 3 and 4 of Urban Renewal Act, and legalize the resettlement duty to disadvantaged old illegal construction of household and tenants.

4.Nullify the clause beyond the extent of reasonable incentive zoning, including Article 44, Section 1, Clause 1 and 2, and Article 44, Section 2 of Urban Renewal Act. Besides, set the ceiling of reward of building bulk in every circumstance.

5.Legislators should consider whether to maintain urban renewal in the super small scale. If urban renewal in the super small scale was remained, then prevent forcing land owners unnecessary to participate to join renewal process in the name of overall planning.
6. Revise Article 27 of Urban Renewal Act to stipulate the lowest rate of public lands in renewal units that the government needs to renew the area by themselves. Besides, although permitting the public lands to be annexed by private lands in renewal units composed of private lands mostly, but administration should have a using plan.

並列關鍵字

Urban Renewal ； Knowledge Reception ； Local Experience ； Urban Renewal in the mode of Co-construction ； Rights Transformation ； Jurisprudence combining Taiwanese social history of law and legal reasoning

參考文獻

王泰升（1999）。《台灣日治時期的法律改革》。台北：聯經。

林明鏘（1996）。《都市更新法制之硏究》。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會。

林青（1988）。〈都市計畫法部份條文修正案之評議〉，《人與地》，56期，頁14-23。

劉貞谷（2010）。〈論「台北好好看系列計畫一」之容積獎勵〉，《土地問題研究季刊》，9卷2期，頁115-121。

台北市政府地政局：http://www.land.taipei.gov.tw/