A consortium called Miramar Resort Taitung Ltd (美麗灣度假村股份有限公司) was formed that included a 45% investment stake by Naruwan Hotel (娜魯灣飯店), owned by Lin Yen-huang (林炎煌).

According to the Ministry of Finance's BOT guidelines, Miramar was required to “provide sustainable and quality public service.”[11] The Taitung Government would be the competent authority supervising the legality of the project.

[23] With "a reputation of solely catering to tour groups",[24] the old Miramar, at its peak, was highly profitable, and functioned as a ‘cash cow’ for other expansion enterprises, including the Linkou golf course in New Taipei City.

A large security fence was erected, and workers began entering and exiting, seemingly planning to build something large.”[32] Lin Yunko then met one of his neighbors in the region, Hsu Lan-hsian, who also had concerns about the development.

In April 2007, the TEPU hired Lin Yun-ge as a full-time secretary to investigate the construction, report potential building violations to relevant government bodies, and write articles.

[38] Subsequently, Miramar/Durban was fined NT$300 000 (US$9091) for “exceeding the specified scope of construction ‘Stage 1' by the Taitung Kuang Li-chen Government, though it was maintained that the already erected 5-story structure of the resort was legal.

Apart from reiterating the land division irregularities, “they used on-site photos to accuse Miramar of directly burying building waste on the beach, which was strongly denied by the industry”.

[42] In response, on August 16, 2007, representatives for Durban/Miramar and Taitung Council Speaker, Li Jin-hue (李錦慧), invited EPA officials and the media to the site for an “inspection and excavation.” Backhoes dug "ten large holes in the beach, over an approximate area of 250 square meters, but no construction waste was found.” Regarding the previously photographed rubble, a Miramar spokesperson said: “I am afraid it was planted.

"[43] The spokesperson also accused unnamed professors of “dismantling a Miramar signboard by fierce means” as well as “hindering the development of Taitung”, saying: “Academics have a responsibility to display a sense of right and wrong; not to be engaging in small-minded acts.

Otherwise they will provoke disgust and be cast aside.”[43] Two days later, on August 18, large waves brought on by passing Typhoon Sepat revealed blocks of construction rubble on the beach at a site not excavated during the media event.

Critics such as Geography Professor, David Chang (張長義), from National Taiwan University have raised conflict of interest concerns when “the player acts as the referee”.

[46] In the case of Miramar, the TEPU, in concert with Wild at Heart Lawyer, Chen Bo-chou (陳柏舟), filed reports in an attempt to initiate proceedings against Lai Ming-hsuan (賴旻炫) (Taitung Govt.

head of Urban and Rural Development ) and Lo Wencheng (羅文政) (Urban and Rural Development technical specialist), then-County Magistrate, Kuang Li-chen, and Miramar/Durban owner, Huang Chun-fa, detailing involvement in the improper issuing of building permit documents, illegal waste disposal, sand theft (alleging sand was removed for use at a man-made beach near Taipei 101), and environmental destruction.

Following this development, a Citizen Litigation petition was lodged on behalf of the TEPU by Wild at Heart lawyer Chen Bo-chou, alleging the EIA was invalid due to excessive representation by Taitung Government officials.

Chan introduced arguments related to indigenous rights, environmental damage, and dereliction of duty by the "competent authority", noting that: "According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 5: "The person in charge of the department shall be sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years”".

[19] However, the point that gained the most legal traction was that in joint government/private BOT or BOO projects, “members of the target business shall abstain from voting" due to conflict of interest concerns.

[19] With the Miramar case categorized as “a precedent-setting one for the overall development of Taiwan's east coast (Lin 2012)”[53][54] the Taitung Government, backed by their own team of lawyers, were determined to fight on.

[60] However, on September 21, the Huang Government announced it had dispensed with the ‘three-stage’ arrangement, and re-issued a single permit for the main building and the expansions, and increasing the overall development area to “a six-hectare construction license for the entire district”.

"[42] From this meeting, described as “a significant turning point”,[42] indigenous folk singers such as Panai, Nabu, and Takanow became involved, as well as artists Rao Ai-ching, Yi-ming, Hsiau-hwa, Eleng, Dou-dou, Hana, Jen-wei, A-pei, Yu-wen and several others.

[49] Their contacts (particularly Panai's) in the music and arts communities across Taiwan would contribute to “heavyweights from all walks of life showing solidarity with the anti-Miramar movement.”[42] Lawyer Hsu Chia-jung (許嘉蓉), also from Primordial Law, worked with Thomas Chan on the Miramar case.

She observed that legal proceedings necessarily focus on complex points of law, meaning indigenous, environmental, and economic topics were unable to be discussed freely in court, so groups like FFF added another dimension.

[62] The camp-in, which emphasized the indigenous land rights aspect of the case, culminated in a rally led by Nabu (Bunun tribe) supported by “about 20 civic groups”,[63] as well as a concert on July 9, featuring indigenous musicians including Matzka (樂團), Lung-ko (龍哥), Takanow (達卡鬧), Siki and Shan Shan, and Panai (巴奈), as well as Taiwan indie acts The Chairman (董事長樂團) and Kao Chou-chin (拷秋勤).

The event was attended by around 1000 people and featured performances by Ilid Kaolo (以莉．高露), Ciacia (何欣穗), Panai (巴奈), The Chairman, Kimbo Hu (胡德夫), Takanow (達卡鬧), Long Ge (龍哥), Relax One (輕鬆玩), and Kao Chou Ching (拷秋勤).

Over 100 police officers wielding meter-long batons and riot-control shields stood facing a crowd of anti-hotel protesters”[76] A symbol of the FFF group was an ocean-going raft built by local Amis resident, Long Ge (Lai Ching-lung 賴進龍).

They included representatives from the local Tse-tung buluo who performed traditional songs, as well as members of Taitung County Industrial Development & Investment Promotion Committee (TCID&IPC).

[81] [82] Local resident and Amis elder, Long Ge (賴進龍), acted as "spiritual leader", while Taitung broken-tile artist, Rao Ai-ching, was chairperson for the group.

With a referendum on the facility being debated at the time, protesters claimed the plant was an inappropriate development on an indigenous artifact site,[84] and prone to earthquakes or missiles from China.

We will decide later whether to offer reasons or not - it depends on the attitude of Miramar executives towards this case.”[89][90] Lin Shu-ling (林淑玲), one of 14 plaintiffs on the citizen suit, described the decision to appeal as “a waste of public money”.

In 2011 Magistrate Huang said: "We'd not only lose our investment, we'd definitely be sued by Miramar in court.”[91] Thomas Chan, dismissed this as a "scare tactic”, noting that “The developers ...violated the law by beginning construction before applying for EIA approval, thereby voiding any compensation claim”.

Ensuring the rights of the Taitung people is the first thing to consider, but given the company has spent more than NT$1 billion on the project, it is impossible to just accept this loss and walk away, leaving the resort to stand idle on the beach forever.