--- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Seriously,
>
> What is conceptually wrong with this proposal?
>
>
> --- Nidhi Jamwal <nidhi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Today's DNA has headline: State embraces FDI in
> > housing: 100%"
yeah, nidhi, what is wrong with this proposal? re
housing for the poor, specifically, the point is not
private (foreign or domestic) or public per se. it
basically requires (a) land; (b) subsidy on
development cost (land, building can be incremental,
etc); (c) measures to ensure uptake and retention. I
think we need:
* statutory land allocation, with stipulation of no
EWS housing elsewhere. (good Plans, both violated
through non-Plan EWS housing alternatives helped by
endless discourse on them, are DMP2001 that stipulates
25% EWS and 20% LIG units in each residential area for
1 lakh persons / approx 20000 units; and Indore Plan
that earmarks zonal pockets for EWS residential in the
land use plan itself).
* subsidy via cross-subsidy across uses (ie, portion
of profits from profitable uses like malls and
hi-income flats to be ploughed into development of low
or no profit uses like lo-income housing, small
manufacturing, facilities, greens, etc) -- that does
not require each profitable project to forcibly
include EWS housing, etc, but to necessarily
contribute to the subsidy pool so that whoever is
developing the lo-profit uses is not burdened -- and
it requires a targeting mechanism to ensure that
subsidy benefit accrues to EWS (and continuous demand
registration system for its basis).
* for uptake and retention, identifying the scale at
which integration works, ie, the poor are not normally
tempted / forced to sell and sell only to move to
higher income stock, etc. I believe integration can
work at mid-hierarchy (such as in DMP2001, in mumbai
the 100 acre might be viable), and NOT by sub-cities
of the poor (like Narela by Jagmohan or the 21000 puny
flat scheme proposed by GNCTD-MCD now) and NOT by
per-scheme approach (as in haryana model or present
mumbai model).
I see no serious planning issue against private
development other than recovery of cross-subsidy
component on sound accounting principles (and, if this
is not resolved, then eminent domain and sovereignty
issues arise on transfer of land in lieu of finance to
private, especially foreign, parties). I am personally
inclined to not force private sector to provide
low-income housing and instead of giving it TDR to
make up for forcing it, I would simply give it
hi-profit sites and recover a % of the profit for
developing lo-profit uses elsewhere, including by
private parties willing to do that at pre-determined
cost (based on the same accounting principles), and
make simultaneous start of hi and lo profit schemes
mandatory.
re pro-anti private/FDI participation:
I know mainstream housing-rights-strugglers would
reject the above as pro-private and mainstream private
chaps would reject it as restricting their freedom to
make their own codes. together they pre-empt with
their *inclusivity* discourse any discussion that does
not ultimately demand a mumbai-model pilot-project!
you looking for an example of fdi and poor housing?
they will be happy to pilot and counter-pilot! fact
is they have already tested the idea: poor-housing
NGOs have foreign funding and say gurgaon had
self-financing schemes targeted at NRIs. for details
of the business models those pilots threw up (the
latest for 100% FDI has also not dropped from
heaven!), ask their promoters -- also because they
have appointed themselves senior-n-wiser partners in
development after declaring dda/mmrda,
existing/revised plans, planners, all stupid.
The Fortis-Escorts case has shown us what might stop
crooked takeovers and that if and when that happens
DDA, etc, will not fail us. I think that is very
noteworthy.
---re the fret about mmrda:
Fret-not, after this round of plan revisions is done,
MMRDA, DDA, etc, will speak no more. They will be
dead, murdered!! I personally know people who are and
have been in MMRDA who would have vehemently opposed
the sort of statements you quote from the plan. Does
the document have the list of *experts* that have
spoken through MMRDA? DMP2021 has one and I find it
very useful in figuring out, especially wrt who said
what about the (Mumbai *vision* like) DMP2021
*guidelines* of 2003, who is really talking.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
> Seriously,
>
> What is conceptually wrong with this proposal?
>
>
> --- Nidhi Jamwal <nidhi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Today's DNA has headline: State embraces FDI in
> > housing: 100%"
yeah, nidhi, what is wrong with this proposal? re
housing for the poor, specifically, the point is not
private (foreign or domestic) or public per se. it
basically requires (a) land; (b) subsidy on
development cost (land, building can be incremental,
etc); (c) measures to ensure uptake and retention. I
think we need:
* statutory land allocation, with stipulation of no
EWS housing elsewhere. (good Plans, both violated
through non-Plan EWS housing alternatives helped by
endless discourse on them, are DMP2001 that stipulates
25% EWS and 20% LIG units in each residential area for
1 lakh persons / approx 20000 units; and Indore Plan
that earmarks zonal pockets for EWS residential in the
land use plan itself).
* subsidy via cross-subsidy across uses (ie, portion
of profits from profitable uses like malls and
hi-income flats to be ploughed into development of low
or no profit uses like lo-income housing, small
manufacturing, facilities, greens, etc) -- that does
not require each profitable project to forcibly
include EWS housing, etc, but to necessarily
contribute to the subsidy pool so that whoever is
developing the lo-profit uses is not burdened -- and
it requires a targeting mechanism to ensure that
subsidy benefit accrues to EWS (and continuous demand
registration system for its basis).
* for uptake and retention, identifying the scale at
which integration works, ie, the poor are not normally
tempted / forced to sell and sell only to move to
higher income stock, etc. I believe integration can
work at mid-hierarchy (such as in DMP2001, in mumbai
the 100 acre might be viable), and NOT by sub-cities
of the poor (like Narela by Jagmohan or the 21000 puny
flat scheme proposed by GNCTD-MCD now) and NOT by
per-scheme approach (as in haryana model or present
mumbai model).
I see no serious planning issue against private
development other than recovery of cross-subsidy
component on sound accounting principles (and, if this
is not resolved, then eminent domain and sovereignty
issues arise on transfer of land in lieu of finance to
private, especially foreign, parties). I am personally
inclined to not force private sector to provide
low-income housing and instead of giving it TDR to
make up for forcing it, I would simply give it
hi-profit sites and recover a % of the profit for
developing lo-profit uses elsewhere, including by
private parties willing to do that at pre-determined
cost (based on the same accounting principles), and
make simultaneous start of hi and lo profit schemes
mandatory.
re pro-anti private/FDI participation:
I know mainstream housing-rights-strugglers would
reject the above as pro-private and mainstream private
chaps would reject it as restricting their freedom to
make their own codes. together they pre-empt with
their *inclusivity* discourse any discussion that does
not ultimately demand a mumbai-model pilot-project!
you looking for an example of fdi and poor housing?
they will be happy to pilot and counter-pilot! fact
is they have already tested the idea: poor-housing
NGOs have foreign funding and say gurgaon had
self-financing schemes targeted at NRIs. for details
of the business models those pilots threw up (the
latest for 100% FDI has also not dropped from
heaven!), ask their promoters -- also because they
have appointed themselves senior-n-wiser partners in
development after declaring dda/mmrda,
existing/revised plans, planners, all stupid.
The Fortis-Escorts case has shown us what might stop
crooked takeovers and that if and when that happens
DDA, etc, will not fail us. I think that is very
noteworthy.
---re the fret about mmrda:
Fret-not, after this round of plan revisions is done,
MMRDA, DDA, etc, will speak no more. They will be
dead, murdered!! I personally know people who are and
have been in MMRDA who would have vehemently opposed
the sort of statements you quote from the plan. Does
the document have the list of *experts* that have
spoken through MMRDA? DMP2021 has one and I find it
very useful in figuring out, especially wrt who said
what about the (Mumbai *vision* like) DMP2021
*guidelines* of 2003, who is really talking.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com