--- maheep thapar <maheepthapar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 6.Regarding land use changes in the Master Plan
> after projects are planned (working backwards),is
> there another way Gita? The master plans are made by
> someone else, the Metro is planned by someone else
> so there has to be some integration. Thts probably
> the best people can think of :-)
> Master plans have not been enforced for whatever
> reasons and thats a reality. I can see that on TV in
> Delhis case.
>
> Sincerely looking for comments on point no 6
>
hi maheep, sincere comment on pt.6 :)
DMRC case is not of land use change after projects are
planned, but of land use change for ad-hoc projects.
Land as resource for development is old-hat. Delhi,
New Bombay, etc, have used entirely that
financial-plan. In the TPS based city planning it may
be possible to look at separate financial plan for
infrastructure agencies, but in Master Plan based city
planning the financial-plan of say Delhi metro cannot
be at the cost of the financial plan for Delhi
development set out in DD Act provisions for the DDA
Fund. That is based on optimizing (minimizing) sites
for remunerative disposal to cross-subsidize other
development, the optimization being set out in the
land use plan (which is just an allocational framework
earmarking how much land is to be used for what). The
optimization is crucial because you need land for the
non-remunerative uses, ie it is no point making a
song-n-dance about how rich we can get by auctioning
land unless we ensure there is enough left to invest
the proceeds for the non-remunerative development
needed for the planned solutions (for which alone we
are free to auction public land cheaply-acquired for
planned dvpt).
DMRC has an alleged financial-plan that requires a
small percentage (variously said to be 3, 5, 6 or 7)
of the total metro cost to be raised by property
development. Given the financial model for Delhi, this
amount could simply be transferred to DMRC from DDA
Fund, ie no land transfer to DMRC that need not
directly do any property development at all (which
would save us the cost of equipping DMRC For property
development functions). Or the DMRC could take a
couple of prime sites to raise the allegedly
prescribed percentage of its total cost from property
development (which it could handle with its
project-management flair without botching up broader
policy and finance issues with attendant costs).
However, without systematically considering or
rejecting these alternatives, entirely unplanned
ad-hoc metroPD is going on anywhere and everywhere
that the metro goes.
This sort of metroPD is playing havoc with the DDA
Fund, as all prime land has in effect is being made
over to / being taken over by DMRC, driving DDA to
financially unsustainable and illegal disposal
policies inclusive of auctioning protected sites
(district parks that are invariably around built
heritage and the ridge and riverbed). In the process
planned solutions for environment, heritage, housing
(especially for the poor), trade and industry
(especially small scale) are all being written off.
On the other hand, DMRC is itself not serious about
sensible property development and its metroPD is
founded not on principles of project management but on
PR. The penalties that have started being levied for
constructions without mandatory clearances will dent
the metroPD revenue figures, which in any case are a
puny percentage (that I suspect has already been
achieved otherwise).
There is no possibility of integrating such metroPD
with the Master Plan / DD Act framework because such
metroPD model is obviously just a ploy to siphon off
huge amount of public land from the purview of the DD
Act and, like the recent MLU notification, etc (pushed
on basis of the contrivances you have been seeing on
TV), step towards repeal of the DD Act.
The question is not whether a better Delhi metro
financial plan is possible or not, just as the
question is not whether better alternatives to the
Master Plan / DD Act are possible or not. The question
now (with DD Act repeal rather imminent) is what are
these better alternatives that their claimants have
been hitting the plan and planners on the head with.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> 6.Regarding land use changes in the Master Plan
> after projects are planned (working backwards),is
> there another way Gita? The master plans are made by
> someone else, the Metro is planned by someone else
> so there has to be some integration. Thts probably
> the best people can think of :-)
> Master plans have not been enforced for whatever
> reasons and thats a reality. I can see that on TV in
> Delhis case.
>
> Sincerely looking for comments on point no 6
>
hi maheep, sincere comment on pt.6 :)
DMRC case is not of land use change after projects are
planned, but of land use change for ad-hoc projects.
Land as resource for development is old-hat. Delhi,
New Bombay, etc, have used entirely that
financial-plan. In the TPS based city planning it may
be possible to look at separate financial plan for
infrastructure agencies, but in Master Plan based city
planning the financial-plan of say Delhi metro cannot
be at the cost of the financial plan for Delhi
development set out in DD Act provisions for the DDA
Fund. That is based on optimizing (minimizing) sites
for remunerative disposal to cross-subsidize other
development, the optimization being set out in the
land use plan (which is just an allocational framework
earmarking how much land is to be used for what). The
optimization is crucial because you need land for the
non-remunerative uses, ie it is no point making a
song-n-dance about how rich we can get by auctioning
land unless we ensure there is enough left to invest
the proceeds for the non-remunerative development
needed for the planned solutions (for which alone we
are free to auction public land cheaply-acquired for
planned dvpt).
DMRC has an alleged financial-plan that requires a
small percentage (variously said to be 3, 5, 6 or 7)
of the total metro cost to be raised by property
development. Given the financial model for Delhi, this
amount could simply be transferred to DMRC from DDA
Fund, ie no land transfer to DMRC that need not
directly do any property development at all (which
would save us the cost of equipping DMRC For property
development functions). Or the DMRC could take a
couple of prime sites to raise the allegedly
prescribed percentage of its total cost from property
development (which it could handle with its
project-management flair without botching up broader
policy and finance issues with attendant costs).
However, without systematically considering or
rejecting these alternatives, entirely unplanned
ad-hoc metroPD is going on anywhere and everywhere
that the metro goes.
This sort of metroPD is playing havoc with the DDA
Fund, as all prime land has in effect is being made
over to / being taken over by DMRC, driving DDA to
financially unsustainable and illegal disposal
policies inclusive of auctioning protected sites
(district parks that are invariably around built
heritage and the ridge and riverbed). In the process
planned solutions for environment, heritage, housing
(especially for the poor), trade and industry
(especially small scale) are all being written off.
On the other hand, DMRC is itself not serious about
sensible property development and its metroPD is
founded not on principles of project management but on
PR. The penalties that have started being levied for
constructions without mandatory clearances will dent
the metroPD revenue figures, which in any case are a
puny percentage (that I suspect has already been
achieved otherwise).
There is no possibility of integrating such metroPD
with the Master Plan / DD Act framework because such
metroPD model is obviously just a ploy to siphon off
huge amount of public land from the purview of the DD
Act and, like the recent MLU notification, etc (pushed
on basis of the contrivances you have been seeing on
TV), step towards repeal of the DD Act.
The question is not whether a better Delhi metro
financial plan is possible or not, just as the
question is not whether better alternatives to the
Master Plan / DD Act are possible or not. The question
now (with DD Act repeal rather imminent) is what are
these better alternatives that their claimants have
been hitting the plan and planners on the head with.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com