透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.221.81.212
  • 學位論文

我國都市計畫法制中容積移轉運用之檢討—由美國發展權移轉之功能出發

A Review of the Applications of Transferable Development Rights(TDR)in the Urban Planning Act of Taiwan – From the Perspective of the Function of TDR in the USA

指導教授 : 傅玲靜

摘要


我國文化資產保存法於民國86年參考美國之發展權移轉制度,首先引進容積移轉制度並將之運用於古蹟及歷史建築之保存,用以保障所有權人之權益,同時保存歷史文化資產,實為美事一樁。惟於司法院釋字400號解釋作成後,政府為解決當時既成道路、公共設施保留地與政府取得土地的財政負擔壓力,開始構思以容積移轉制度作為補償財產權所受特別犧牲之「他法」之一。民國88年都市計畫法增訂第83-1條,正式將容積移轉擴大適用於公共設施保留地之取得及開放空間之提供後,其運作結果卻備受都市計畫學者之質疑。 本文以探尋容積移轉於都市計畫理論體系下之本質為始,釐清容積移轉為現代都市成長管理理論中之技術性工具,係屬土地使用分區管制「硬規制」後之「軟調控」,用以平衡開發對於環境造成之衝擊,並積極誘導都市發展,使土地資源分配能更有效率。接續則比較美國發展權移轉制度及我國容積移轉制度,點出二國於運用制度上之基本思維差異,發現我國將之作為政府徵收補償之對價,不但已脫離了容積移轉應發揮之功能,美國準徵收法制及聯邦最高法院之判決亦指出因容積之交易市場及價值具高度不確定性,並不足以作為徵收之公正補償。 除此之外,容積移轉制度之目的在於調節土地利用及保護自然系統,將容積移轉作為取得公共設施保留地之財政工具時,其目的與手段之關聯性之間是否符合比例原則首先要求的手段之適當性,即法制所規範之手段是否「有助於目的之達成」,由都市計畫法規範之本質精神而言,實應予以否定之。另由我國繼受德國法制關於財產權及特別犧牲之法理檢討,在開放空間之容積移轉中,容積係作為補償土地所有權人因提供開放空間公有所受之損失,除「創設」於原有都市計畫容積總量中並不存在之容積,已逸脫土地利用調控本質外,土地所有權人所受之財產權限制,亦未達特別犧牲之程度,國家損失補償之要件並未成立。因此,法制設計上以容積移轉作為替代徵收補償之方式,實與法理有違。 綜上所述,本文認為容積移轉實不宜再繼續作為政府解決徵收補償財源不足時之財政工具,應將容積移轉運用於符合「都市土地利用調控」功能之土地類型,建議將取得公共設施保留地及提供開放空間二種不符法理之運用態樣,自都市計畫法第83-1條中刪除。

並列摘要


For the preserving of the monuments and historical buildings, and for the protecting property rights of land owners, the institution of “Transferable of Development Rights (TDR)” was first introduced to Taiwan’s Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, which is an innovative policy, from the U.S. in 1997. However, as the No.400 of J. Y. Interpretation was announced, the government was forced to conceive some alternative methods, the TDR was included, to resolve the financial difficulties of the requisition of the private pre-existing road, the reserved land for public facilities and other developable land, and in the meantime to protect the interests on the property have been specifically sacrificed for the general interest. After an amendment of the Article 83-1 of the Urban Planning Act in 1999, TDR was widely applied to the requisition of the reserved land for public facilities, and the providing of open space, but followed by many disputes. This essay begins with exploring the essence of TDR in the theory of urban planning, to clarify that the TDR is a tool of the growth management theory, its function is to adjust and balance the impact of the development to the environment, activates land development, and makes the allocations of land resources more efficiently. The basic perspectives to the TDR is very different between the U.S. and Taiwan, the TDR is functioned as the compensation of the eminent domain in Taiwan, not only has been out of the function of it originally played, but also insufficient for a just compensation due to the highly uncertainty of the trading market and the value, according to the takings law theory, while the U.S. Supreme Court pointed it out. From the perspective of the civil law, using TDR as a financial tool is violated to the principle of proportionality (Verhaltnismasigkeitsprinzip), and either meets the requirements of the theory of specifically sacrificed (Sonderopfertheorie). In summary, this essay argues that TDR would not be an appropriate method as the government to solve the financial difficuties facing the compensation for eminent domain according to the legal theories, and should no more applied to the providing of open spaces and the the reserved land for public facilities, thus they should be removed from Article 83-1 of the Urban Planning Act.

參考文獻


張道義,社會理論與社會國理論:史坦恩的模式,台大法學論叢,第39卷第4期,2010年,1-71頁。
王鵬翔,論基本權的規範結構,台大法學論叢,第34卷第2期,1-61頁。
陳愛娥,自由—平等—博愛—社會國原則與法治國原則的交互作用,台大法學論叢,第26卷第2期,1997年,121-141頁。
李家儂,容受力應用於都市地區建築容積總量管制之探討,土地問題研究季刊,第6卷第3期,2007年,82-97頁。
楊松齡,實用土地法精義,8版,2009年。

延伸閱讀