抵價地分配之探討— 以金門縣金湖鎮市港區段徵收為例

摘要區段徵收制度為我國目前開發新市鎮、舊市區及農村社區更新所依賴的主要法規，其目的在實現「漲價歸公」的基本國策，解決公共設施用地取得問題，防止土地投機，並號稱「讓土地所有權人共享開發利益，落實使用者付費，符合社會公平原則」。本論文研究以金湖鎮市港區段徵收為例，探討政府所強調的政策目的與人民權益的保障是否取得平衡。根據該區段徵收案開發前財務評估報告與開發完成後的財務成果報告，進行比較開發案前、後之差異，並採用個案訪談法對土地所有權人抽樣進行深度訪談來推論分析；並從管理的角度，過去有部分的徵收方式可能有值得探討的地方，因此，本研究主要從公平、分配、財務等角度來分別討論。研究結果顯示本開發案經財務結算後，財務收入計23億1887萬2869元，尚有可建築用地7964.79平方公尺待出售，目前已產生盈餘19億9613萬5724元，與原開發前財務評估盈餘3511.5萬元差距巨大，究其原因一為公開標售土地價格因受當時市場景氣影響創下價格新高，住宅區每平方公尺最高達6萬3千元、商業區更突破11萬元，遠遠超過當初財務評估報告時預計之標售價格達3-8倍之多，另一原因是開發工程費原評估報告有高估的嫌疑，實際發包時只有當初預估的60%，兩個因素相加的結果是開發案盈餘暴漲了70倍之多，此一結果造成了縣庫有豐厚的進帳，但對土地所有權人來說卻是極大的損失，印證本研究的假設與土地所有權人的疑慮，區段徵收抵價地的分配比例是不合理的，應再重新檢討。區段徵收開發的目的是多元的，金門現在的情況是政府圈了很多地，再慢慢開發，很多地被劃入之後，因為政府人力、財力不足、設計不良或不符開發成本，已經三十年了都沒有開發，嚴重影響土地所有人的權益。在此建議金門縣政府劃定區段徵收開發案時，不應以開發案是否能獲利來做取捨，應該回歸到公益性與必要性的原則來考量，同時應兼顧政府無償取得公共設施所有權與土地所有權人的基本權益保障。關鍵字：區段徵收、抵價地、市港段

關鍵字

區段徵收；抵價地；市港段

並列摘要

Abstract Zone expropriation is one of the main policies for developing new towns, old cities, and rural communities in our country. The purpose of zone expropriation is to achieve the fundamental national policy of "land value increment belongs to the public", to solve the problem of land acquisition for public facilities, and to prevent land speculation. Zone expropriation also claims to allow land owners to share development benefits and to implement user charge in order to comply with the principle of social justice. This paper studies the zone expropriation of Shigang District, Jinhu Township as an example and investigates whether the policy objectives emphasized by the government and the people rights ensured are balanced. I will analyze it by comparing the difference based on the financial evaluation report conducted prior to the development and the financial results report after completion of the development, and conducting in-depth interviews with a few land owners. Also, from a management perspective, some previous methods might be worth for further investigation. Therefore, we will discuss from the perspective of equality, distribution, and finance in this study. The study result indicates that after the account-closing day, this development project has revenue of NTD 2,318,872,869 and there are still 7,964.79 square meters of building lands to be sold. The current earnings from the project is NTD 1,996,135,724, which has a great difference with the earning, NTD 35,115,000 estimated in the financial evaluation report conducted prior to the development. One of the reasons that caused such result is pubic tendering land price. Because of the market boom at the time, the price hit a record high. The highest price of each square meters in the residential areas was NTD 63,000, and the price of commercial areas broke through the amount of NTD 110,000. The prices were three to eight times higher than the tendering price, which was estimated in the financial evaluation report. The other reason is that the development cost for this project was over-estimated in the evaluation report. The actual outsourcing cost was only 60 percent of the estimated cost. With the combination of these two factors, the earnings of the development project soared by more than 70 times. As a result, the County government had a generous income while it caused a great loss to land owners. The result verifies the hypothesis of this study and the doubts from the land owners, and that the allocation of the compensation equivalent lands of zone expropriation was not reasonable. Hence, it should be reviewed again. There are multi-purposes for zone expropriation. The current situation in Kinmen is that government has taken over lots of lands and develops at a slow pace. Many lands were included in the project but had not been developed for more than 30 years due to manpower shortage, insufficient financial resources, poor design, or development cost ineffective, which seriously impact the land owners’ rights. I hereby suggest that Kinmen County Government should consider the necessity and public welfare when planning the development projects of zone expropriation, instead of making the decision on whether the project may be profitable. In the meantime, the governments should also take care of both fundamental rights of the land owner and their right of obtaining the ownership of public facilities. Keyword: zone expropriation, compensation equivalent land, Shigang section.