The Taipei City Government on Tuesday said it would proceed to fine people living illegally in a commercial zone in the city’s Neihu District (內湖), despite protests supported by several city councilors. The move appears to be an attempt to appease commercial operators seeking to move into the area near Miramar Entertainment Park, which was designated a commercial zone in 2003.
Residents who moved into the area following the rezoning said at Tuesday’s hearing they had been unaware that it was illegal to live there and that they had been paying property taxes since moving in.
There is no question that the city government is within its rights to fine or evict the residents, but doing so is likely to do more harm than good.
There is arguably a better way for Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who has made housing issues a key part of his political platform, to appease the interests of developers as well as residents. After all, the residents went through proper channels to purchase their houses from developers, and the developers were granted permits by city officials.
If the residential buildings are demolished and replaced with businesses, it is questionable whether those would remain profitable, continue to operate in the area and pay property taxes to the city. Unlike Miramar, which is directly accessible by the city’s MRT system through Jiannan Road Station, the lots on Mingshui and Jingye roads where the residential buildings are located are far enough from the MRT system that they are less likely to draw foot traffic.
Traffic congestion in the area, which Comprehensive Planning Division head Huang Hui-ju (黃惠如) once attributed to mountains and the Keelung River limiting road construction, means that businesses in Neihu and northeastern Zhongshan District (中山) must be near the MRT system to thrive.
Conversely, if residents are permitted to stay, not only will they continue to pay property taxes, but they will also ensure a steady stream of patrons for already successful businesses in the area, such as Miramar.
A poll conducted two weeks ago by the Taiwan Competitiveness Forum showed Ko in the lead among candidates for next year’s Taipei mayoral elections. However, if Ko cannot maintain his popularity, his campaign might yet turn into an uphill battle, the forum said.
During his 2014 mayoral campaign, Ko pledged to build more than 20,000 public housing units within four years, and in the past few months he has pledged to make about 36,000 housing units in Taipei that have been vacant for more than a year available for public housing by offering incentives to landlords.
Two years ago, Ko complained of a lack of social housing in Taipei, saying that Seoul was doing a much better job.
Steep property prices and rents “are what young people living in Taipei loathe the most,” Ko said at the time, lambasting authorities for not doing more.
It seems counterintuitive for Ko to impose fines on or evict (indirectly through cutting off water and power supplies) 1,678 taxpaying residents who already have housing.
“Right now, the government only talks about resettlement, but not about how existing residency rights should be protected and whether people have just reasons for their demands,” Taiwan Association for Human Rights housing specialist Lin Yen-tung (林彥彤) said in October last year, criticizing the lack of a clear definition of housing rights in the law.
Ko is absolutely right that laws should not be applied selectively, but protecting the rights of some should not happen to the detriment of others. Finding a balanced solution that can address everyone’s needs would be in Ko’s best interest.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not