Hello everyone! Let’s take a look at today’s latest updates.

Today’s public discourse revolves around the floor area ratio (FAR) incentive case for Core Pacific City (京華城), which has sparked increasing controversy. The discussion breaks down into several key areas: 🔹 Legal Concerns Raised by Attorney Hsiao Yi-hung (蕭逸弘), representing Ko Wen-je (柯文哲)

Prosecutor Lin Chun-yen (林俊言) conducted interrogations with Peng Chen-sheng (彭振聲), Shao Hsiu-pei (邵琇珮), and Yang Chih-sheng (楊智盛), during which:

    Some sessions were not fully audio/video recorded.

    Key statements were allegedly excluded from the official transcripts.

During questioning, Lin allegedly pressured Shao by saying:

    “If you're protecting a superior by not telling the truth, you’ll have to bear the consequences.”

    Shao quickly responded: “I didn’t! I didn’t!”

    “If you think your statements to the Agency Against Corruption will get you off the hook, let’s see if that works.”

    Hsiao argued this amounted to psychological coercion.

Yang Chih-sheng, on August 6, said:

    “According to Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act, FAR incentives may be granted to Core Pacific City. The procedures comply with the law.”

    This key quote was not included in the official transcript.

Hsiao argues these interrogation records are inadmissible due to illegality and coercion.

🔹 Background of the Core Pacific City Redevelopment by Legislator Tsai Cheng-yuan (蔡正元)

The site was originally the Tangrong Ironworks, approved to construct 120,284 square meters of floor space.

During Wu Po-hsiung’s (吳伯雄) tenure as Taipei Mayor:

    Efforts began to rezone from industrial to commercial use.

    Developer Shen Ching-ching (沈慶京) was asked to donate land, but the Interior Ministry’s Construction and Planning Agency initially rejected it due to lack of legal basis.

    Wu Po-hsiung allegedly called Interior Minister Hsu Shui-teh (許水德) to push for the donation.

    Under Huang Ta-chou (黃大洲), the city accepted a 30% land donation despite lacking legal grounds, while maintaining the right to build 120,284 sqm.

During Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration:

    An additional donation was requested to build a puppet theater.

    Construction proceeded with the iconic spherical Core Pacific City under a Special Commercial Zone (商三特) designation, maintaining the original 120,284 sqm — equivalent to a FAR of 679%.

🔹 Legal Opinion by Legislator Lin Chou-min (林洲民)

He argued the 120,284 sqm shouldn’t be guaranteed.

The FAR should be recalculated according to current urban planning regulations, not grandfathered in unless a full urban renewal process applies.

🔹 Urban Planning Commission Members

While expressing sympathy, they could not reinstate the original 120,284 sqm FAR.

Shao Hsiu-pei (邵琇珮) proposed using Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act as an administrative solution:

    A special incentive application process could raise the FAR from 560% to 672% (560% + 20%).

    Though not the original 679%, the difference would be minor.

🔹 Developer Shen Ching-ching (沈慶京)'s Objections

He initially refused the new application plan because:

    It required NT$2.5 billion in public facilities.

    Space must be permanently provided to the city.

    The project had to meet diamond-level green building standards.

    NT$8.7 billion in guarantee deposits would be forfeited if standards weren’t met.

Compared to the original guarantee of 120,284 sqm, the new incentive plan imposed significantly higher costs.

🔹 Expert Opinion by Professor Yang Chih-chieh (楊智傑)

The incentive was legally based on:

    Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act, which allows landowners to submit detailed planning proposals.

    Taipei City’s authority under Article 23 of the same law to process it.

    Article 25 of Taipei’s Urban Planning Regulations gives the city power to define special FAR incentives through detailed plans.

🔹 Responses to Key Public Controversies: 🟢 On Ko Wen-je’s attorney's claim of incomplete interrogation records:

Prosecutors have agreed to submit interrogation videos for judicial verification.

🟢 On the Control Yuan’s criticism of using urban renewal FAR incentives:

Core Pacific City did not apply through the Urban Renewal Act.

It used Article 24 to request incentives through detailed planning — legally permitted.

The Control Yuan also noted local governments may define FAR incentives in this way.

🟢 On the legality of Core Pacific City’s FAR incentives:

Law professors argue the indictment was flawed.

Professor Yang Chih-chieh emphasized the clear legal basis.

Control Yuan reports confirm that creating FAR incentives at the local level is routine.

Taipei City Council records and Supreme Administrative Court rulings uphold the city’s right to define FAR through detailed plans.

The Taipei Urban Development Department confirmed: special local conditions can justify tailored FAR regulations in detailed planning.

🟢 On green building incentives:

Green building FAR incentives are not exclusive to urban renewal projects.

Core Pacific City complied with all legal procedures to obtain such incentives.

That wraps up today’s public opinion update. Hope this helped clarify the ongoing developments in the Core Pacific City case. See you next time!