打造現代都市獵場－三鶯部落爭取居住權的漫漫長路

Building A Modern Urban Hunting Ground－The Long Road of Sanying Tribe Fighting for Their Right of Residency

方歆婷(Hsin-Ting Fang)

指導教授 ： 彭文正 ； 何榮幸

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/新聞研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.10725

摘要

居住，是生活最基本且切身的需求。但房價的居高不下，讓「安居樂業｣成了奢侈的夢想，「居住正義｣相關的議題，同時受到關注與討論。

台灣是多族群的社會，在經濟發展的影響下，多數原住民進入都會區工作，因為文化與生活習慣的不同，形成｢都市原住民｣的現象，｢居住｣為首當其衝的問題。本文報導對象｢三鶯部落｣屬河岸旁違建，1990年起遭勒令拆除，導致居民生活雪上加霜，部落組成自救會抗爭，數年來外界聲援不斷。

針對居住問題，政府推動「只租不賣｣的社會住宅，試圖降低民眾居住成本。而三鶯部落在長期抗爭下爭取到的重建計畫，便是以「社會住宅｣為基底，試圖在都市裡打造一個「新原鄉｣。

本文報導試圖找出下列問題的答案：
1. 此重建計畫與之前北縣府的｢三峽隆恩埔原住民族文化部落｣安置方案，有何不同?
2. 當「社會住宅｣遇上「部落重建｣時，會迸出甚麼樣的火花?新方案如何更符合個別文化需求?如何不步上其他部落重建計畫的後塵?

訪談後發現，重建計劃因無前例可循，因此困難重重，包括三鶯部落該用何種名義承租國有地?國有地如何被合法租用?租金繳交是否有對居民造成負擔?官民合作的默契是否能經得起考驗?

面對重重關卡，三鶯部落自救會以高規格的組織文化應對，輔以相關單位如專業者都市改革組織(OURs)及社運團體的協助，針對法條、規範及部落實際狀況進行規劃與解套。三鶯部落升級｢公益社團法人｣承租國有地，而｢自力造屋｣將為｢社會租宅｣符合個別文化需求的解決方法之一。

關鍵字

三鶯部落 ； 都市原住民 ； 社會住宅 ； 社區營造 ； 自力造屋

並列摘要

Residency, is most fundamental and immediate concern to everyone. But The house prices remain high, so that "living" become a luxurious dream. "Justice of Inhabitation rights " becomes a big issue, and there have been heated debates on the it.

The society in Taiwan tends to be heterogeneous. On the impact of the economic growth, many aborigines migrated from homeland to urban area for working. Because of the different culture and lifestyle, their migration brought about a phenomenon called “aborigines dwelling in cities”, and the first problem they faced was "where to live?". The object of this thesis(in depth reporting) "Sanying tribe" is considered to be unapproved construction project beside the river, and it has been being ordered to demolish since 1990. As a result, their life have been going from bad to worse. Then, they organized a self-help organization to protest themselves, and they have been getting a lot of public support for years.

For solving the inhabitation problem, the government promote the Social Housing Policy , which emphasize that "rent it, not buy it", trying to reduce the cost of living. After a long-term resist, the Sanying tribe win a chance of the reconstruction plan, which is based on "Social Housing" , trying to re-build a "New Homeland" in city.

This reports tried to find the answers for the following questions:
1. What the differences between the former relocation due to demolition, which called 'Public Housing of Sanxia, street Long En Bu" and the present reconstruction plan?
2. What will be the result of the combination of the "Social Housing" and " Aboriginal Tribe Reconstruction"? Does this new reconstruction plan meet the needs of the residents, especially for their cultural needs? How does this plan avoid doing the same defects as the other tribes reconstruction plan?

After interviews and researches, I found that there are so many difficulties over this tribe reconstruction plan, and the worse is there isn't any precedent case to follow. These difficulties include: How to rent the state-owned land? Will the rent be a hard burden to the residents? Will the cooperation between government and the Sanying tribe work?

Face all these obstacles, Sanying tribe equip themselves with a complete organizational structure, with the helps from the Organization of Urban Re-s (OURs) and the Social Movement Organizations. They have been dealing with National laws and regulations , tribe reconstruction plan and the actual situation. Sanying tribe will be a "Nonprofit Corporation" to rent state-owned land, and then do the self-build housing, which is considered to be another measure for completing "Social Housing Policy" , especially to meet different cultural needs.

並列關鍵字

Sanying tribe ； Urban Aboriginal ； Social Housing ； Community Empowerment ； Self-Build Housing

參考文獻

江雯、紀舜傑（2011）。〈都市邊緣化下原住民族部落認同與重建—以新北市新三鶯部落為例〉，臺灣原住民研究論叢，10，頁125-155。

米復國（1988）。〈臺灣的公共住宅政策〉，臺灣社會研究，1，頁97-147。

林易蓉（2009）。《溪洲部落空間尋根－與原鄉部落的空間模式》。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。

查慧瑛（2010）。《唱山謠．悵山遙－泰武國小的莫拉克風災重建路》。國立臺灣大學新聞研究所碩士論文。

郭俞廷（2009）。《從紅茄萣到紅腳社區：以儀式觀點分析社區總體營造》。臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。