There are several different kinds of illegal structures. They can be divided into structures that violated legal procedure during construction and those that violate building requirements.
The first category includes structures for which the location, height, structure, floor area ratio and building coverage ratio meet local urban planning and building regulations, but for which construction was carried out without first obtaining a construction license, even if the builder had the right to use the land. This can be corrected at a later date, making the construction legal.
The second category includes structures for which a building license has not been applied for in accordance with the Building Act (建築法), the Regulations for the Management of Buildings in Areas Not Covered by Urban Planning (實施都市計畫以外地區建築物管理辦法) or other regulations.
In practice, there are also other categories: “Old illegal structures” refer to those that existed prior to Feb. 10, 1958, in what was then called Taiwan Province; those built before 1963 in Taipei; and those built before Dec. 21, 1968, in Kaohsiung. When public construction projects are handled, these dates are used to determine whether a demolition fee or subsidy can be issued.
Taipei is also categorizing illegal structures built between 1964 and Aug. 1, 1977, as “existing illegal structures.” If they are not a threat to public safety, traffic, health, the urban landscape or urban planning, photographs are taken of them and they are entered into a registry for management and control, but are temporarily exempt from reporting and demolition.
Demolishing or relocating this kind of illegal structure in a public construction project also allows for a demolition or relocation fee or subsidy, but the amount is lower than for “old illegal structures.”
Structures completed prior to Jan. 10, 1992, in Taiwan Province also meet the Taiwan Province Standards for Determining the Demolition of Illegal Structures (臺灣省違章建築拆除認定基準). They were built without applying for a building license and their demolition can also be delayed.
Regulations for handling illegal structures at the local level also differ.
In Tainan, for example, demolition priority is given to illegal structures built prior to Dec. 24, 2010, for which “construction exceeding more than three floors has been added to a legally defined open space facing a road” or “construction on a rooftop has added more than three floors to a building” or for “a structure occupying a legally defined arcade so that there is less than 1.5m of free space from side to side and police have issued a fine without the issue being addressed.”
There have been media reports saying that both the Taipei and New Taipei City governments plan to tear down all illegal structures.
PRIORITIES
If these structures are demolished without considering their negative effects on public safety, traffic, health, the urban landscape or urban planning, there is a risk that priorities will be confused.
Is this really the right way to go about things?
Furthermore, is the government capable of tearing down all these illegal structures?
If buildings that are used for rental apartments are demolished, what would happen to the tenants? Would their rents not increase even more? Is there sufficient social housing to accommodate disadvantaged people?
Lee Ji-sheng is an assistant researcher in the Legislative Yuan’s Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS