| Summary: | 碩士 === 逢甲大學 === 都市計畫與空間資訊學系 === 106 === In 1999, the 921 earthquake seriously impacted the Yunlin county area. At that time, the Yunlin Government selected the Dong Xin community, a newly developed community on the Qie Dong Jiao farm, to receive the internally displaced persons (IDP) from Zhong Shan Guo Bao building, Guan Di building and Xiang Rui building, and the residents of the geographically fragile area of Caoling Village and Caolingdizhi Park. The area was settled based on “The Temporary Statute for 921 Earthquake Reconstruction” and “The Guideline For The Yunlin Government To Conduct both The Post 921 Earthquake Disaster’s resettlement of the Jia Dong Community IDP and The Land Exchange.” These, combined with zone expropriation method provided a framework for the policies governing this land ownership.
Xiang Rui building’s construction base had become a public-private disputed land since the front building of Xiang Rui building was completely torn down due to an inspection that deemed it unsafe, and the rear building is under repair due to half collapsed. Also, for some specific reasons, many IDP of the front building can’t apply the above guideline for land exchange. Since then, the base and the constructions above has been abandoned for over 17 years, and become a blind spot for regional health and public security.
Since the public-private disputed land issue is difficult to overcome, the development of the public-private disputed land status is one of a kind. Once, the Yunlin county government had tried joint development and urban renewal to solve this deep end for years, but neither of them work. Finally, this dilemma was fixed by rezoning the residential area into land used for agency, and followed up action such as negotiating the purchase prices with the rest of the 147 residents and submitting for land expropriation approval with compensations. This assured people’s property rights and promotes urban development at the same time. Moreover, mentioned in the 10th paragraph’s 3rd subparagraph in the guidelines mentioned above, if for some reason the land of the IDP in the 3 buildings, as per the 3 buildings mentioned in the 1st subparagraph, can’t do land exchange with the specifies listed above, other related statutes can be used for submitting the land expropriation or land acquisition approval when the construction base of these 3 buildings has changed into public facility or other used land according to the urban planning process.
Although the existence of the public-private disputed land was predicted in the guideline mentioned above, the land still took years to go back onto urban planning and expropriation methods to solve the problem.
The article is a case study. It researched into the literature and compared the related regulations, examined the statutes suitability and inclusiveness to avoid the development of the public-private disputed land, and to find a solution for it when unavoidably the public –private disputed land occurs. It intends to improve and give the related authorities a reference while developing related policies in the future, and make dealing with the related public issues more efficiently.
Key words: Land Exchange, zone expropriation, Xiang Rui building, public –private disputed land, urban planning renewal, expropriation
|
|---|
