都市更新制度模式與法理分析

因我國地窄人稠，都市發展逐漸受到限制。為解決日益嚴重的都市問題，都市更新成為新興議題，且廣泛受到重視。然而2012年間，我國接連發生數起因都市更新而生之社會衝突，並突顯出現行都市更新條例之問題點。現行都市更新條例無法有效與都市計畫連接、無法達成完整更新之目的，且程序面上過於簡略，難使更新單元內權利人於接收資訊、陳述意見上受到完整的保障。又，現行都市更新條例對於更新團體內之溝通、協調及整合意見相關規定並未完足，將使得都市更新團體內產生資訊不對等、強弱勢實力過大，更新團體內利益分配失衡等問題。由此可知，現行都市更新條例實已有窒礙難行之情形。本文在上述背景下，從都市問題之起源及類型開展討論，重新思考「都市問題」與「都市更新」間之關聯性，並探討都市更新之內涵、所欲達成之利益及帶來之利益衝突。本文並論及我國都市更新條例之座標、架構及運行模式，透過行政實務、司法訴訟、學說見解及實際數據描繪出我國都市更新條例運行下所產生之角色圖譜及風險利益分配。本文植基於前述討論，進一步思考我國都市更新條例所遇到之憲法上問題，檢視現行都市更新條例之公益性基礎，透過憲法上之觀點對現行都市更新條例作出省思。本文將同時研究美國及英國於都市更新制度上之發展沿革，探尋此二國家於都市更新發展上所碰到之困難，並希望透過比較法之方式，解析出都市更新制度之共同特色、特徵，藉此反思我國都市更新條例所遇到之難題。最後，本文希望能突破現行架構，以實施者改革為中心進行另類思考，並提出組織型公私夥伴關係適用於我國都市更新法制之可能性，希望能夠另闢蹊徑，拋磚引玉的為我國都市更新制度帶來不同的討論面向。於本論文口試完成，即將完稿之際，司法院大法官作成釋字709號，並宣告都市更新條例部分條文違憲，定期失效。為求討論之完整性，本文亦透過附論方式將本釋字納入結論部分一併探討、研究。並於全文最後對近年來所發生之若干都市更新相關社會運動提出個人之意見及反思。

關鍵字

都市更新；都市更新制度；都市更新條例；財產權；公益性基礎；公私夥伴關係(PPP) ；組織型公私夥伴關係(IPPP) ；司法院釋字第709號

並列摘要

For the reason that Taiwan is small in area but densely populated, urban development has been facing its limitation gradually. In order to solve the increasingly serious urban problems, urban renewal has become an emerging issue and earned widespread attention. However, in 2012, there’s been a spate of social conflicts for the urban renewal, highlighting the problems of present Urban Renewal Act. Not only does the present Urban Renewal Act fail to be linked with the urban plan, but also fail to accomplish the aim of renewal at all. Besides, the procedure is too sketchy to protect obligees’ acceptance of information and assertion of opinion completely. Furthermore, the regulation about intra-group negotiation, coordination and integration of opinion of the present Urban Renewal Act isn’t completed, which may lead to problems such like imbalance of information, power, and the distribution of interest inside the renewal groups. Therefore, the present urban renewal act is actually difficult to be implemented. Based on the context above, I’m going to discuss the origins and types of urban problems, rethinking the relationship between “urban problems” and “urban renewal”, and to research on the connotation, the interest to achieve and the following conflicts of interests about urban renewal. The discussion of this thesis will also touch upon the coordinates, structures and modes of operation of the Urban Renewal Act, depicting the role pattern and distribution of interest and risks with the administrative practices, judicial proceedings, doctrines and actual data. Based on the discussion above, I will further deliberate about the constitutional problems the Urban Renewal Act might encounter, examining the basis of public welfare of the present Urban Renewal Act and reflecting on the Act with the constitutional view in this thesis. I will also research on the development of institutional evolution of urban renewal of the United States and the United Kingdom, searching for the difficulties of developing urban renewal these countries encountered to reflect on the difficulties we encountered under the Act. Last but not least, I hope that this article may breakthrough the current analysis structure to the alternative thinking of implementer-reformation-centric, and propose the possibility of the application of organizational model of public-private partnerships to the Urban Renewal Act. I hope that this article can open a new path and throw a sprat to catch a whale, bringing out more different aspects for the discussion of the urban renewal institution. Before the defense and the finishing of this thesis, Council of Grand Justices had made J.Y. Interpretation No.709 and said partial articles of Urban Renewal Act unconstitutional shall become void within statutory period. For the completeness of discussion, I will review and research this Interpretation as the obiter dictum in the conclusion part. In the last part of this thesis, I will propose my opinion and reflection about the recent social movements which were relevant to urban renewal.

並列關鍵字

Urban Renewal ； the Institution of Urban Renewal ； Urban Renewal Act ； Property Right ； Basis of Public Welfare ； Public-Private Partnerships ； Institutionalised Public-Private Partnerships ； J.Y. Interpretation No.709.