Could the long-running saga of the battle against the Miramar Resort Hotel finally be over? Perhaps. If there is one thing opponents of the beachfront development have learned over the course of the more than decade-long fight to stop the hotel, it is not to rush to celebrate apparent victories.
The Supreme Administrative Court on Thursday rejected the Taitung County Government’s appeal to resume work on the controversial five-star resort at Shanyuan Bay (杉原灣). The court found that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report the county used to allow developers to resume work on the hotel was null and void.
Thursday’s ruling cannot be appealed, but the battles that Aborigines, other residents and environmental groups have waged against county officials hell-bent on promoting tourism as the only development option for the county are far from over.
In 2004, the county signed a 50-year build-operate-transfer contract with Miramar Hotel Co to develop 6 hectares of land on the bay. Despite protests, work began in 2005 and the first of several lawsuits against the project was filed.
Opponents accused the county government of chicanery, saying it had divided the site into several small plots so that the project would not have to undergo an EIA, as well as giving the developer preferential benefits. Although the hotel itself was to take up 9,997m2 — about one-sixth of the beach’s total area — that was 3m2 short of the 1 hectare minimum needed for a mandatory EIA.
Following public protests and an order from the Environmental Protection Administration, the county government conducted and approved an EIA report in 2008. However, it was rejected by the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court in 2009, amid complaints that the committee which issued it included too many county government officials.
In 2010, the Kaohsiung court ruled that all construction work on the site had to be halted, but the county government continued to issue construction and usage licenses.
In January 2012, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Kaohsiung court’s ruling and in September that year ordered that all work be halted immediately.
The company submitted a second EIA report for review by the county government, which passed it conditionally in December 2012, and the county allowed work to resume in 2013, prompting a new lawsuit in 2014.
On Oct. 28 of that year, the Kaohsiung court ruled in favor of 14 plaintiffs who sought to have the second report rejected.
Despite all the rulings against the hotel and repeated appeals to the Control Yuan for investigations, the county continued to grant construction permits.
The Miramar Resort Hotel today stands virtually complete, casting a long shadow over the beach and bay in front of it. If it is truly never to be finished, what is going to happen to it?
Will the building become a slowly decaying blight on the landscape — as was the fate of several developments fronting Baishawan (白沙灣) and other areas along the northern coast that were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s?
What about the other projects planned for Shanyuan Bay? The Miramar resort is but one of six hotels planned for the area. The 11.3-hectare Dulan Bay Golden Sea Resort on March 11 failed its environmental assessment, but it too is likely to be tied up for years in challenges because of its proximity to the Fushan (富山) archeological sites and potential risks to coral reefs.
What about the continuing willingness of local governments to sign away access rights to public beaches as an enticement to private companies to construct hotels, to run roughshod over Aborigines’ rights of access to traditional lands in the name of development and to use the lure of potential jobs to override threats to the environment?
The Miramar project has been a poster child for much of what is wrong with tourism development policies of both the central and local governments. It is time to rethink the goals and the policies.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
RSS