Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Strategy & Leadership · Legal decision · 2003–2020

Taitung Miramar Resort: a NT$1B resort barred from opening after 10 lost court cases

A BOT resort on a Taiwanese beach was built without environmental review, then banned from opening after 10 lost court cases.

Miramar Resort Taitung Ltd. · Taitung County Government · Durban Development Company · 2016

What happened

Taitung Miramar Resort was a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) seaside resort planned on Shanyuan Beach, also known as Fudafudak, in Beinan, Taitung County, Taiwan. The beach was a popular public recreation area for swimming and surfing and held cultural significance for the local indigenous Amis people. Central government approved the BOT project in 2003, the contract was signed in December 2004, and construction began on March 28, 2005. The developer, Miramar Resort Taitung Ltd., was majority-owned by Huang Chun-fa through Durban Development Company, part of the Miramar Group.

To bypass the EIA requirement — mandatory for developments over one hectare — the county government split the land into a 0.9997-hectare parcel and approved three construction stages, each under the threshold. When challenged, the government stacked EIA panels with its own officials who approved the project. Courts invalidated every EIA for conflict of interest: officials voted on their own project. The county lost ten consecutive cases across the administrative courts and the Supreme Court.

In 2016 the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal, permanently barring the resort from opening. The buildings stand unused on the beach. In 2020 an arbitration tribunal ordered the county to pay NT$629 million (US$21.75M) in compensation to Miramar and take ownership of the structures. The developer spent over NT$1 billion on construction. The county proposed converting it into a public park or conference hall, but no demolition or environmental restoration has been done. The case remains a landmark in Taiwan for environmental law, land rights and BOT governance.

Why it happened

  • The Taitung County Government merged and re-divided the land to create a 0.9997-hectare parcel, avoiding the mandatory EIA threshold for developments over one hectare
  • EIA panels were packed with county government officials who voted to approve their own project, leading every subsequent court to invalidate the approvals for conflict of interest
  • The developer and county government appealed every adverse ruling, losing ten straight cases, until the Supreme Court permanently barred the resort from opening
What it costNT$629M compensation after NT$1B+ in lost construction costscostly

The lesson

Bypassing environmental review through land-splitting and stacked panels turns every approval into a future court case. Ten losses later, the building stands empty and the taxpayer pays double.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →