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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS