🏢 Urban Renewal by Government Jointly with Developers: How Can People Refuse Urban Renewal?
Do you still remember the “Wenlin Yuan Forced Demolition Incident” a few months ago? This incident led many people to start paying attention to how to clearly express their intention and protect their rights if they do not want to participate in urban renewal.
📰 News Summary and Facts of Urban Renewal Procedures
According to news reports at the time, the municipal government stated that the urban renewal process is roughly divided into five stages and gave the public some suggestions:
The Wenlin Yuan forced demolition incident… let many people understand that if they don’t want to participate in urban renewal, they should clearly express their intentions. However… people reflected that they have said “no” to the developer, but the whole urban renewal process still continues… How many times do they have to say “no” for it to count, and if the developer has agreed to change the design, does it count?
The municipal government… stated that the whole urban renewal process is roughly divided into the divisions of urban renewal units, outline of renewal business, plan of renewal business, rights change, and finally applying for building permit for demolition and construction. … An urban renewal unit will be reviewed as long as one person proposes it; the outline of the renewal business requires the consent of 1/10 of the landowners, and so on…
If the public does not participate in related meetings, it is equivalent to “abandoning” their rights. It is suggested that in addition to expressing their intentions to the implementer, the public can also express their intention not to participate in writing. Relevant information will be sent to the review committee as an opinion reference for future renewal reviews.
The Urban Renewal Office… stated that before the end of the public exhibition period, there is a chance to revoke the consent form, except if it results in odd-sized plots, no building line, or causes neighbor land to be unable to be rebuilt.
🧐 Procedure Facts and Hidden Issues Summarized by the Author
Based on the above news content, the author extracted several facts that are unfavorable to those who do not participate in the urban renewal process, as well as the substantive infringement of people’s rights hidden behind the procedures:
📌 Procedure Facts: Low Threshold and Weak Effectiveness
- An urban renewal unit will enter the urban renewal process as long as one person proposes it.
- If you don’t participate in meetings, it’s equivalent to giving up your rights.
- Even if you clearly express the intention of “not participating” in writing, the opinion is only for reference.
❌ Hidden Issues: Time Cost and Deprivation of Rights
- Pressure of Time and Cost: The long urban renewal process requires people to constantly take leave to attend various meetings, but the government does not take into account people’s loss of working hours, salary, or work pressure.
- Forced Involvement by Neighbors: Even if a neighbor proposes urban renewal out of personal grudges or wealth advantages, people may be forced to get involved.
- Land Rights Decided by Neighboring Land: If after your neighbor removes their land from the renewal, your land will become an “odd-sized plot,” “having no building line,” or “causing neighboring land to be unable to be rebuilt,” you cannot refuse urban renewal. This essentially forces you to accept the neighbor (developer) swallowing your land.
- Government Avoiding Core Questions: Government officials did not clearly answer key questions such as “Does it count if the developer has agreed to change the design?” and from beginning to end they only told you to refuse, but didn’t say how to refuse for it to have absolute effectiveness.
⚖️ Comment and Conclusion: Communist-like Behavior in a Liberal Democracy?
The author concludes: The original intention of urban renewal is good, but it must be carried out by those who are willing and truly in need, and the people’s freedom of choice must be respected.
The author strongly criticizes the current urban renewal procedures in Taiwan, believing that its compulsiveness and disregard for private property rights are already similar to the forced development behavior of communism. However, compared to communism at least finding alternative shelters for the people, Taiwan’s system might only give a sum of money after forced demolition, and even require the landowner to pay out of their own pocket to get back a newly built property. For people lacking funds, this is a great injustice and deprivation.