Beautiful Bay Blank Space: Our Island Special Report

Editor's note: The eight-year-long Miramar development case, in which the developer underreported the area to evade environmental impact assessment, sparked fierce social controversy. After multiple lawsuits, the Supreme Court ruling clearly stated that the developer had acted illegally and should halt development. Yet not only did the Miramar Hotel continue to be built, but the Taitung County Government kept shielding it, conducting a supplementary environmental impact assessment for the development. A few days ago (the 22nd), it forcefully approved Miramar's "build first, assess later" supplementary filing, triggering protests by a thousand people on site.

Public Television's "Our Island" produced a special feature on Miramar, taking viewers through the eight-year history of the development case and analyzing how it will affect Taiwan's environment, tribal culture, democracy and judiciary. Below is the text transcript of the feature; the full video version will air tonight (the 24th) from 22:00 to 23:00.

───────────────────────────────────────────────

Supreme Court Rules It Illegal, Local Government Argues for Legalizing It on Site

"Taitung's future, we decide it ourselves, all right? All right!" "Taitung must move forward, support Miramar!" "Oppose Miramar, give us back Shanyuan Bay!" "Miramar, tear it down, tear it down!" On December 22, 2012, in front of the Taitung County Government, an unprecedented crowd of over a thousand protesters gathered. The two opposing sides each occupied a corner, shouting at each other. Their anger was all over the Miramar Resort development case, which had been disputed for eight years.

In 2003, Miramar Resort signed a 50-year BOT contract with the Taitung County Government, planning to develop a 6-hectare international resort.

In 2004, Miramar instead developed the main hotel building on 0.9997 hectares, which was exempt from environmental impact assessment.

After obtaining the construction permit and with the main hotel building nearly completed, in 2006 it applied to expand the development, prompting environmental groups to question that it was evading environmental impact assessment.

Although the developer repeatedly denied any intent to evade, environmental groups filed lawsuits seeking to halt work and revoke the environmental impact assessment for the 1-hectare and 6-hectare developments respectively, and won at every stage in court. The court ruling clearly pointed out that the contract the developer originally signed with the Taitung County Government was for 6 hectares; if the developer had no intention of evading environmental impact assessment, it would have been impossible to immediately change the development right after obtaining a construction permit exempt from assessment. All rulings became final in early this year (2012).

After learning that the rulings had become final, environmental groups repeatedly demanded that Miramar be demolished. But the Ministry of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Administration and even the Taitung County Government all repeatedly stated that although Miramar's environmental impact assessment conclusion had been revoked, it did not mean the construction permit issued by the Taitung County Government was invalid, and that the developer could supplement the environmental impact assessment conclusion and continue development. This interpretation caused an uproar in public opinion. Nevertheless, the Taitung County Government still insisted on holding the environmental impact assessment review meeting for Miramar.

On December 22, the County Government Supplements the Environmental Impact Assessment, Forcefully Steering It Through

The meeting had barely begun when the opposing side's lawyer was the first to raise an objection. Lu Shih-wei, a lawyer with the Taiwan Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association, questioned that the Taitung County Government, having signed the BOT contract with the developer, was already a hidden development entity. According to Judgment No. 55 of the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court, county government personnel should recuse themselves from the review; excluding county government personnel, the number of review committee members must exceed 8 for the review resolution to be valid. Lu Shih-wei argued that Huang Ming-en, the director of the Taitung County Environmental Protection Bureau and chair of the environmental impact assessment committee, Hsu Jui-kuei, the director of the Construction Department, and Liu Jung-tang, the director of the Agriculture Department, among others, should all recuse themselves from participating in the meeting. But Huang Ming-en did not respond to Lu Shih-wei's objection and directly announced that the meeting would proceed, prompting opponents outside to break into the county government building to voice that "the environmental impact assessment is illegal."

The Taitung County Government used a superior police force to suppress the conflict, and at one point even tried to drive the citizens attending the meeting out of the venue. After the turmoil subsided, all parties began to express their opinions. Hsu Chia-jung, a lawyer with Yuan Chen Law Firm, continued to question that under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the composition of environmental impact assessment committee members should include experts from various fields, but almost all of the Taitung County Government's current committee members were scholars from the environmental engineering field. "The above procedure is illegal; the Taitung County Government simply has no legitimacy to hold this meeting. The conclusion reached this time is invalid! We advise the Taitung County Government to please stop making invalid environmental impact assessment conclusions."

Opponents shouted slogans demanding the immediate dissolution of this environmental impact assessment meeting, and the two sides clashed again. At this point, Lin Hung-che, the development section chief of Miramar Resort Company, began, amid the chaos, to report on the content of the environmental impact assessment meeting. Lin Hung-che stressed that the Miramar Resort should continue with the environmental impact assessment review. "Environmental Protection Administration Director Shen Shih-hung also stated that Miramar does not fall under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, and the issue under Article 14 of the Act, that a development permit is invalid from the outset, does not apply. Continuing the environmental impact assessment review is what conforms to legal requirements."

Liao Chiu-o, an executive committee member of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union, pointed out that the lawsuits filed by the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union against the Taitung County Government to halt work and revoke the environmental impact assessment conclusion both became final in January of this year. The Supreme Administrative Court clearly ruled Miramar's environmental impact assessment invalid, and in September ruled that Miramar should halt work. "This shows that the construction permit and use permit Miramar previously obtained are all invalid! But our County Magistrate Huang misinterprets the law and deliberately shields the developer, claiming that as long as the environmental impact assessment is supplemented, Miramar can be legalized on site!"

Hsu Chia-jung added that once an environmental impact assessment conclusion is revoked by a court, under the spirit of Article 14 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, the development permit, that is, the construction permit, is invalid from the outset, meaning it never existed at all. To be non-existent from the outset means that the procedures once gone through and the written materials once submitted for review must all be treated as "never having existed." Hsu Chia-jung strongly criticized how something that never existed could continue to be reviewed in the form of continued review and supplementary re-review. "The seventh environmental impact assessment convened by the Taitung County Government is absolutely illegal!"