臺北市永春街聚落之分區變更與回饋爭議評析

An Analysis of Zoning Changes and Feedback Controversies in the Yongchun Street Settlement, Taipei City

本文旨在探討永春街聚落之空間發展沿革與使用分區變遷。筆者嘗試分析當土地使用分區由低強度轉高強度，卻遇上存在一定時間且有居住事實的非正式聚落，衍生之變更「回饋」與後續衍生的「利益」該如何界定與調適。本文採二手文獻分析方式，納入議會質詢紀錄、都市計畫書圖，以及官方治理之報告書等，廓清永春街聚落的空間發展脈絡。本文主張，違佔戶的形成與存續，倘若憑藉私有財產權之視角分析，既無法體現這類群體具備實質支配土地之權利，也欠缺在法理層面的正當性。不過，亦不能忽視政府長久以來的空間規劃之疏漏。政府與居民都是在不可抗力的狀態下形成此結果。本文認為，不妨嘗試重新梳理回饋機制，特別針對因政府計畫失靈產生的非正式聚落，進行有關「利益」概念的細究。言明聚落之歷史發展，接合分區變更並非為了取得利益而開展，而是「恢復」原土地之使用分區，藉此述明非正式聚落與一般變更機制的落差。

The purpose of this paper is to explore the spatial development of the Yongchun Street settlement and the change of land use zoning. The author tries to analyse how to define and adjust the 'feedback' and the 'benefits' derived from the change when the land use zoning changes from low-intensity to high-intensity, but meets the informal settlement that has existed for a certain period of time and has the fact of living there. This paper adopts the method of secondary literature analysis, and incorporates the records of parliamentary questions, urban planning maps, and reports on official governance to clarify the spatial development of the Yongchun Street settlement. The paper argues that if the formation and survival of unauthorised occupants is analysed from the perspective of private property rights, it will not be possible to show that these groups have the substantive right to dominate the land, nor will it be legally justified. However, we cannot ignore the government's long-standing spatial planning omissions. Both the government and the residents are in a state of force majeure. This paper suggests that it would be useful to reorganise the feedback mechanisms, especially for informal settlements that have been created as a result of governmental planning failures, and to examine the concept of 'interest' in more detail. By stating that the historical development of settlements and the joint zoning changes were not initiated for the purpose of obtaining benefits, but rather to‘restore’the original zoning of the land use, this paper illustrates the discrepancy between informal settlements and the general change mechanism.