The Sanying Tribe signed a lease with the state-owned property agency for a 3.4 hectare piece of land beside the Sanxia Taipei National University campus, just a few minutes’ drive away from the original settlement location. The first phase of the lease is 20 years. After its expiration, the residents are still given priority to take over the tenancy, making the arrangement equal to a permanent lease.

At present, an estimated 42 households comprising 200 people are set to move to the new settlement. Each household will have a light steel frame house available in large, medium, and small sizes — at 36 ping (119 square metres), 28 ping (93 square metres), and 18 ping (59 square metres) respectively.

According to initial estimates, the cost of each house is around 1.5 million NTD ($49,700 USD), including the cost of laying underground foundations. In other words, residents have to raise 500,000 NTD ($16,500 USD) on their own, the next 500,000 NTD would be loans from the bank with the New Taipei City government acting as guarantor on behalf of the residents, and the remaining 500,000 NTD would be borne by the New Taipei City government.

“It’s equivalent to us paying 2,000-plus NTD ($66 USD) a month and, after the bank loan is paid off, a monthly rental of 600-plus NTD ($20 USD) to the state-owned property agency,” said Ah-Li (阿里), secretary of the Sanying Tribe. Simply put, the indigenous residents only need to return the bank loan and pay an inexpensive rent to legally stay in the resettlement compound for the long term. The old settlement in the water catchment area will only be demolished after the residents are resettled.

SOCIAL HOUSING VS. THE 333 MODEL

Compared to the traditional public housing model where residents only have to pay rent, the 333 Model has no precedent to follow and no legal basis, and requires the tribespeople to foot two-thirds of the construction costs (i.e. the self-funded portion and the bank loan which has to be repaid). Why opt for such a complicated method?

“We don’t like living in social housing, where you face restrictions whenever you want to renovate your own house,” says Chen Mei-Lan. They hope that the new settlement can be adapted to suit the indigenous people’s ways of life, possess the spirit and distinctive identity of the indigenous tribespeople, and be compatible with the concept of self-reliance. OURs secretary-general Peng Yang-kae (彭揚凱) stresses that the 333 Model is a compromise that both the tribe and city can agree on. It allows the tribe to maintain a degree of autonomy while not being burdened by excessive costs, and allows the city to sidestep procurement restrictions, because it subsidizes less than 50 percent of the project.

FINDING THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN IDEALS AND REALITY

Riverbank settlements like The Sanying Tribe’s riverbank settlements, however, have long had their share of detractors: “Since the settlements are illegal, why don’t they have to leave?” When the tribe moved to the 333 Model, the question became: “Since the settlements are clearly illegal, why is the city using taxpayers’ money to help them build their homes?”

Ah-Li admits that when faced with such criticism, they initially could not provide a good answer. However, under the 333 Model they can now openly answer, “We leased the land using our own money; we built the houses using our own money too.”

Other than those who cast doubt on why they could rebuild their settlement, there were others who asked why they did not stay put in the original settlement. Radical elements of the indigenous movement would even ask “Why not continue the struggle and fight for the right to remain on the land, instead of compromising and even paying rent to the government?”

Chen Mei-Lan was slightly exasperated when she explained that they would definitely fight to the end if they could remain in the original settlement. However, the tribe had to relocate and seek refuge when a typhoon came around. As climate change intensifies, the tribe would not be able to bear the risks of future natural disasters, and have no choice but to resettle elsewhere. They believe that, at least for now, the best solution available is the 333 Model.

DESPITE PUBLIC DONATIONS, A FUNDING GAP REMAINS

With the preservation of tribal autonomy as its premise, the significance of the 333 Model lies in minimising the cost borne by the tribe and sharing the cost burden with the city and the banks. However, this does not mean funding comes exclusively from these three parties; a large portion of the expenses for rebuilding the Sanying and Xizhou settlements came from the public.