Overdevelopment and Industrial Zone Bubbles

Overdevelopment and Industrial Zone Bubbles
China Times
A Translation
September 23, 2010

Phases III and IV of the Taichung Science Park and the acquisition of land in Dapu, Miaoli County have provoked protests by farmers. Problems with excessive industrial park development and with "too many chefs spoiling the broth" have resurfaced. Bureau of Audit statistics indicate that industrial parks island-wide include over 2000 hectares of idle land. Several years ago the Bureau of industry halted the development of new industrial zones. But local officials were eager to pad their resumes. They relentlessly acquired agricultural land and developed new industrial zones. The absence of overall management and control has led to an industrial zone bubble on Taiwan. This bubble will lead to inestimable waste and destruction.

Have industrial zones been overdeveloped? A walk through the zones tells all. Most northern industrial zones are full. Central and southern industrial zones are idle. Their plight is worse than the official statistics suggest. The main reason is that some manufacturers purchase the land during the early stages of development, but do not actually build any plants. Some vendors rent the land. Because the rents are ultra low, the plants are left idle. Plant construction never even began.

Take the Changhua Coastal Industrial Park for example, the largest in the nation. It has been in development for 30 years, but most of the land remains idle. Much of it is overgrown with weeds and crumbling structures. The underlying cause is insufficient planning. Some people harbored unrealistic dreams of a Yunlin Offshore Industrial Zone. Three industrial zones in addition to Formosa Plastics in Mailiao have been forced to shut down. Over 1000 hectares of new industrial zones involved the investment of tens of billions in land reclamation. All have been forced to suspend development.

In 1996, the Bureau of Industrial Development developed the Tainan Technology Industrial Park. Later, the National Science Council developed the Tainan Science-Based Industrial Park. The two entities worked against each other. The result was below expectation industry investment. This was a perfect example of how central government ministries each go their own way. What was even more absurd, land in Tainan was much cheaper than land in Taipei. But a less than ideal long-term financing and unit sales situation inflated development costs. Land at the Tainan Technology Industrial Park went for seven million NT per ping, making it the island's most expensive industrial zone. Even after the price was lowered to four million NT per ping, it remained higher than for any other industrial zone.

For years, everyone from the central government level to the local level, from the Ministry of Economic Affairs to the National Science Council, from the Council of Agriculture to the Environmental Protection Agency, rushed to develop industrial zones. Together, they created the industrial zone bubble. In addition, local governments in financial distress became ever more aggressive in acquiring and developing land.

Closer examination reveals that behind county and municipal government development of industrial zones, was wholesale collusion between political and business interests. Superficially, industrial zones promote economic development and create jobs. But even more importantly, eminent domain rezones agricultural land for industrial, residential, or commercial use. This brings with it immense development advantages. Conglomerates with advance information can jockey for position. Builders can often maximize their profits. Local governments can rezone the land, sell it, and inject the profits into the local economy. So many birds, all killed with a single stone. So why not?

But not everyone benefits from the land acquisition and development game. In 1986, the Chiayi County Government set up the "Chung Yang Chi Industrial Zone." At the time martial law was still in effect. Many farmers who protested were charged with obstruction of official business. Eight landlords insisted on recovery of ancestral lands and refused government compensation. The case dragged on for over a decade, and the courts ruled their compensation forfeited. This tragedy underscores the many problems behind the use of eminent domain to acquire land for industrial zones.

First of all, was the land acquisition legitimate? Was it consistent with the public interest? The farmers lived off the land for over a century. If the government ends up with large tracts of idle land, was it really justified driving farmers off the land in the name of new industrial zones?

Secondly, the publicly announced acquistion price is often far lower than the current market price. This is unfair to those forced to sell. The government invokes eminent domain to acquire agricultural land on the cheap. It rezones the land for industrial, commercial, or residential use. After which the price of the land skyrockets, often increasing by several hundred percent. The farmers may be allotted a tiny plot of land, but only enough to build a toilet or a bedroom. Is such a system of eminent domain reasonable?

Third, the industrial zone development system has too many chefs. They have already created industrial zone bubbles all over the island, leading to idle land and wasted resources. Science park operating funds have accumulated a liability amounting to 120 billion NT. In the end, this will be borne by the taxpayers. The Bureau of Industrial Development has put its foot on the brake. It has imposed a moratorium on the development of new industrial zones. But it continues to allow county and municipal governments to develop new industrial zones. Is this responsible?

The development of industrial zones began in the 1960s. Rapid industrial development enabled Taiwan's economy to take-off. But the public as a whole has paid a heavy price. In recent years, total industrial output as percentage of GDP has fallen below 30 percent. Industrial zone development policy has reached the stage where it requires comprehensive review and adjustment. Land and water resources on Taiwan are limited, The world is moving toward a knowledge economy. Does the government really intend to continue developing industrial zones without end? Who will assume responsibility for the waste and destruction caused by over-exploitation?

浮濫開發 各地工業區逐漸泡沫化
2010-09-23 中國時報

中科三、四期開發以及苗栗大埔徵地引發農民抗爭事件，讓工業區開發浮濫、多頭馬車的問題再次浮上檯面。審計部統計，全國各類工業園區閒置土地逾二千公頃，近年工業局已停止開發新工業區，但地方政府為了政績，還不斷徵收農地競相開發新的工業區。在缺乏整體管控之下，導致台灣的工業區逐漸泡沫化，將造成難以估計的浪費與破壞。

工業區有沒有浮濫開發，實際到各區走走就可以一目了然，北部的工業區多數滿載，中南部工業區閒置狀況則比官方統計數字嚴重。主要原因是，有些廠商在開發之初買下土地，並未真正投資設廠；有些廠商租下土地，由於租金超低廉，廠房放著養蚊子，根本沒有真正開工營運。

以全國最大的彰濱工業區為例，開發迄今卅年，大半土地仍閒置，許多長滿雜草的空地與廢墟般的廠房，背後隱藏某些人謀不臧的故事。懷抱人定勝天夢想而打造的雲林離島工業區，除了台塑麥寮之外，其餘三區均停擺，而一千多公頃的新興區已投下百億元經費填海造陸，目前被迫暫停開發。

民國八十五年，工業局在台南開發科技工業區，後來國科會也在台南開發科學工業園區，兩個單位打對台，結果招商成果不如預期，這正是中央部會各行其是的最佳寫照。更荒謬的是，台南地價比台北便宜許多，由於開發單位長期融資且出售情形不佳，墊高開發成本，台南科技工業區每坪高達七萬元，成為全國最貴工業區，即使今年降價後每坪四萬元，還是高於其他工業區。

這些年來，從中央到地方，從經濟部工業局到國科會、農委會、環保署，一窩蜂投入工業區的開發，共同吹起工業區的泡沫；此外，各縣市政府在財政困窘下，圈地開發的動作越來越積極。

進一步分析，各縣市政府爭相投入工業區的開發，背後牽涉龐大政商利益。表面上，工業區可以促進經濟發展、創造就業機會，但更重要的是透過區段徵收手段，將農地變工業區、住宅區或商業區，帶來龐大開發利益；消息靈通事先卡位的財團、建商往往獲取最大利潤，地方政府取得重劃土地出售後又可挹注地方財政，如此一石多鳥的政策，何樂不為？

不過，並非每個人都從這個圈地開發的遊戲中獲利。民國七十五年，嘉義縣政府規畫設置「中洋子工業區」，當時還在戒嚴時期，多位抗爭的農民被依妨害公務罪移送法辦，有八位地主堅持要討回祖先土地而未領取補償費，後來因提存法院超過十年而被沒收。這樣的悲慘故事，凸顯出政府徵地開發工業區的過程，有許多值得檢討的地方。

首先，徵收土地的正當性，在於是否完全符合公共利益。如果仍有大批閒置土地，政府還能以開發新的工業區為名義徵收農地，要求農民遠離百年來賴以為生的家園嗎？

其次，徵收價格以公告現值計，遠低於市價，對於被徵收者相對不公平。政府辦理區段徵收，以公告現值徵收便宜農地，變更為工業區、商業區或住宅區之後，土地價格可能暴漲數倍，但農民即使換回建地，可能只夠蓋一間廁所或小套房，這樣的徵收制度合理嗎？

第三，多頭馬車的工業區開發體系，已在全國各地吹起工業區泡沫，造成許多閒置與浪費，其中，科學園區作業基金累積負債高達一千二百億元，最後勢必由全民埋單。身為工業區主管機關的工業局自己踩煞車，暫停新工業區的開發，卻放任各縣市政府不斷開發新工業區，這是負責任的做法嗎？

自一九六○年代開始設立第一個工業區以來，工業發展迅速帶動了台灣的經濟起飛，不過，全民也相對付出沉重代價。近年來工業產值占整體ＧＤＰ的比重已降至百分之三十以下，工業區的開發政策也到了必須全面檢討與調整的階段。尤其，台灣的土地與水資源非常有限，在全球邁向知識經濟的時代，台灣還要如此無限制地開發工業區嗎？誰該為這些開發過度而造成的浪費與破壞負起責任呢？-