討論都市計畫體制總是圍繞在使用分區劃設及公設用地指定，其實這只是都市發展的一環，且是理想的一環。計劃代表介入，代表公權力，沒有理想性的計畫，當然讓人看不起。

真正影響都市發展進程者包括無數個人的決策模式及各種類型權力的行使，個人有自己的計畫，除非是在共產社會，否則這些計畫必然與社會計畫有所牴觸，社會可以透過政府力量壓制牴觸社會規範者，也可能受制於權力者的影響，修改規範，甚至忽略規範。

這就來到一個核心問題: 甚麼是政府，政府存在的目的有其法理依據，但是各個社會的政府實際運作，只靠法理解讀顯然不足。

台灣的政府為什麼會選擇長期放棄應有的責任，徵收必要的公共設施用地，促使台灣大小都市合理發展?這種類型的選擇性放棄，是導致區段徵收與市地重劃氾濫的原因嗎?

從道路工程受益費到徵收土地做為公共使用，甚至到不情願利用公有土地為公共利用，只願意釋出國有土地為產業使用，降低產業用地成本，甚至促成部分產業選擇放棄本業，大規模進行框地與炒地作業，這是甚麼政府?這還是政府嗎?

身為規劃者，我們要繼續在這樣不完美的框架下，成為幫兇嗎?

當政府將遊戲規則改成私人負擔公共設施換取開發權利時，規劃真的被妥協了嗎?

Robert C. Bird & Lynda J. Oswald, Necessity and Excess Condemnation Under Eminent Domain, 38 REAL EST. L.J. 304, 305 (2009). Excess condemnation does not mean the taking of land beyond what is legally permitted but instead means the taking of land in excess of the area specifically needed to construct the public project. Gary P. Johnson, Comment, The Effect of the Public Use Requirement on Excess Condemnation, 48 TENN. L. REV. 370, 370 n.1 (1981). As Part II.A will discuss in more detail, remnant theory is the theory that the government has most successfully advanced to justify excess condemnation. However, this Comment focuses on the reverse scenario, where a landowner brings an uneconomic remnant claim in order to require an agency exercising its eminent domain power to acquire more land than is necessary for the project.

除了過度徵收，過少徵收呢?私人可以要求政府多徵收剩下(remnant)不好用的土地嗎?政府如果答應，是否等於過度徵收?

當政府被逼到只能利用台糖土地做為產業用地，當政府機構只想要省錢，以最低價錢取得私人土地時，規畫者能做甚麼?

當各級政府無視公共設施保留地問題，只想要利用重劃機制，拖延時間，免費取得公共設施用地之際，規畫者只能配合演出嗎?

甚麼是政府?

一百年前的博士論文真的穿透政府不當運作的魔幻嗎?過度徵收是一個專有名詞，還是浮動概念?這是一個均衡的狀態，還是一個追求的極限?

Robert Eugene CUSHMAN (1889–1969)

Robert Eugene Cushman taught constitutional law for many years at Cornell University. His landmark anthology, Leading Constitutional Decisions (1925; 16th ed. by Robert F. Cushman, 1982), quickly established itself as a standard casebook for constitutional law and history courses.

Cushman founded and edited the Cornell Studies on Civil Liberty; the contributors to this series of monographs included Robert K. Carr, Milton R. Convitz, Walter Gellhorn, James Morton Smith, and Cushman himself. Cushman described his monograph, Civil Liberties in the United States (1956), as "a guide to current problems and experience." A synoptic description of the state of the law and an attempt to chart its future development, it was well-received, although some critics questioned its formalistic approach and its skeletal coverage of various issues. Cushman's major scholarly work, The Independent Regulatory Commissions (1941), a byproduct of his service with the President's Committee on Administrative Management (1937); prophetically proposed the separation in independent regulatory commissions of the prosecutorial and adjudicative functions.

For many years he wrote the American Political Science Review 's annual survey of the work of the Supreme Court. From 1958 until his death, Cushman was editor-in-chief of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution; he was succeeded by merrill jensen.

Richard B. Bernstein
(1986)