japs are only doing business with their loan and we
chose it I think for the brand. dmrc project cost is
6000 cr at 1996 prices, estimated 10,500 cr at EOP
prices. that sort of money hudco, ifdc, any bank could
have loaned to dmrc. or it could have got real-rich
real-fast with one big property-development. dda made
1100 cr by auctioning measly 19 Ha for malls
(dda-malls). all of this applies also to any
loan-repayment.
cabinet approved in 1996 a financial plan along with
the project. parliament enacted in 2002 the law for
the o&m, including fare fixation (I recall fretting
about the bill going through both houses without
comment while khurana ji, sheila ji and I think atal
ji and LG ji all squeezed in to same frame to make
pretty picture of bonhomie on inaugural ride and the
fuss about loos, or rather no loos, blew, all amidst
fm jingles and nukkad-naataks to metro-train the
city).
the financial plan itself is mysterious document. but
with hushed-tone reference to it we are told each and
every time that if metro does not get what it wants we
will get fare-hike. what it wants is getting
increasingly unreasonable: huge PR budget, exemption
from import duties, exemption from worker welfare fund
contribution, discom style license, unbounded property
development rights, DDA to pay for dwarka link, AAI to
pay for airport link.
I dont think the problem is with the original cba, but
of ad-hocism and multiple accounting. consider
property development, for which at least the financial
plan target (7%, later reduced) is known. 7% of 10,500
cr is just 735 cr, which does not sound unreasonable
to me. what sounds weird is the notion (become duly
approved by a notification of 20.01.05, the challenge
in my petition is to the *duly*) that this cannot
happen without releasing from purview of plans for
unfettered development up to 3 Ha at every station and
extra-items like 6 Ha IT Park/SEZ on riverbed and next
to it 15 Ha Disneyland with 2.7 Ha parking. On the
property development, the CBA is the pits.
As for the Hindu report justifying Amusement Park in
terms of 6000 cr loan repayment, even as the financial
plan limit of property development accruals max
estimate is 735 cr, park it for amusement.
---
By the way, tender of 15 July is for
entertainment/recreation facility of 15 Ha and tender
form mentions additional 2.7 Ha for parking. Both say
no permanent structures are allowed; the whole thing
is *temporary*. Neither mentions 27 acre amusement
park + 10 acre water park, mentioned in the Hindu
report. (These were mentioned in news reports of
2002).
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
chose it I think for the brand. dmrc project cost is
6000 cr at 1996 prices, estimated 10,500 cr at EOP
prices. that sort of money hudco, ifdc, any bank could
have loaned to dmrc. or it could have got real-rich
real-fast with one big property-development. dda made
1100 cr by auctioning measly 19 Ha for malls
(dda-malls). all of this applies also to any
loan-repayment.
cabinet approved in 1996 a financial plan along with
the project. parliament enacted in 2002 the law for
the o&m, including fare fixation (I recall fretting
about the bill going through both houses without
comment while khurana ji, sheila ji and I think atal
ji and LG ji all squeezed in to same frame to make
pretty picture of bonhomie on inaugural ride and the
fuss about loos, or rather no loos, blew, all amidst
fm jingles and nukkad-naataks to metro-train the
city).
the financial plan itself is mysterious document. but
with hushed-tone reference to it we are told each and
every time that if metro does not get what it wants we
will get fare-hike. what it wants is getting
increasingly unreasonable: huge PR budget, exemption
from import duties, exemption from worker welfare fund
contribution, discom style license, unbounded property
development rights, DDA to pay for dwarka link, AAI to
pay for airport link.
I dont think the problem is with the original cba, but
of ad-hocism and multiple accounting. consider
property development, for which at least the financial
plan target (7%, later reduced) is known. 7% of 10,500
cr is just 735 cr, which does not sound unreasonable
to me. what sounds weird is the notion (become duly
approved by a notification of 20.01.05, the challenge
in my petition is to the *duly*) that this cannot
happen without releasing from purview of plans for
unfettered development up to 3 Ha at every station and
extra-items like 6 Ha IT Park/SEZ on riverbed and next
to it 15 Ha Disneyland with 2.7 Ha parking. On the
property development, the CBA is the pits.
As for the Hindu report justifying Amusement Park in
terms of 6000 cr loan repayment, even as the financial
plan limit of property development accruals max
estimate is 735 cr, park it for amusement.
---
By the way, tender of 15 July is for
entertainment/recreation facility of 15 Ha and tender
form mentions additional 2.7 Ha for parking. Both say
no permanent structures are allowed; the whole thing
is *temporary*. Neither mentions 27 acre amusement
park + 10 acre water park, mentioned in the Hindu
report. (These were mentioned in news reports of
2002).
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs