Hi, Gita, Aruna
>> I apologize for u not finding a bacha planner for
ur dmp2021 response and I thank you for wanting to
find one. and if sarabjit has not mailed u with
proper-respect, tell. I have his cell no :)
Sorry,
1) Must apologise, I've been so busy with drafting my
planned writ about Information Technology ACT. Then
the IT Ministry goes and releases their new proposed
amendments to this ACT on 29th evening .. I AM
Delighted !!! Have been busy blogging / posting away
on this IT ACT business so no time for dmp posts.
2) Dear Aruna, since I wont put my cell no. over net
(and if gita disclose mine the IT ACT will put her in
slammer for 5 years:-) the fastest way to contact me
by email is via that little comments box on our
mpd2021 blog the No.1 on yahoo search for "master plan
2021".
3) I am sending the respectful email to aruna
alongwith my cell as MLU interests me exceedingly.
4) Draft letter to P.Sec+commisisoner DDA on IT ACT
matters (there was a neat story today in Indian
Express on DDA and Right to Information and Computers)
will take 2 days more. Sorry dont have time to search
the Express link.
Bye
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- nalini thakur <rak1993@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> > Does anybody l4.know about this meeting held at
> ASI
> > regarding the 100m and
> > 200m around protected monuments. The reason for
> > calling the meeting was to
> > examine the relaxation possibilities to help
> people.
> > Can ASI do such a thing. There was ample
> opportunity
> > during the Master Plan
> > 2021 preparation. Why now?
> ...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "arunab" <arunab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Master plan issues in media"
> > <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] Quota in education /
> > intervention application inSJ pil
> > > Hi Sarabjit,
> > > Am very much interested in the matter of "Mixed
> > Land Use" in the
> > forthcoming
> > > DMP. So please drop a line, so that I can
> receive
> > mails from u directly.
> > > MPISG concerns are too many and I cannot cope up
> > with it.
> ...
> -----
>
>
> Nalini, Aruna, it must be ur good-ole gut that
> posted
> these on a PIL post!
>
> Nalini, I dunno about ASI meeting but am prepared to
> bet it was precipitated by the elevated metro
> corridor
> fuss-making thru DUAC (since May 2005). I agree that
> the 100/200 m issue ought to have been taken up in
> DMP2021. imperative of law, as follows:
>
> 1) DMP2001, notified in 1990, requires detailing out
> protected/regulated area in detailed (zonal) plans
> rather than by simplistic 100/200m thumb-rule
> (arisen
> from simplistic PIL). This point was raised, also
> with
> ASI and DUAC, in context of Sultangarhi Public
> Notice,
> in continuation of which mpisg DMP2021 PN response
> suggests deletion of the inane chapter on
> conservation
> copied from DMP2001 except for adding faff and
> sultangarhi, which we allege is malafide (I recall u
> had commented on the 100/200 business in 2003 wrt to
> the designer wall in sgarhi that daintily zig zags
> to
> save farmhouses within 50 m and takes in with half
> km
> expansive inclusivity the 50-yr old settlement they
> tried to demolish for it in 2000).
>
> 2) F-Zone Plan, notified in 1998, specifically
> mentions Qutb heritage zone and Mehrauli Arch.Park
> and
> a committee including ASI and INTACH among others
> for
> management. It also says no elevated metro near
> heritage sites, ie chaps fuss-making about that near
> Qutb in 2005 are the same that had statutory
> responsibility to appraise DMRC of Plan imperative
> *before* it spent public money on design. The mpisg
> petition from mahipalpur impleaded dmrc in view of
> F-Zn Plan (in 2003 metro was proposed from Qutb to
> Sultangarhi). dmrc, cheerfully parrying in press
> with
> fuss-making chaps, has not cared to reply in
> petition
> of 400-yr old mahipalpur village.
>
> 3) Delhi Heritage Foundation, formalised (with same
> f-m chaps) under s.5A of DD Act in 1999, also had
> same
> statutory responsibility re Qutb/Metro and, like the
> DMP2021 expert group, re revising 100/200m in
> context
> of DD Act/DMP.
>
> 4) From perspective of f-m chaps (who are anti-Plan
> and busy alternative-law-making in PIL and
> club-style
> committees) resolving the 100/200m issue was
> imperative notably at time of finalising the
> heritage
> Bill that Delhi Assembly passed in 2004 or the
> usaid-sponsored amendments to MCD law (including a
> fuzzy one on heritage) up since 01/08 for comment
> (through understandably unspecified process). There
> is
> also the Red Fort committee arisen from SC PIL
> wherein
> the issue was mgt plan and there is copious heritage
> PIL including by MCM hisself now. There is also the
> Draft National Environment Policy that includes
> built
> heritage.
>
> ASI meeting for 100/200 to help people obviously
> means
> that all the foregoing alt-ctr-del has not helped
> people. reflects poorly on the help-walahs!
>
> -----
>
> last week snapshots of alt-ctrl-del clubbing (with
> party-pooping ideas):
>
> * DUAC Chairman from mumbai arrived in delhi high
> court, where he had to put in personal appearance
> for
> the police-memorial-is-ugly case, with OP Jain,
> chief
> of ngo INTACH fuss-making about impugned ugliness
> and
> calling for its relocation to riverbed games
> village,
> identical illegality as IT Park, barred by
> Sultangarhi
> judgment of 2002. At Sgarhi foundation stone laying
> in
> 2001 INTACH was conspicuous (I have video) and for
> both Sgarhi and IT Park DUAC clearance has been
> claimed in court. You could ask for minutes of DUAC
> task-force meetings about metro near heritage sites
> and get a friendly lawyer to quote to them
> para-verse-n-rhyme from DUAC Act and above
> mentioned.
>
> * ITPI decided to organise on 31/08 a metro talk by
> DMRC PRO Anuj Dayal. Maybe planners enrolled in that
> club (controlled by same old planner chaps for the
> quarter century of my acquaintance with planning)
> have
> trouble reading newspapers or need reinforcing
> reading
> with audio. Or maybe they avoided dmrc planner to
> avoid the freak possibility of him spoiling their
> seminar-n-snacks with technicalities. you could go
> for
> this (it is at 4:30) as they are likely to be
> talking
> of aesthetics of metro near Qutb and you could give
> the PRO return-gift of copy of F-Zn Plan to throw at
> so-called critics (you could get it heavy-bound, it
> is
> too slim).
>
> * PR Mehta (as former CoA Prez) and Sudhir Vohra
> (boss
> of something like ethics committee in CoA,
> misrepresented as Urban Planner) got quoted in
> Financial Express of 27/08 amidst realtors and
> Rakesh
> Mehta connecting usaid-sponsored law to hopes-of-FDI
> (really!). I recall being rude to Ramanathan (CoA)
> and
> YRG (SPA), who called me up in 2003-04 about the
> honour of being asked to opine in that exercise. You
> could ask CoA to explain the fuzzy usaid-sponsored
> heritage provision. could also ask AMDA; big-daddy
> EFN
> Ribiero (AMDA chief), to whom I had gone to whine
> about MCD-Usaid tie-up wrt to prior AMDA conference
> at
> which I had said in presence of all big-daddies
> properly rude oye to (Usaid employed) Chetan for
> mentioning Usaid model municipal law for us, is
> listed
> among experts on it. and I am told his firm is also
> in
> receipt of honour of doing one of the pilot-projects
> for it. what pilot project for law already drafted
> means is beyond the limits of minds like mine but
> since his outburst re IBC-awards I dont pester EFNR
> for not teaching me enuff)
>
> * Montek Singh Ahluwalia told law graduates to
> prepare
> for unspecified concessions that the nation will
> have
> to offer under GATS. (Hindu reported, with pic of
> MSA
> in convo robes, on 29/08). architects are reportedly
> also covered in the revised GATS offer submitted on
> 12/08. CoA (ie Mehta and Vohra) were also doing the
> profession management for that and with the Budhadeb
> Bhatacharya style I-dun-what-is-good-for-us
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>> I apologize for u not finding a bacha planner for
ur dmp2021 response and I thank you for wanting to
find one. and if sarabjit has not mailed u with
proper-respect, tell. I have his cell no :)
Sorry,
1) Must apologise, I've been so busy with drafting my
planned writ about Information Technology ACT. Then
the IT Ministry goes and releases their new proposed
amendments to this ACT on 29th evening .. I AM
Delighted !!! Have been busy blogging / posting away
on this IT ACT business so no time for dmp posts.
2) Dear Aruna, since I wont put my cell no. over net
(and if gita disclose mine the IT ACT will put her in
slammer for 5 years:-) the fastest way to contact me
by email is via that little comments box on our
mpd2021 blog the No.1 on yahoo search for "master plan
2021".
3) I am sending the respectful email to aruna
alongwith my cell as MLU interests me exceedingly.
4) Draft letter to P.Sec+commisisoner DDA on IT ACT
matters (there was a neat story today in Indian
Express on DDA and Right to Information and Computers)
will take 2 days more. Sorry dont have time to search
the Express link.
Bye
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- nalini thakur <rak1993@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> > Does anybody l4.know about this meeting held at
> ASI
> > regarding the 100m and
> > 200m around protected monuments. The reason for
> > calling the meeting was to
> > examine the relaxation possibilities to help
> people.
> > Can ASI do such a thing. There was ample
> opportunity
> > during the Master Plan
> > 2021 preparation. Why now?
> ...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "arunab" <arunab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Master plan issues in media"
> > <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] Quota in education /
> > intervention application inSJ pil
> > > Hi Sarabjit,
> > > Am very much interested in the matter of "Mixed
> > Land Use" in the
> > forthcoming
> > > DMP. So please drop a line, so that I can
> receive
> > mails from u directly.
> > > MPISG concerns are too many and I cannot cope up
> > with it.
> ...
> -----
>
>
> Nalini, Aruna, it must be ur good-ole gut that
> posted
> these on a PIL post!
>
> Nalini, I dunno about ASI meeting but am prepared to
> bet it was precipitated by the elevated metro
> corridor
> fuss-making thru DUAC (since May 2005). I agree that
> the 100/200 m issue ought to have been taken up in
> DMP2021. imperative of law, as follows:
>
> 1) DMP2001, notified in 1990, requires detailing out
> protected/regulated area in detailed (zonal) plans
> rather than by simplistic 100/200m thumb-rule
> (arisen
> from simplistic PIL). This point was raised, also
> with
> ASI and DUAC, in context of Sultangarhi Public
> Notice,
> in continuation of which mpisg DMP2021 PN response
> suggests deletion of the inane chapter on
> conservation
> copied from DMP2001 except for adding faff and
> sultangarhi, which we allege is malafide (I recall u
> had commented on the 100/200 business in 2003 wrt to
> the designer wall in sgarhi that daintily zig zags
> to
> save farmhouses within 50 m and takes in with half
> km
> expansive inclusivity the 50-yr old settlement they
> tried to demolish for it in 2000).
>
> 2) F-Zone Plan, notified in 1998, specifically
> mentions Qutb heritage zone and Mehrauli Arch.Park
> and
> a committee including ASI and INTACH among others
> for
> management. It also says no elevated metro near
> heritage sites, ie chaps fuss-making about that near
> Qutb in 2005 are the same that had statutory
> responsibility to appraise DMRC of Plan imperative
> *before* it spent public money on design. The mpisg
> petition from mahipalpur impleaded dmrc in view of
> F-Zn Plan (in 2003 metro was proposed from Qutb to
> Sultangarhi). dmrc, cheerfully parrying in press
> with
> fuss-making chaps, has not cared to reply in
> petition
> of 400-yr old mahipalpur village.
>
> 3) Delhi Heritage Foundation, formalised (with same
> f-m chaps) under s.5A of DD Act in 1999, also had
> same
> statutory responsibility re Qutb/Metro and, like the
> DMP2021 expert group, re revising 100/200m in
> context
> of DD Act/DMP.
>
> 4) From perspective of f-m chaps (who are anti-Plan
> and busy alternative-law-making in PIL and
> club-style
> committees) resolving the 100/200m issue was
> imperative notably at time of finalising the
> heritage
> Bill that Delhi Assembly passed in 2004 or the
> usaid-sponsored amendments to MCD law (including a
> fuzzy one on heritage) up since 01/08 for comment
> (through understandably unspecified process). There
> is
> also the Red Fort committee arisen from SC PIL
> wherein
> the issue was mgt plan and there is copious heritage
> PIL including by MCM hisself now. There is also the
> Draft National Environment Policy that includes
> built
> heritage.
>
> ASI meeting for 100/200 to help people obviously
> means
> that all the foregoing alt-ctr-del has not helped
> people. reflects poorly on the help-walahs!
>
> -----
>
> last week snapshots of alt-ctrl-del clubbing (with
> party-pooping ideas):
>
> * DUAC Chairman from mumbai arrived in delhi high
> court, where he had to put in personal appearance
> for
> the police-memorial-is-ugly case, with OP Jain,
> chief
> of ngo INTACH fuss-making about impugned ugliness
> and
> calling for its relocation to riverbed games
> village,
> identical illegality as IT Park, barred by
> Sultangarhi
> judgment of 2002. At Sgarhi foundation stone laying
> in
> 2001 INTACH was conspicuous (I have video) and for
> both Sgarhi and IT Park DUAC clearance has been
> claimed in court. You could ask for minutes of DUAC
> task-force meetings about metro near heritage sites
> and get a friendly lawyer to quote to them
> para-verse-n-rhyme from DUAC Act and above
> mentioned.
>
> * ITPI decided to organise on 31/08 a metro talk by
> DMRC PRO Anuj Dayal. Maybe planners enrolled in that
> club (controlled by same old planner chaps for the
> quarter century of my acquaintance with planning)
> have
> trouble reading newspapers or need reinforcing
> reading
> with audio. Or maybe they avoided dmrc planner to
> avoid the freak possibility of him spoiling their
> seminar-n-snacks with technicalities. you could go
> for
> this (it is at 4:30) as they are likely to be
> talking
> of aesthetics of metro near Qutb and you could give
> the PRO return-gift of copy of F-Zn Plan to throw at
> so-called critics (you could get it heavy-bound, it
> is
> too slim).
>
> * PR Mehta (as former CoA Prez) and Sudhir Vohra
> (boss
> of something like ethics committee in CoA,
> misrepresented as Urban Planner) got quoted in
> Financial Express of 27/08 amidst realtors and
> Rakesh
> Mehta connecting usaid-sponsored law to hopes-of-FDI
> (really!). I recall being rude to Ramanathan (CoA)
> and
> YRG (SPA), who called me up in 2003-04 about the
> honour of being asked to opine in that exercise. You
> could ask CoA to explain the fuzzy usaid-sponsored
> heritage provision. could also ask AMDA; big-daddy
> EFN
> Ribiero (AMDA chief), to whom I had gone to whine
> about MCD-Usaid tie-up wrt to prior AMDA conference
> at
> which I had said in presence of all big-daddies
> properly rude oye to (Usaid employed) Chetan for
> mentioning Usaid model municipal law for us, is
> listed
> among experts on it. and I am told his firm is also
> in
> receipt of honour of doing one of the pilot-projects
> for it. what pilot project for law already drafted
> means is beyond the limits of minds like mine but
> since his outburst re IBC-awards I dont pester EFNR
> for not teaching me enuff)
>
> * Montek Singh Ahluwalia told law graduates to
> prepare
> for unspecified concessions that the nation will
> have
> to offer under GATS. (Hindu reported, with pic of
> MSA
> in convo robes, on 29/08). architects are reportedly
> also covered in the revised GATS offer submitted on
> 12/08. CoA (ie Mehta and Vohra) were also doing the
> profession management for that and with the Budhadeb
> Bhatacharya style I-dun-what-is-good-for-us
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com