I have two objection/suggestions on dmp2021 that I
would appreciate if someone can include in his/hers.
(I am not responding on content because I am sulking,
as my best objection, to ITPark, and best suggestion,
on redevelopment for industries, got summarily
rejected by notifications in duration of this public
notice and I have neither reply in prior court matter
re former nor reply to request subsequent to latter
for view on my other excellent suggestion re shifting
all riverbed/ridge/cgwa-notified-area/metro-property
projects to safdarjang district park for
world-classiest development preferably immensely
profitably by our-very-best-dmrc. The following two I
need included, to pre-empt problems with my
post-notification p-o-a to become
lady-of-leisure-n-grace, with no possible fret-worthy
plan-violations left to fret-about)
one is mixed landuse public notice of December 2002
(worst-case public notice that was nearly impossible
for public to respond to). the proposal was reportedly
approved in authority meeting of dda the day after cbi
blew the dharambir-khatta scam and I promptly reported
the suspect-development to cbi. I got the impression
then that the approval was not processed further,
which means I ought to reiterate my response so that
it can be officially summarily rejected. could
someone (aruna? sarabjit?) include in their response
what is up at:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/021215.doc
as enclosure or something with reference to public
notice process or some common detail?
other is re the mandi in mehrauli ridge (that
fort-like object at andheria morh that is called
kisaan-haat and has nearly no kisaans haat-ing in it)
I am aware some disapprove of this fort-like object
since it occupies ridge regional park (dark green in
land use plan) and has illegal boring and came up
after summary demolition of old shops and homes in
2000, purportedly for road-widening after a couple of
VIPs got stuck in traffic jams in
farmhouse-wedding-season, and continues to cause
demolitions besides disturbance to peace-of-mind,
aesthetic sensibilities, equanimity, etc.
I am also aware others approve of this fort-like
object, since it was proudly mentioned in GNCTD budget
speech, its foundation stone laying and inauguration
functions were both graced by CM and her entourage
inclusive of bhagidaar RWAs of Vasant Kunj, and I am
told that the architect that designed the temporary
structure also lives/practices in Vasant Kunj.
I am also aware that it has been sworn on affidavit
that this fort-like object is good for farmers (I
suppose it is to non-haating kisaans what spinach is
to chillun) and is permissible in regional park since
it is temporary structure (in rejoinder to which has
been stated, without prejudice to temporary issues
that are becoming source of permanent amusement, that
such is deliberate misreading of the dmp2001, which
only allows in regional park a few security and picnic
type activities, none amounting to wholesale
agricultural produce haat-ing, and requires structures
even and only for those to be temporary).
my problem is that unlike nearly all other dmp2001
violations that I have been associated with saying oye
to in the last 5 years, dmp2021 does not regularise
this one (land use plan does not show dark pink blob
in the dark green of mehrauli ridge, permissibility
restrictions in regional park have not been relaxed to
include wholesale activity and fort-like structure,
wholesale trade chapter-6 does not list
kisan-haat-at-andheria-morh in any of its many lists,
and even the unconventional sections of dmp2021 are
silent about the object). that means that post-dmp2021
notification I will have to fret about clear
plan-violation in ridge park in my neighbourhood,
which clearly jeopardises my lady-of-leisure-n-grace
plans and their consequent joy-n-relief benefits to
many.
so, out of kindness to wannabe lady-of-leisure-n-grace
or of rescuing the world from fretful planners or
planners from fretting about the world, etc, can
someone please include in his/her dmp2021 response the
simple suggestion to jorho, in face of obvious
reluctance to torho the fort-like object, its
description in one of the lists in the chapter on
wholesale trade along with appropriate footnote for
exemption from prohibitions elsewhere in the document?
thanks and regards
gita
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
would appreciate if someone can include in his/hers.
(I am not responding on content because I am sulking,
as my best objection, to ITPark, and best suggestion,
on redevelopment for industries, got summarily
rejected by notifications in duration of this public
notice and I have neither reply in prior court matter
re former nor reply to request subsequent to latter
for view on my other excellent suggestion re shifting
all riverbed/ridge/cgwa-notified-area/metro-property
projects to safdarjang district park for
world-classiest development preferably immensely
profitably by our-very-best-dmrc. The following two I
need included, to pre-empt problems with my
post-notification p-o-a to become
lady-of-leisure-n-grace, with no possible fret-worthy
plan-violations left to fret-about)
one is mixed landuse public notice of December 2002
(worst-case public notice that was nearly impossible
for public to respond to). the proposal was reportedly
approved in authority meeting of dda the day after cbi
blew the dharambir-khatta scam and I promptly reported
the suspect-development to cbi. I got the impression
then that the approval was not processed further,
which means I ought to reiterate my response so that
it can be officially summarily rejected. could
someone (aruna? sarabjit?) include in their response
what is up at:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/021215.doc
as enclosure or something with reference to public
notice process or some common detail?
other is re the mandi in mehrauli ridge (that
fort-like object at andheria morh that is called
kisaan-haat and has nearly no kisaans haat-ing in it)
I am aware some disapprove of this fort-like object
since it occupies ridge regional park (dark green in
land use plan) and has illegal boring and came up
after summary demolition of old shops and homes in
2000, purportedly for road-widening after a couple of
VIPs got stuck in traffic jams in
farmhouse-wedding-season, and continues to cause
demolitions besides disturbance to peace-of-mind,
aesthetic sensibilities, equanimity, etc.
I am also aware others approve of this fort-like
object, since it was proudly mentioned in GNCTD budget
speech, its foundation stone laying and inauguration
functions were both graced by CM and her entourage
inclusive of bhagidaar RWAs of Vasant Kunj, and I am
told that the architect that designed the temporary
structure also lives/practices in Vasant Kunj.
I am also aware that it has been sworn on affidavit
that this fort-like object is good for farmers (I
suppose it is to non-haating kisaans what spinach is
to chillun) and is permissible in regional park since
it is temporary structure (in rejoinder to which has
been stated, without prejudice to temporary issues
that are becoming source of permanent amusement, that
such is deliberate misreading of the dmp2001, which
only allows in regional park a few security and picnic
type activities, none amounting to wholesale
agricultural produce haat-ing, and requires structures
even and only for those to be temporary).
my problem is that unlike nearly all other dmp2001
violations that I have been associated with saying oye
to in the last 5 years, dmp2021 does not regularise
this one (land use plan does not show dark pink blob
in the dark green of mehrauli ridge, permissibility
restrictions in regional park have not been relaxed to
include wholesale activity and fort-like structure,
wholesale trade chapter-6 does not list
kisan-haat-at-andheria-morh in any of its many lists,
and even the unconventional sections of dmp2021 are
silent about the object). that means that post-dmp2021
notification I will have to fret about clear
plan-violation in ridge park in my neighbourhood,
which clearly jeopardises my lady-of-leisure-n-grace
plans and their consequent joy-n-relief benefits to
many.
so, out of kindness to wannabe lady-of-leisure-n-grace
or of rescuing the world from fretful planners or
planners from fretting about the world, etc, can
someone please include in his/her dmp2021 response the
simple suggestion to jorho, in face of obvious
reluctance to torho the fort-like object, its
description in one of the lists in the chapter on
wholesale trade along with appropriate footnote for
exemption from prohibitions elsewhere in the document?
thanks and regards
gita
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com