Proposed amendments to the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例) should not “castrate” government power to such an extent that it cannot carry out urban renewal projects, Taipei Deputy Mayor Charles Lin (林欽榮) told a press conference at Taipei City Hall to discuss the city’s suggestions for the bill, which the Cabinet is reviewing.

Following the Council of Grand Justices’ issuance of Interpretation No. 709 in 2013, which states that some provisions of the Urban Renewal Act is unconstitutional, several versions of amendment to the act have been drafted, and Minister Without Portfolio Chang Ching-sen (張景森) called a cross-ministerial meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss the proposals.

Lin said the act has been amended eight times since it was first promulgated in 2000, but there were still controversial cases, including the Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) urban renewal project in Shilin District (士林) and the Yongchun Community (永春) renewal project in Xinyi District (信義).

Under the current act and Ministry of the Interior administrative regulations, government-led urban renewal projects do not need to obtain signed consent from private land owners, he said.

However, the draft act would require the government to obtain the signed consent of at least half of all the private landowners, he said.

Moreover, if households who refuse to join the renewal project file a request for an administrative remedy, the government cannot tear down the building, Lin said, adding that these amendments would make it difficult for local governments to enforce public authority.

He said if a household files for an administrative proceeding and the government cannot demolish the building before a ruling is made, that would effectively “castrate” the government’s power to push forward any project.

Taipei already has a system for enforcing government-led renewal projects, including holding four negotiation meetings — two with the private sector and two with the public sector — before making a decision on whether to execute a forced demolition, Lin said.

Using the 16-year-old case of the Yongchun Community project as an example, he said that 99.2 percent of the households have agreed to the project, but the government still cannot use its authority to tear it down, he said.

Legitimacy, legality and proper procedures for executing forced demolitions should be considered, not just limiting government power, he said.

Proposed changes to the act should clearly stipulate the authority of the urban renewal dispute review and resolution board, so that the board’s decision will not be overthrown by an administrative court’s ruling, he added.