Treasure Hill and squatters' rights

About 200 police were sent into Treasure Hill this morning by the Taipei City Government to forcibly evict resident squatters and many college-aged protestors that were trying to help the residents resist. One student protester has suffered chest trauma resulting in a hospital visit to remove air from his chest. His parents say they will sue Mayor Hau if the injury was caused by police. (He did have an existing condition.) It was not the only injury. Witnesses say there were too many police for the task, making the police crowd more dangerous than the protestor crowd. Cops were trampling people in the surge. Resistors shouted “Hau Long-bin baoli!” (violent). The cops were obviously much more forceful than they were with the Redshirts. I am watching them on TV now pinning people’s arms behind their backs and smacking people around quite brutally.

Here is a story from three years ago that has a lot of background information in it:

[quote] The battle of Treasure Hill
A derelict squatter’s community on the edge of Taipei is being remade into an artists’ village and youth hostel. But for the long-term residents of Treasure Hill, the attention is both helpful and a hindrance to their daily lives
By David Momphard STAFF REPORTER Sunday, Dec 21, 2003

The relative peace that this squatter community enjoyed in the five decades after it was first settled by Chinese Nationalist Party soldiers from China is gone. The area was rezoned as parkland in 1980 and then, 13 years later, notices were posted on doors warning residents that the labyrinth of illegal piecemeal buildings would soon be razed.


PHOTO: STEPHEN WILDE
Treasure Hill quickly became a cause celebre for student activists and academics who saw the community as representative of the city’s past. In the 1950s, they argued, 30 percent of Taipei was squatter villages hastily constructed to accommodate the almost immediate doubling of the local population by mainlanders who fled the communist army.

While most of those communities have since been turned into parks or been replaced with modern buildings, Treasure Hill remains as both a reminder of the past and present home to some 100 people; many of them are poor retired soldiers, others are immigrants from southeast Asian countries, still others are students attending neighboring universities.

When the eviction notices went up, the academics and activists protested and the city government demurred. Responsibility for the future of the area was transferred from the Department of Parks and Recreation to the Bureau of Cultural Affairs, which became charged with, essentially, making Treasure Hill less of an embarrassment to a city bent on modernizing. Now it’s become the stomping ground for culturati who see the promontory as an “organic community” and come on their days off as part of the Global “Artivists” Participation Plan (GAPP).
(story continues at length…)[/quote]

And here is a story from yesterday’s Taipei Times:

[quote]Promises fail to reassure commune residents
By Loa Iok-sin STAFF REPORTER Monday, Jan 29, 2007


Residents built houses without permission and the community was declared illegal by the city government in 1994, but last year the Taipei City Department of Cultural Affairs recognized its historical significance and promised to preserve and renovate it. However, some residents and members of the THC were skeptical.

Residents received a letter from the city’s Building Administration Office (BAO) on Jan. 18 that asked them to sign an agreement.

“The house shall be demolished voluntarily within the deadline set forth by the city government,” a line from the agreement reads, “[I] agree that the BAO may demolish the house on my behalf after the deadline. [I] will not hold the BAO responsible for any financial or material damages.”

“In order to begin the renovation project, we’ve asked residents to move into temporary housing,” Chen Chia-chin (陳嘉欽), a city official said. “We’re not going to demolish [the buildings],” he added.

When a resident asked city officials to clarify the content of the letter, they rushed to leave and told him “don’t give me any trouble.”

The THC staged a protest by tearing down a piece of wall on Friday. “I thought they wanted us to demolish buildings voluntarily,” a member of THC said.

The City Government has called the action illegal, and the THC members illegal occupants.

“All legal residents have been well taken care of,” Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) said, “we will not tolerate illegal occupants.”

After the protest on Friday, the police set up a checkpoint at the entrance to the community to prevent non-residents from entering, “to protect residents who are moving out,” a police officer said.

“Confrontation is not our goal,” Chi Yue-chun (紀岳君), a THC member said, “we’d rather see Hau sit down and talk with us.” [/quote]

And another story from last October:
Treasure Hill to get facelift, starting December

There will surely be another story tomorrow.

I am wondering why the city is able to override the wishes of the residents. Apparently this has been done before. Chen Shui-bian made a lot of enemies when he did basically the same thing to residents of two blocks of soldiers’ housing stradling LinSen N. Rd at Nanjing E. Rd. I heard that he gave the residents only a month or two to get out and then sent in the dozers. He created two useless parks that I have personally dubbed the useless parks. I seldom see anyone using either for anything but taking the dog out for a poo.

Is there a legal concept of squatters’ rights here in Taiwan? It seems to me the city’s behavior is too arbitrary and too much like an authoritarian approach. This, despite recent assurances to deal with the dispute peacefully.

I would love to ask Mayor Hau just how this action differs from the way governments in China handle things when it wants to rearrange the living arrangement of citizens. He is making Taiwan look like a third-world dictatorship all over again.

Well, well, people of Taipei. Look who you elected over a man who turned dirty old Kaohsiung into the island’s most liveable city.

I dont know about Taiwan’s property laws/public laws, but I am wondering about the application of the same concept in international laws regarding Taiwan’s status. :slight_smile:

Sixty years of uninterrupted occupation, I think in some other jurisdictions will engender rights of some sort.

Definitely the fault of the KMT and mainland tools. And nothing racist in calling people descended from mainlanders tools.

No double standards in asking the KMT to give back property and land they stole, but complaining when these people are asked to do the same. That’s ok then.

Squatters have no rights.

From Wiki : “Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use.”

Kind of lost interest in what the OP was commenting on when it turned into the usual shameless KMT-bashing. But I guess that’s my fault for not realizing that had Frank Hsieh been elected Taipei Mayor, he would have saved the universe. :unamused:

From the same article you quoted from, you’ll find that in the UK squatters can legally claim ownership of property they have resided on continually for 12 years. Of course, this has no relevance to Taiwan’s situation, I’m just saying, is all.

I dont know about Taiwan’s property laws/public laws, but I am wondering about the application of the same concept in international laws regarding Taiwan’s status. :slight_smile:

Sixty years of uninterrupted occupation, I think in some other jurisdictions will engender rights of some sort.[/quote]
October 25, 1945 marked the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Since international law specifies that “Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty,” so there is no basis for claiming that the territorial sovereignty of Formosa and the Pescadores belongs to the ROC.

US Secretary of State Powell said it very clearly: “Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation.”

Too bad the DPP can’t figure this out.

Dear Taffy, UK law has no relevance in Taiwan… only the Mafia Law seems to prevail around here…

Anyone else agrees that squatting can also be applied to all those buildings the KMT has occupied?

Geez…haven’t the LEO’s here ever heard of fire hoses?

[quote=“Mer”]Squatters have no rights.

From Wiki : “Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use.”

Kind of lost interest in what the OP was commenting on when it turned into the usual shameless KMT-bashing. But I guess that’s my fault for not realizing that had Frank Hsieh been elected Taipei Mayor, he would have saved the universe. :unamused:[/quote]

You didn’t happen to notice that I critcized Chen Shui-bian at the beginning of my post and never mentioned political parties once? So who is being partisan? I think it is you, Mer.

BTW, a lot of countries legally recognize squatters’ rights. Canada, the US, the UK, and others all do. Then, there is one of the biggest and most successful squats of all time, Christiania, a large region of Copenhagen with its own autonomous governance.

Mer, this is one of your weaker posts, I think.

To address another point raised, much of what the DPP is demanding the KMT give back is not property they have squatted, but also companies. I don’t think squatters’ rights have even been applied to companies. And furthermore, the concept of squatting applies to occupying unused land, not taking over something that is being used by others.I don’t think the comparison is that accurate, although it is somewhat interesting, yes.

My girlfriend and I went to Treasure Hill late this afternoon. I feel stupid for having failed to visit previously. I had been intending to for months now, as I knew this was coming.

She talked with a really old guy, one of the original residents, was looking around for a way to sneak in and get some of his stuff still left behind. He was a bit upset about how things went down, but he was cooperating with the government plan.

Essentially, the government is reclaiming the area (apparently there are no squaters’ rights - can anyone help me on this?), will put in a sewer and make other improvements, and then will rent the homes back out to the people they evicted temporarily. The old guy took the money and planned to come back, but it’s a bit hard for someone to accept who has been living rent-free for years in what feels like home.

A lot of the original residents (soldiers’ families) feel the new arrival squatters, who they say have only been around for a few years, are annoying party people who drink too much. They’d be in favour of getting them out, and should get their way in that respect because the city’s deal was only available to the original residents anyway. The rest are simply being evicted I believe.

The area seems to have a lot of character, though it is very run down. I wish I could say I’ve seen inside. Surely many Forumosan’s have.

I better leave it at that, before I start sounding partisan.

From the same article you quoted from, you’ll find that in the UK squatters can legally claim ownership of property they have resided on continually for 12 years. Of course, this has no relevance to Taiwan’s situation, I’m just saying, is all.[/quote]

True. Good point. Considering the overall definition though, I’m not all that sympathetic towards the idea of ‘squatters’ rights’.

[quote=“dearpeter”][quote=“Mer”]Squatters have no rights.

From Wiki : “Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use.”

Kind of lost interest in what the OP was commenting on when it turned into the usual shameless KMT-bashing. But I guess that’s my fault for not realizing that had Frank Hsieh been elected Taipei Mayor, he would have saved the universe. :unamused:[/quote]

You didn’t happen to notice that I critcized Chen Shui-bian at the beginning of my post and never mentioned political parties once?[/quote]
Hooray for you! You criticized Chen Shui-Bian!!

Never mentioned political parties? Ha. Nice try. Your insinuation(s) was clear. Re-read your original post.

You think? Are you sure? Should I care?
I didn’t know I was being rated…gee…

The topic is worthy of discussion, dearpeter. It’s just that I could do without your predictable politicizing of it.

Well, it is the Taiwan Politics forum…

I somewhat resent the suggestion that I should refrain from sniping at Mayor Hau on this one. Why on earth should I? He’s the mayor. This eviction has been a political issue for years now. I don’t see why I should not point a finger at Hau when the protestors themselves did. I’m not saying you couldn’t change my mind about this. I’ll listen to and consider the arguments in favor of the eviction, but my first instinct is to side with the protestors this time and blame the mayor like so many others.

Maybe you feel that I should be less partisan in general, and not in this specific instance. But again, since politics is all about freedom of thought, I wonder why you should be concerned about mine.

Why snipe at Hau about it? This was planned long ago by Ma’s administration. The prefab temporary housing was well on the way to completion way back at the Daniel Pearl Day of Music.

Yes, but you put it there, where as it could have been placed in several different forums, and you don’t have to turn it into a DPP vs. KMT thing right away.

My first instinct is not to side with the protesters, because they are squatting. Tell me what rights a squatter has.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatters_rights

The government has lots of land. They don’t need to reclaim this piece that has been lived on continuously for a long time.

I’d be willing to bet that the city plan will suck all the character out of the place just as the artists against the plan fear.

I guess you’re right that it was I who politicized this with my original post. But that’s still not an apology. It was already a political issue.

No one said you needed to apologize for sharing your opinion. However, when you start a thread on a contentious subject (and mix in politics), be prepared when not everyone agrees with your take on things.

They just don’t squat like they used to.

This brings up another question:

Does the ‘right of eminent domain’ exist on Taiwan?
And does this play a factor in this instance?

An area close to our boys school, which was a long existing (+50 years) “Air Force Soldier” community has been taken over by the city of Tainan. The residents have been relocated and the buildings, now empty, are scheduled for demolition.
The residents were compensated, in a few cases I know of rather nicely, for their re-location.
A formof “eminent domain” was used in this situatio.

Oh, the poor protesters, the police are so terrible to them… :boo-hoo:

Edit: Sorry about the bloody photo guys, but I thought a little balance was appropriate.