Chen Jinde Interview 02: Rural cottage locations strangle rural development. Who has the right to demand that farmers work the fields, just so Taipei people can come and enjoy pastoral scenery?
Foreword: Less than a month after taking office as acting magistrate of Yilan, Chen Chin-te set off a storm in Yilan. To curb farmland speculation, the previous magistrate required that farmhouses be built "on the side adjacent to the road." That policy was incorporated by the Council of Agriculture into nationwide regulations, and at the same time, violators who used farmland for non-agricultural purposes were hit with higher land value tax and house tax. Immediately after taking office, Chen reversed the decision, including refunding the house tax to landowners and arguing that requiring farmhouses to be adjacent to the road is "illegal and unconstitutional," with separate regulations to be drawn up, sparking outside commentary that Yilan will once again see a surge in farmland speculation.
Upstream and Downstream interviewed Chen Chin-te on November 23 to seek his views on the above issues. There are 3 interviews in total. The text and video content below are Chen Chin-te's oral statements, summarized and organized by the Upstream and Downstream editorial office. For outside responses to Chen Chin-te's statements, please click here.
Farmhouses built in "odd corners" are bad for rural development
From a practical standpoint, does building in odd corners really not affect rural development or the rural environment? Suppose this is the road, this is the land, and on the other side there is a field. If you build your house here, first, the height and sunlight will affect the neighbor. The rice next door, affected by insufficient sunlight, will be less likely to form grain. Does that not affect rural development and the agricultural production environment?
In some rice paddies, there happens to be a farm road here and a farm road there. When cars come from both sides, they simply cannot see the turn, so accidents easily happen. There have been several A1 accidents that occurred exactly this way. This is what affects rural development.
From an aesthetic point of view, if everyone builds farmhouses here (adjacent to the road), is the landscape really good? Can farmers not choose a place they feel is more convenient for coming and going and more comfortable?
Think about it: if this farmhouse is at the entrance, and the rule says within three meters of the road, while our car is about two meters plus, once you drive in you simply cannot turn, and it is also very hard to park. So why was it set this way in the first place? It was because they thought you, the farmer, wear a straw rain cape (Taiwanese for raincoat) and ride a bicycle; why would you need to drive? Driving definitely means you are rich. But they did not know that nowadays most farmers do drive, and households all have cars.
So the only consideration behind preserving a maximum usable area of ninety percent is rice. Only then can cultivators, combine harvesters, and seeders get in. If you build your house here (not on the side adjacent to the road), your machinery simply cannot get in.
But does so-called agricultural use of farmland necessarily mean growing rice? Not necessarily. Some people grow Asian pears, some grow scallions and garlic. Can you grow watermelons? Can you grow peanuts? Can you grow tomatoes? Can you grow cantaloupes? Can I set up a greenhouse? Can I raise chickens? Can I raise pigs? All are possible. If it is non-reallocated farmland, can you dig a pond to raise fish? Can you plant a forest? These are all broadly within the scope of agricultural land. So this requirement by the Council of Agriculture is, in fact, the least favorable to rural development.
There are many ways to use agricultural land for agriculture. You should choose the "most suitable configuration," not the "only configuration." This only configuration, as I just said, means farmers can "refuse guidance." Then this agricultural production environment, if it is the neighboring field, will also be affected, and it is bad for farm roads and bad for rural areas.
Who has the right to make farmers grow crops so Taipei people can come look at pastoral scenery?
In rural development, besides rice paddy scenery, the rural economy is also very important. The reason natural persons were allowed to buy farmland in the 89th year of the Republic of China (2000) was that rural areas might go bankrupt. You know this farmer: he now farms one fen of land, and he can only earn 36,000 yuan a year. Can he live on that? No! He definitely has to go work or do something else to maintain a living.
Now we think Yilan's farmland is very beautiful and should not be destroyed. If farmhouses are built, the rice paddy pastoral scenery is destroyed. But the problem is that it is private property. Who has the right to say your private property cannot be built on? Farmland can originally have farmhouses built on it. Who has the right to say you should not build a farmhouse and that you had better farm so we Taipei people can come look, so that you in Yilan maintain the pastoral scenery? Then your rural area goes bankrupt.
Because farmland is traded, in economic terms it is a commodity. Suppose a piece of farmland is worth 20 million. Now, because of the special restrictions on farmhouses, namely this "adjacent side, adjacent line," as well as some restrictions on farmer qualifications, building a farmhouse is very difficult, so trading stops. When trading stops, there is no price. This is just like the stock market: if stocks are not traded, they collapse.
That farmer's land may be used as collateral because a child is getting married or doing business, and a loan may be for eighty percent or seventy percent. Originally the land was worth 20 million. If the market price drops to 10 million, the farmers' association will ask him to repay the money, because the collateral will be insufficient, and they worry it will become a bad debt problem. So this kind of economic development problem emerges.
If rice paddies are so precious, why does nobody want them?
If rice paddies are so precious and so treasured, why does nobody want them? The place where the county government is located, the county council, was all good farmland back then. Then why could the government expropriate good farmland to build public facilities? Now the Xinyi Planned District in Taipei City, what was it back then? When I went to school there, it was good farmland. And now? Now it is urban development.
Then should we also require that in the place where Taipei City is located, a plot be set aside that can only grow rice, to supply what Taipei City residents need? Should all farmland in Taipei City also be barred from building houses, to supply Taipei City residents with rice?
If anyone thinks Yilan should preserve its rural appearance and should not have so many farmhouses built, then the Agricultural Development Act should not have been amended in the first place. Or you should restrict which plot can have a house built on it and which plot cannot, is that how it should be?
The current regulations choke off rural development. Even if we have any good direction, if there is no law, can you restrict people's actions? We can hold high this imagined beautiful dream, Yilan covered in rice paddies. So in order to achieve such a goal, may I use any means and not administer according to law? Can we restrict others' right to build farmhouses?
You cannot build your dream on other people's suffering. You cannot trample farmers' rights in order to realize your ideal. This is farmers' right to survive and their property right. Even if he sells a piece of farmland, he only sells it because he has no choice. This is his property, and he also sells it because of living needs. Why do you criticize farmers for selling?
Adjacency to the road should only be "one of the reference principles" - whatever makes people happy!
The Yilan County Government is merely, under "completely legal" circumstances, finding a way to use farmland for agriculture, accepting farmhouse applications from farmers, and doing good management. We just need to do this well. If you say we are challenging the central government, I merely think that your (Council of Agriculture) rule on adjacency to the boundary and the road is administrative guidance, a reference principle for us (local agencies). So we just list it as one of the reference principles! Whatever makes people happy!
We (the Yilan County Government) simply feel that stipulating that building must be here (adjacent to the road) as a "sole standard" is not a central government rule. There is no legal basis for requiring farmers to do this. This does not mean the Yilan County Government advocates that everything must be built in the middle of the field. Further reading: Chen Chin-te interview 01: Slapping the Council of Agriculture in the face - farmhouses "adjacent to the side and the road" is not law, farmers need not comply. Chen Chin-te interview 03: If Taipei demolishes one percent of illegal structures, I in Yilan will demolish violations for you to see. Chen Chin-te fires at the central government over farmhouses, Chen Chi-chung: causing damage to farmland is illegal, Peng Tso-kwei sharply criticizes it as unbelievable. Standing at the crossroads of old and new agriculture, upholding Yilan's value or cashing out farmland? | How to implement agricultural use of farmland? [Chart analysis] Chen Chin-te wants to force through legal amendments - will Yilan return to the era of runaway farmland speculation? Chen Teng-chin / Those Yilan values we fought for, those wounds that left us scarred, a small step that is hard to stand firm on! Chen Pi-yuan / Farmland reform cannot turn back; we call on Magistrate Chen, please let Yilan walk its own glorious path! Yilan in the Middle of the Fields | Chang Liang-yi photography feature Read Here: https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/103110/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=newsmarket" class="nc_tweet"> Email
Foreword: Less than a month after taking office as acting magistrate of Yilan, Chen Chin-te set off a storm in Yilan. To curb farmland speculation, the previous magistrate required that farmhouses be built "on the side adjacent to the road." That policy was incorporated by the Council of Agriculture into nationwide regulations, and at the same time, violators who used farmland for non-agricultural purposes were hit with higher land value tax and house tax. Immediately after taking office, Chen reversed the decision, including refunding the house tax to landowners and arguing that requiring farmhouses to be adjacent to the road is "illegal and unconstitutional," with separate regulations to be drawn up, sparking outside commentary that Yilan will once again see a surge in farmland speculation.
Upstream and Downstream interviewed Chen Chin-te on November 23 to seek his views on the above issues. There are 3 interviews in total. The text and video content below are Chen Chin-te's oral statements, summarized and organized by the Upstream and Downstream editorial office. For outside responses to Chen Chin-te's statements, please click here.
Farmhouses built in "odd corners" are bad for rural development
From a practical standpoint, does building in odd corners really not affect rural development or the rural environment? Suppose this is the road, this is the land, and on the other side there is a field. If you build your house here, first, the height and sunlight will affect the neighbor. The rice next door, affected by insufficient sunlight, will be less likely to form grain. Does that not affect rural development and the agricultural production environment?
In some rice paddies, there happens to be a farm road here and a farm road there. When cars come from both sides, they simply cannot see the turn, so accidents easily happen. There have been several A1 accidents that occurred exactly this way. This is what affects rural development.
From an aesthetic point of view, if everyone builds farmhouses here (adjacent to the road), is the landscape really good? Can farmers not choose a place they feel is more convenient for coming and going and more comfortable?
Think about it: if this farmhouse is at the entrance, and the rule says within three meters of the road, while our car is about two meters plus, once you drive in you simply cannot turn, and it is also very hard to park. So why was it set this way in the first place? It was because they thought you, the farmer, wear a straw rain cape (Taiwanese for raincoat) and ride a bicycle; why would you need to drive? Driving definitely means you are rich. But they did not know that nowadays most farmers do drive, and households all have cars.
So the only consideration behind preserving a maximum usable area of ninety percent is rice. Only then can cultivators, combine harvesters, and seeders get in. If you build your house here (not on the side adjacent to the road), your machinery simply cannot get in.
But does so-called agricultural use of farmland necessarily mean growing rice? Not necessarily. Some people grow Asian pears, some grow scallions and garlic. Can you grow watermelons? Can you grow peanuts? Can you grow tomatoes? Can you grow cantaloupes? Can I set up a greenhouse? Can I raise chickens? Can I raise pigs? All are possible. If it is non-reallocated farmland, can you dig a pond to raise fish? Can you plant a forest? These are all broadly within the scope of agricultural land. So this requirement by the Council of Agriculture is, in fact, the least favorable to rural development.
There are many ways to use agricultural land for agriculture. You should choose the "most suitable configuration," not the "only configuration." This only configuration, as I just said, means farmers can "refuse guidance." Then this agricultural production environment, if it is the neighboring field, will also be affected, and it is bad for farm roads and bad for rural areas.
Who has the right to make farmers grow crops so Taipei people can come look at pastoral scenery?
In rural development, besides rice paddy scenery, the rural economy is also very important. The reason natural persons were allowed to buy farmland in the 89th year of the Republic of China (2000) was that rural areas might go bankrupt. You know this farmer: he now farms one fen of land, and he can only earn 36,000 yuan a year. Can he live on that? No! He definitely has to go work or do something else to maintain a living.
Now we think Yilan's farmland is very beautiful and should not be destroyed. If farmhouses are built, the rice paddy pastoral scenery is destroyed. But the problem is that it is private property. Who has the right to say your private property cannot be built on? Farmland can originally have farmhouses built on it. Who has the right to say you should not build a farmhouse and that you had better farm so we Taipei people can come look, so that you in Yilan maintain the pastoral scenery? Then your rural area goes bankrupt.
Because farmland is traded, in economic terms it is a commodity. Suppose a piece of farmland is worth 20 million. Now, because of the special restrictions on farmhouses, namely this "adjacent side, adjacent line," as well as some restrictions on farmer qualifications, building a farmhouse is very difficult, so trading stops. When trading stops, there is no price. This is just like the stock market: if stocks are not traded, they collapse.
That farmer's land may be used as collateral because a child is getting married or doing business, and a loan may be for eighty percent or seventy percent. Originally the land was worth 20 million. If the market price drops to 10 million, the farmers' association will ask him to repay the money, because the collateral will be insufficient, and they worry it will become a bad debt problem. So this kind of economic development problem emerges.
If rice paddies are so precious, why does nobody want them?
If rice paddies are so precious and so treasured, why does nobody want them? The place where the county government is located, the county council, was all good farmland back then. Then why could the government expropriate good farmland to build public facilities? Now the Xinyi Planned District in Taipei City, what was it back then? When I went to school there, it was good farmland. And now? Now it is urban development.
Then should we also require that in the place where Taipei City is located, a plot be set aside that can only grow rice, to supply what Taipei City residents need? Should all farmland in Taipei City also be barred from building houses, to supply Taipei City residents with rice?
If anyone thinks Yilan should preserve its rural appearance and should not have so many farmhouses built, then the Agricultural Development Act should not have been amended in the first place. Or you should restrict which plot can have a house built on it and which plot cannot, is that how it should be?
The current regulations choke off rural development. Even if we have any good direction, if there is no law, can you restrict people's actions? We can hold high this imagined beautiful dream, Yilan covered in rice paddies. So in order to achieve such a goal, may I use any means and not administer according to law? Can we restrict others' right to build farmhouses?
You cannot build your dream on other people's suffering. You cannot trample farmers' rights in order to realize your ideal. This is farmers' right to survive and their property right. Even if he sells a piece of farmland, he only sells it because he has no choice. This is his property, and he also sells it because of living needs. Why do you criticize farmers for selling?
Adjacency to the road should only be "one of the reference principles" - whatever makes people happy!
The Yilan County Government is merely, under "completely legal" circumstances, finding a way to use farmland for agriculture, accepting farmhouse applications from farmers, and doing good management. We just need to do this well. If you say we are challenging the central government, I merely think that your (Council of Agriculture) rule on adjacency to the boundary and the road is administrative guidance, a reference principle for us (local agencies). So we just list it as one of the reference principles! Whatever makes people happy!
We (the Yilan County Government) simply feel that stipulating that building must be here (adjacent to the road) as a "sole standard" is not a central government rule. There is no legal basis for requiring farmers to do this. This does not mean the Yilan County Government advocates that everything must be built in the middle of the field. Further reading: Chen Chin-te interview 01: Slapping the Council of Agriculture in the face - farmhouses "adjacent to the side and the road" is not law, farmers need not comply. Chen Chin-te interview 03: If Taipei demolishes one percent of illegal structures, I in Yilan will demolish violations for you to see. Chen Chin-te fires at the central government over farmhouses, Chen Chi-chung: causing damage to farmland is illegal, Peng Tso-kwei sharply criticizes it as unbelievable. Standing at the crossroads of old and new agriculture, upholding Yilan's value or cashing out farmland? | How to implement agricultural use of farmland? [Chart analysis] Chen Chin-te wants to force through legal amendments - will Yilan return to the era of runaway farmland speculation? Chen Teng-chin / Those Yilan values we fought for, those wounds that left us scarred, a small step that is hard to stand firm on! Chen Pi-yuan / Farmland reform cannot turn back; we call on Magistrate Chen, please let Yilan walk its own glorious path! Yilan in the Middle of the Fields | Chang Liang-yi photography feature Read Here: https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/103110/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=newsmarket" class="nc_tweet"> Email