台灣地區對於私有公共設施保留地之取得方式大多是以現金徵收補償方式為之，但在現今政府財政困難之情形下，如欲將全數之私有公共設施保留地以現金徵收補償方式為之，恐有其困難。因此國內學者主張以發展權移轉制度，補償公共設施保留地所有權人之損失，以取得興建公共設施之用地。惟「土地徵收條例」實行，對於私有公共設施保留地徵收補償標準，採公告現值加成計算，加成成數比照一般正常交易價格為之。因此公共設施保留地所有權人勢必會在徵收市價補償，與發展權移轉制度間作一選擇。本論文探討公共設施保留地所有權人面臨發展權移轉與徵收現金補償時，其所面臨之選擇為何。 本論文先探討公平補償之分類及補償標準，同時定義所謂公平補償，為基於憲法中之公平正義及保障私有財產權原則下，以完全之市價補償為之。其次本論文就發展權之理論予以討論，藉由經濟理論之探討，分析發展權制度運作之市場前題，並以此建立本論文之研究假說，即從權利集束說及發展權評價方法之殘餘法觀點，發展權之價值僅為完全土地所有權之一部份，發展權移轉取得私有公共設施保留地，並無法達到完全補償公共設施保留地所有權之價值。同時本論文在此基礎下，透過個案模擬方式，分析公共設施保留地所有權人之損益，以佐証本論文之研究假說。經由研究成果顯示，發展權之價值小於公共設施保留地之土地價值，因此公共設施保留地所有權人將會採取現金徵收補償方式。 本論文認為，由於「土地徵收條例」之實施，勢必會造成發展權移轉制推行之困難，加重政府財政壓力。因此政府授與公共設施保留地所有權人之發展權數量應予以放寬，或在原數量下，不足土地價值者，由政府予以現金補貼方式為之，如此可使發展權移轉制度順利推行，政府之財政壓力獲得減輕，同時也能達到取得公共設施保留地之目的。

Section 33(1)(b) is fraught with borrowed provisions. The end-product marries German and Canadian features. The failure of the German Constitutional Courts to interpret the "essential content of a right" precipitated the adopted infant's bumpy landing in South Africa. That the sibling still lacks identity is evidenced by our Constitutional Court's evasive and superficial treatment of the clause. Section 33(1)(a) - proportionality prong enables judges to justify their neglect of Section 33(1)(b). The opinion is expressed that Section 33(1){b) demands interpretation but to date it has been shrouded in vagueness. After all without demarcating boundaries with sufficient precision and highlighting where the State may not tread the State may trespass. Alternatively the limitable nature of human rights could become a myth as Section 33(1)(b) could be transformed into an insurmountable hurdle for the State, rendering every right absolute in practice. A workable conceptual framework proposes an inverted, porous and value imbibing solution. / Law / LL.M.

Section 33(1)(b) is fraught with borrowed provisions. The end-product marries German and Canadian features. The failure of the German Constitutional Courts to interpret the "essential content of a right" precipitated the adopted infant's bumpy landing in South Africa. That the sibling still lacks identity is evidenced by our Constitutional Court's evasive and superficial treatment of the clause. Section 33(1)(a) - proportionality prong enables judges to justify their neglect of Section 33(1)(b). The opinion is expressed that Section 33(1){b) demands interpretation but to date it has been shrouded in vagueness. After all without demarcating boundaries with sufficient precision and highlighting where the State may not tread the State may trespass. Alternatively the limitable nature of human rights could become a myth as Section 33(1)(b) could be transformed into an insurmountable hurdle for the State, rendering every right absolute in practice. A workable conceptual framework proposes an inverted, porous and value imbibing solution. / Law / LL.M.