sarabjit, re ur post at:
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00581.shtml
# 1. non-security reasons for disallowing recording
devices in court might apply
# 5. Board did not contest my interpretation of Rule-9
(re Humayun Tomb, see first para in post of Nov 2004,
linked from end)
# 9. AK Jain cannot be on Board. Court appointments
might not bar VC
# 3. DHC rulings on MLU are challengeable because of
SLP in SC
# 2. NGO-Left proximity in Delhi is known fact; slum
issue is DfID driven
# 4. NGO-MCD proximity is known fact; eliminating DDA
is core of DMP-free urban reform (see USAID sponsored
legislative amendment to MCD Act; professional
institutions are co-opted, see GATS revised offer)
# 8. NGO-DDA proximity is not established fact; slums
as vote-banks is basis of NGO-Politician proximity
(these NGOs need VP to pull the crowd to claim
funding, I do not know exactly why VP needs them)
# 7. mpisg has not been denied hearing and is not
serving any notices till refused joint hearings
request or disallowing of our 41(3) application.
# 10. no one else is required to wait. planning law
requires us to wait and we value most our development
rights by which planning law articulates our
fundamental rights.
# 6. I had asked if NGO-types are above RTI in
yesterday's post:
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> this IS endgame. when hearings are over dmp2021 will
> become de-facto dmp regardless of any delay in
> notification.
>
> I think you see this as a game about DDA, other-side
> king that we have to check-mate. I see it is a game
> about DMP, king besides which DDA ought to have been
> queen, and gnctd, mcd, ndmc, itpi, spa, duac, tcpo,
> etc, the 2+ point pieces. all of them are somehow
> reduced to pawns for the other side (made of those
> who
> subvert equity and efficiency and safeguards /
> guarantees and are found equally in Govt, NGO,
> professions, business, politics, wherever). the game
> can not be according to rules till our pieces are
> reclaimed. we cannot break the board and walk away,
> it
> is our board. we cannot drag *them* on to our turf,
> they are standing on our turf.
>
> for DDA I prefer s.41(3) to RTI (we need
> intervention
> to heal not information to kill). for sanjhaNGOs
> (also
> ITPI, PHDCC, etc, which are structurally same), RTI
> would be very nice, but I have the impression they
> are
> above it. They are not?
>
>
>
> --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Dear Gita,
> >
> > Thanks for a very detailed post.
> >
> > We are still in middle game (chesswise) and NOT
> > trapped. When the game is not played by the Rules
> -
> > break the board, walk away and drag them onto your
> > turf.
...
> > --- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > > An illegal Board has started today illegal
> > NGO-style
> > > hearings at PHD House and VPSingh/Sajha-Munch,
> who
> > > have made illegal demand for their nominee to be
> > on
> > > Board, plan to protest bureaucratic-style
> > > functioning
> > > outside DDA Vikas Sadan. we are trapped between
> > two
> > > illegal choices. we know we have been trapped.
> > what
> > > will we do now? *now*. the endgame has begun.
>
> ...
>
> > > Do please browse the urls in this post.
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00575.shtml
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00581.shtml
# 1. non-security reasons for disallowing recording
devices in court might apply
# 5. Board did not contest my interpretation of Rule-9
(re Humayun Tomb, see first para in post of Nov 2004,
linked from end)
# 9. AK Jain cannot be on Board. Court appointments
might not bar VC
# 3. DHC rulings on MLU are challengeable because of
SLP in SC
# 2. NGO-Left proximity in Delhi is known fact; slum
issue is DfID driven
# 4. NGO-MCD proximity is known fact; eliminating DDA
is core of DMP-free urban reform (see USAID sponsored
legislative amendment to MCD Act; professional
institutions are co-opted, see GATS revised offer)
# 8. NGO-DDA proximity is not established fact; slums
as vote-banks is basis of NGO-Politician proximity
(these NGOs need VP to pull the crowd to claim
funding, I do not know exactly why VP needs them)
# 7. mpisg has not been denied hearing and is not
serving any notices till refused joint hearings
request or disallowing of our 41(3) application.
# 10. no one else is required to wait. planning law
requires us to wait and we value most our development
rights by which planning law articulates our
fundamental rights.
# 6. I had asked if NGO-types are above RTI in
yesterday's post:
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> this IS endgame. when hearings are over dmp2021 will
> become de-facto dmp regardless of any delay in
> notification.
>
> I think you see this as a game about DDA, other-side
> king that we have to check-mate. I see it is a game
> about DMP, king besides which DDA ought to have been
> queen, and gnctd, mcd, ndmc, itpi, spa, duac, tcpo,
> etc, the 2+ point pieces. all of them are somehow
> reduced to pawns for the other side (made of those
> who
> subvert equity and efficiency and safeguards /
> guarantees and are found equally in Govt, NGO,
> professions, business, politics, wherever). the game
> can not be according to rules till our pieces are
> reclaimed. we cannot break the board and walk away,
> it
> is our board. we cannot drag *them* on to our turf,
> they are standing on our turf.
>
> for DDA I prefer s.41(3) to RTI (we need
> intervention
> to heal not information to kill). for sanjhaNGOs
> (also
> ITPI, PHDCC, etc, which are structurally same), RTI
> would be very nice, but I have the impression they
> are
> above it. They are not?
>
>
>
> --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Dear Gita,
> >
> > Thanks for a very detailed post.
> >
> > We are still in middle game (chesswise) and NOT
> > trapped. When the game is not played by the Rules
> -
> > break the board, walk away and drag them onto your
> > turf.
...
> > --- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > > An illegal Board has started today illegal
> > NGO-style
> > > hearings at PHD House and VPSingh/Sajha-Munch,
> who
> > > have made illegal demand for their nominee to be
> > on
> > > Board, plan to protest bureaucratic-style
> > > functioning
> > > outside DDA Vikas Sadan. we are trapped between
> > two
> > > illegal choices. we know we have been trapped.
> > what
> > > will we do now? *now*. the endgame has begun.
>
> ...
>
> > > Do please browse the urls in this post.
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00575.shtml
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com