I am nor really competent to comment on the other aspects of your
discussion. But my submissions are simple.
1. Laws are expected to be equal and for the welfare of all.
2. In any situation, you can never please everyone. Like the thief and
the police(in our case only theoretically speaking).
3. All demands cannot/must not be fulfilled in civilised society. Eg. if
you wish to defacate in public, and indeed if *majority* were to do it,
we could easily abandon toilets. Would that be
democratic/elitist/....what???
4. Likewise, if majority students in a class wanted to shout, disturb,
dirty their premises, not wish to study, climb on desks, throw chalk, write
obscene graffiti on the black board, is the Teacher/ School/ Board of
Education to abandon teaching in school but continue to have the school,
collect the fees, and enroll students, anyway, to earn money (like our
government)? What would you term it, being as it is in 'popular
demand', DEMANDED by the MAJORITY?
5. Indeed, before we began to take this MAJORITY quite so seriously,
would it not have been wiser, more honest to have *educated this MAJORITY
*honestly? If MAJORITY is uneducated, and I daresay *uncivilised, *then
isn't it is a reflection on our society? What will the Planners plan? Let
the mobs do as they please and the Planners can go home---as indeed they
*HAVE. *What have they* planned *anyway, shops and offices in every room?
A hundred cars at every doorstep? Thanks, but no thanks. We don't
need *them
*to do this for us. The politicians are doing a good job of redefining
(un-)civilised living.
6. When five youngsters with bad throats demand ice cream, or with
dysentry demand open dust and fly ridden papri chaat from the roadside
vendor and parents, only *two *in number, resist this MAJORITY demand,
what is right and what is wrong---the demand or the denial?
7. That law, order, cleanliness, environment and health consciousness,
neatness and visual presentability are 'elitist' values, is a horrifying
thought!
If majority demand is the order of the day then close schools, finish
education, ABOLISH GOVERNMENT, abolish all institutions, [because both are
EXPENSIVE affairs]. Let the crowds run amuck-- spitting, urinating,
defacating, engine revving and horning, opening commerial places everywhere.
For, *THAT* IS THE MAJORITY DEMAND. Elitist or not, THESE are the people
getting from their scooters and Mruti 800s to BMWs and Honda CRVs within the
year.
We, with our humble homes, small cars, small *planned* families, fixed
incomes, and educated thinking are the alleged 'elitists' of today! Fine. If
asking for organised and lawful living is being 'elitist' then we are proud
to be that way, and thanks to our parents and the then 'system' that reared
us to be this way.
THANK GOD, we are NOT the BMW SPORTING *TRASH *that constitutes your
MAJORITY today, nor indeed the rerhiwallah from eastern uttarpradesh or the
republic of bihar. We are sad for this country, but very *proud *of
ourselves, and will die in your hands in dignity and pride, till of course *
nature* itself rebels and finishes this money making MAJORITY with their
rerhis and their BMWs.
In your concluding para you mention 'country', but that "help to people to
have two square meals a day, and afford everything that the rich afford",
can be done (a) away from only the metro cities, and (b) also with *
education.* not as is the wont today by acquiring everything thru sale and
purchase--generating money=power=abuse and misuse.
These are very basic thoughts and I'm sure abandoned/questioned not without
a deep and vested cause, by aspiring 'elitists', condemning, but
*aspiring*nonetheless! While
* we* just wish to remain ourselves, the alleged 'non-elitist' scratches to
become us. But they never will. For *we* have come up the hard way, with *
honesty* and *integrity* as our backbone.
So go ahead, de-plan the city, country, and dont forget to *notify *it,
albeit in the most unprocedural of ways!
Thanking you,
Mrs A Bhowmick.
On 7/31/08, J.Sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx <J.Sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Intoducing myself- I am Jayaraj- subscribed to this list for sometime now.
> Currently a research student on Cities, Architecture and planning.
>
> Thanks to Vinay for forwarding the BRA story- and for Aruna for the
> response- I very much appreciate the anxities and concerns. I am trying hard
> to understand better the nature of discussion and clear lines of arguments
> presented.
>
> From the critique of BRA- I could see the anxities from people's
> voice/public criticising the authority- for disempowering the citizens-for
> not taking their voice into consideration, and how this is affecting their
> lives. Here the (bureaucratic/technocratic- i dont know if it is- i am not
> aware of the constitution of BRA) instrument of democratic state is
> disempowering the citizens through top-down policies, by alligning with
> developers.
>
> Vinays comment on authorities violating zoning norms : Arent the planning
> authorities who decided the zoning norms in India in the first place? So who
> is violating it? They themselves? Are zoning laws and masterplanning then
> good-and desirable in Indian cities? I remember the other email group I
> subscribe to -(Urbanstudy)-the discussion and consensus say otherwise. some
> thinglike - ' How disempowering are zoning and masterplanning for
> communities and particular social groups etc... and we are better without
> them, leaving the emergent urbanism to be decided by the people themselves-
> not to step into their realm with public interest arguments which are
> elitist. May be some kind of advocacy planning is better in that context'.
>
> While in Aruna' s anxieties on Delhi- it is about populist politics
> disempowering the citizens- but how can this happen? populist politics can
> only be beneficial to majority citizens -isnt it? because populist is about
> acting on the behalf of majority -to get votes. I also see a distinction of
> thinking public / law abiding public in the writing. So does this actally
> mean political democracy is disempowering the authority that is entrusted to
> save public interest that is not really majority public's concern? I think
> here there is a deeper question on what is the nature of the authority we
> are discussing about and also on the nature of public interest. Many times
> the majority public is seen to be more concerend with private interest
> ! Ofcourse I understand that there are no easy answers to public interest.
> As a practising planner to me this infact is an aspect of practice than of
> academic interest alone.
>
> However I was trying to find out the similarity and difference etc in these
> three discussion. Is Aruna in this case then supporting a public interest
> that only a minority public is interested in- merited to be adopted as
> general-based on 'knowledge' about how the city works? Should we be sticking
> to zoning then?. The write seem to be sugegsting that populist politics is
> disempowering the authority by colluding with the developers-- supporting
> commercial interests-and planning authorities are helpless. Or is there a
> consensus-between them-and the people now want planning authroty to be
> reinstated for public interest- but isnt the same planning authority aiding
> the notification of hundreds of SEZ's? So is there another level of anxiety
> on the nature of planning practices that are acceptable and unacceptable?
>
> I was getting confused about who is against what-and what shall we want.
>
> I think the basic question is what kind of relationship we want between
> planning authorities, institutions of political democracy, politicians,
> different people (obviously we dont have one group-so what happens to the
> idea of one kind of public interest)-and developers and entreprenuers. How
> do we prioritise when there is rapid change. Whose rights are more suppored
> than others? How do we think about local, regional, national and global.
> Whose rights and interest should prevail where? How should authorities work
> . I remember David Harveys article on 'from managerialism to
> entreprenuerialism' in IJURR about the nature of urban governance in the
> world today. -quite an old article though.
>
> Or are we all thinking hard about corruption-within planning authorities,
> government etc.. or are we all observing our helplesness with the interests
> of capitalism and developers influence on our cities? But without these
> capitalists how do we provide the activities that help many people today to
> eat twice a day in our country, and many to enjoy the privileges that once
> only the powerful and rich could enjoy? or is the concern about managing
> that growth-keeping that pace? Are we becoming ideologists or pragmatists?
>
> some thoughts ... any critiques, comments and clarifications would be much
> useful.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jayaraj
>
>
> Jayaraj Sundaresan :http://personal.lse.ac.uk/SUNDARES
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD Research Room no: S 504 London School of
> Economics London WC2A 2AE UK Ph: +44 7862219546
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: mpisgmedia-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of aruna bhowmick
> Sent: Wed 30/07/2008 10:14
> To: Master plan issues in media
> Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] The BRA shapes our city without us
>
>
>
> Dear Vinay Baindur,
> I dont know why this mail, or what good it is to us after virtually all of
> Delhi has just got notified as 'Commercial' by the powersthat be, with all
> of SC, thinking public, law abiding public, et al totally defeated by the
> note and vote bankers. And all of Plannerdom just waxing eloquent about
> what
> is happening in Timbaktooo! With 'RWAs' assigned to take major
> decisions!!!!!
> We can only rue our fate. So please just spare us the academics.
> Sincerely,
> Aruna Bhowmick.
>
>
> On 7/26/08, Vinay Baindur <yanivbin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > *The development authorities have violated our zoning and public spaces
> > laws
> > for long and now with NURM in the picture there is ongoing massive forced
> > urban renewal for the benefit of the "Global Investor"
> >
> > the city and its citizens are being entered into a Great Competition
> > and the Competitive city has arrived here ---- conditions apply
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The BRA shapes our city without us*
> > by Shirley Kressel
> > contributing writer
> > Thursday Jul 17, 2008
> > http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=columns&sc=city_streets&id=77590
> >
> > In my last column, I reviewed some of the ways the *Boston Redevelopment
> > Authority* takes money from all of us. Now, let's turn to some of the
> BRA's
> > impacts on development, planning and public policy.
> >
> > The BRA, created in 1957, used stealth legislation to eliminate our
> > Planning
> > Board in 1960, elbowing the City Council, our legislative branch, out of
> > its
> > rightful role in planning and land use regulation. It has since taken
> over
> > many other Council roles, depriving us of essential checks and balances.
> >
> > The BRA uses its planning/zoning role and its urban renewal powers to
> make
> > what is illegal, legal. The BRA confers enormous wealth on favored
> > developers with its loophole-laden zoning code, shielding them from
> > lawsuits
> > for violating laws meant to protect the community. Politicians can make
> > private deals with developers, drawing campaign contributions that keep
> > them
> > in office. The BRA conducts the "public process" of review and approval
> and
> > absorbs the helpless wrath of citizens, while the officials remain
> > insulated
> > from public retribution.
> >
> > The BRA's "four finagles," as I call them, are:
> >
> > - Planned Development Areas (PDA), projects of an acre or more;
> >
> > - Chapter 121A agreements granting tax breaks, zoning relief, and eminent
> > domain power, for sites the BRA declares "blighted" *(in Boston, City
> > Council is cut out of 121A review);*
> >
> > - U-Districts, within the BRA's 3,000 acres of original Urban Renewal
> Plan
> > areas and constantly added "Demonstration Project" areas, where the BRA
> > conveys land to a developer; and
> >
> > - *Institutional Master Plans (IMP) of expanding tax-exempt
> institutions.*
> >
> > In these self-zoning districts, development rules are simply negotiated
> > with
> > the BRA. But such relief is illegal. It violates the Boston Zoning
> Enabling
> > Act, which gives the power of zoning relief only to the Zoning Board of
> > Appeal, whose process provides legal recourse: aggrieved parties can sue.
> > Thus, the BRA, having disarmed the legislative branch, has also largely
> > deprived us of the judicial branch, leaving the "three-legged stool" of
> > democratic government standing on the executive alone.
> >
> > No neighborhood is protected from the BRA's magical self-zoning wand,
> given
> > its liberal criteria - *although the BRA routinely violates even these*.
> > Even a project with only a half-acre of land has been made a PDA, by
> > counting nearby streets and sidewalks. Abracadabra!
> >
> > Even when the zoning code included provisions that the BRA's own lawyers
> > warned cannot be changed by a PDA, it used a PDA designation (indeed, the
> > half-acre one) to remove the code protection of the historic Gaiety
> Theatre
> > and destroyed it for an unlawful tower. Hocus pocus!
> >
> > Even where the code prohibits PDAs altogether, the BRA simply gets the
> > puppet Zoning Commission to delete the prohibition when it approves a
> PDA.
> > The tower replacing Filene's in Downtown Crossing was legalized this way.
> > The Columbus Center project was given a PDA, when, as a Turnpike air
> rights
> > area, it is not even subject to city zoning. The BRA's project manager on
> > the Columbus Center wrote in a memo in 2003 to the several local
> > neighborhood associations: "PDAs are not permitted in the Bay Village
> > Neighborhood District, the Open Space Urban Plaza subdistrict of the
> South
> > End Neighborhood District, or the portion of the Downtown IPOD that
> > includes
> > the Site. Text Amendment No. [blank], submitted by the BRA for approval
> > immediately prior to approval of the PDA Plan, would make such provisions
> > inapplicable to the Site." Presto!
> >
> > The BRA granted a 121A to Two Financial Center, a tower proposed in the
> > booming historic Leather District. Residents sued and lost: the BRA, the
> > court said, may declare blight at its discretion. That developer's
> revised
> > proposal for a still over-sized building stated that if the community
> > opposed a variance, he would take the 121A and not only over-build but
> take
> > the tax exemption as well. Loew's (now W) Hotel near the Theatre District
> > got a U-District when the BRA seized a few square feet of land near the
> > site
> > and conveyed it to the developer. Shazam!
> >
> > Coming up: the redevelopment of the Government Center Garage. It's big
> > enough for a PDA, but the BRA owns the adjacent parcel. By adding it to
> the
> > project, it can make a U-District, become an equity partner, and profit
> by
> > approving the biggest possible building. A 121A is also possible, and
> would
> > leave more money in the developer's budget for the BRA's lease fee.
> >
> > Institutional Master Plans are by used all colleges and health care
> > facilities. With their unfettered expansion, residential buildings become
> > student dorms, neighborhood-serving retail disappears, neighborhoods are
> > destabilized, voting power diminishes, families move out. And the tax
> > burden
> > of their exempted property is shifted to the rest of us.
> >
> > The BRA owns hundreds of acres of land rights, where it simply writes it
> > own
> > rules, an egregious conflict of interest the Boston Globe editorialized
> > about on April 6, 1999, "On top of South Station?": "The BRA ought to be
> > the
> > watchdog for the project, but it owns the air rights over the station and
> > stands to gain a fortune in lease payments..." It is a profit-seeking -
> and
> > unfairly advantaged --competitor in the real estate market. It tilts the
> > playing field with cronyism in developer designations (it is exempt from
> > competitive bidding laws), encourages (and engages in) speculation,
> permits
> > development that hurts our environment and quality of life, causes an
> > artificial land scarcity, and drives up land costs, driving up housing
> and
> > business costs.
> >
> > These few examples barely scratch the surface; the BRA's zoning
> shenanigans
> > could (and should) fill a book.
> >
> > Meanwhile, for a half-century, we, in the cradle of democracy, have been
> > without a planning entity that cares about anything besides the profits
> of
> > big developers (including itself). Its social mission remains to remake
> > Boston for better people. Its political mission as an "ethics laundry"
> > remains as well: to do the dirty work while keeping politicians' hands
> > clean.
> >
> > Accountable only to its own board, dissolvable only by its own hand, and
> > apparently out of reach of the ethics commission or any law enforcement
> > agency, the BRA is "da bums" we can't "t'row out."
> >
> >
> > Shirley Kressel is a landscape architect and urban designer, and one of
> the
> > founders of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods. She can be reached at
> > Shirley.Kressel@xxxxxxxxxxx.
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpisgmedia mailing list
> > at http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> at http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media
>
>
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer:
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> at http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media
>
discussion. But my submissions are simple.
1. Laws are expected to be equal and for the welfare of all.
2. In any situation, you can never please everyone. Like the thief and
the police(in our case only theoretically speaking).
3. All demands cannot/must not be fulfilled in civilised society. Eg. if
you wish to defacate in public, and indeed if *majority* were to do it,
we could easily abandon toilets. Would that be
democratic/elitist/....what???
4. Likewise, if majority students in a class wanted to shout, disturb,
dirty their premises, not wish to study, climb on desks, throw chalk, write
obscene graffiti on the black board, is the Teacher/ School/ Board of
Education to abandon teaching in school but continue to have the school,
collect the fees, and enroll students, anyway, to earn money (like our
government)? What would you term it, being as it is in 'popular
demand', DEMANDED by the MAJORITY?
5. Indeed, before we began to take this MAJORITY quite so seriously,
would it not have been wiser, more honest to have *educated this MAJORITY
*honestly? If MAJORITY is uneducated, and I daresay *uncivilised, *then
isn't it is a reflection on our society? What will the Planners plan? Let
the mobs do as they please and the Planners can go home---as indeed they
*HAVE. *What have they* planned *anyway, shops and offices in every room?
A hundred cars at every doorstep? Thanks, but no thanks. We don't
need *them
*to do this for us. The politicians are doing a good job of redefining
(un-)civilised living.
6. When five youngsters with bad throats demand ice cream, or with
dysentry demand open dust and fly ridden papri chaat from the roadside
vendor and parents, only *two *in number, resist this MAJORITY demand,
what is right and what is wrong---the demand or the denial?
7. That law, order, cleanliness, environment and health consciousness,
neatness and visual presentability are 'elitist' values, is a horrifying
thought!
If majority demand is the order of the day then close schools, finish
education, ABOLISH GOVERNMENT, abolish all institutions, [because both are
EXPENSIVE affairs]. Let the crowds run amuck-- spitting, urinating,
defacating, engine revving and horning, opening commerial places everywhere.
For, *THAT* IS THE MAJORITY DEMAND. Elitist or not, THESE are the people
getting from their scooters and Mruti 800s to BMWs and Honda CRVs within the
year.
We, with our humble homes, small cars, small *planned* families, fixed
incomes, and educated thinking are the alleged 'elitists' of today! Fine. If
asking for organised and lawful living is being 'elitist' then we are proud
to be that way, and thanks to our parents and the then 'system' that reared
us to be this way.
THANK GOD, we are NOT the BMW SPORTING *TRASH *that constitutes your
MAJORITY today, nor indeed the rerhiwallah from eastern uttarpradesh or the
republic of bihar. We are sad for this country, but very *proud *of
ourselves, and will die in your hands in dignity and pride, till of course *
nature* itself rebels and finishes this money making MAJORITY with their
rerhis and their BMWs.
In your concluding para you mention 'country', but that "help to people to
have two square meals a day, and afford everything that the rich afford",
can be done (a) away from only the metro cities, and (b) also with *
education.* not as is the wont today by acquiring everything thru sale and
purchase--generating money=power=abuse and misuse.
These are very basic thoughts and I'm sure abandoned/questioned not without
a deep and vested cause, by aspiring 'elitists', condemning, but
*aspiring*nonetheless! While
* we* just wish to remain ourselves, the alleged 'non-elitist' scratches to
become us. But they never will. For *we* have come up the hard way, with *
honesty* and *integrity* as our backbone.
So go ahead, de-plan the city, country, and dont forget to *notify *it,
albeit in the most unprocedural of ways!
Thanking you,
Mrs A Bhowmick.
On 7/31/08, J.Sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx <J.Sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Intoducing myself- I am Jayaraj- subscribed to this list for sometime now.
> Currently a research student on Cities, Architecture and planning.
>
> Thanks to Vinay for forwarding the BRA story- and for Aruna for the
> response- I very much appreciate the anxities and concerns. I am trying hard
> to understand better the nature of discussion and clear lines of arguments
> presented.
>
> From the critique of BRA- I could see the anxities from people's
> voice/public criticising the authority- for disempowering the citizens-for
> not taking their voice into consideration, and how this is affecting their
> lives. Here the (bureaucratic/technocratic- i dont know if it is- i am not
> aware of the constitution of BRA) instrument of democratic state is
> disempowering the citizens through top-down policies, by alligning with
> developers.
>
> Vinays comment on authorities violating zoning norms : Arent the planning
> authorities who decided the zoning norms in India in the first place? So who
> is violating it? They themselves? Are zoning laws and masterplanning then
> good-and desirable in Indian cities? I remember the other email group I
> subscribe to -(Urbanstudy)-the discussion and consensus say otherwise. some
> thinglike - ' How disempowering are zoning and masterplanning for
> communities and particular social groups etc... and we are better without
> them, leaving the emergent urbanism to be decided by the people themselves-
> not to step into their realm with public interest arguments which are
> elitist. May be some kind of advocacy planning is better in that context'.
>
> While in Aruna' s anxieties on Delhi- it is about populist politics
> disempowering the citizens- but how can this happen? populist politics can
> only be beneficial to majority citizens -isnt it? because populist is about
> acting on the behalf of majority -to get votes. I also see a distinction of
> thinking public / law abiding public in the writing. So does this actally
> mean political democracy is disempowering the authority that is entrusted to
> save public interest that is not really majority public's concern? I think
> here there is a deeper question on what is the nature of the authority we
> are discussing about and also on the nature of public interest. Many times
> the majority public is seen to be more concerend with private interest
> ! Ofcourse I understand that there are no easy answers to public interest.
> As a practising planner to me this infact is an aspect of practice than of
> academic interest alone.
>
> However I was trying to find out the similarity and difference etc in these
> three discussion. Is Aruna in this case then supporting a public interest
> that only a minority public is interested in- merited to be adopted as
> general-based on 'knowledge' about how the city works? Should we be sticking
> to zoning then?. The write seem to be sugegsting that populist politics is
> disempowering the authority by colluding with the developers-- supporting
> commercial interests-and planning authorities are helpless. Or is there a
> consensus-between them-and the people now want planning authroty to be
> reinstated for public interest- but isnt the same planning authority aiding
> the notification of hundreds of SEZ's? So is there another level of anxiety
> on the nature of planning practices that are acceptable and unacceptable?
>
> I was getting confused about who is against what-and what shall we want.
>
> I think the basic question is what kind of relationship we want between
> planning authorities, institutions of political democracy, politicians,
> different people (obviously we dont have one group-so what happens to the
> idea of one kind of public interest)-and developers and entreprenuers. How
> do we prioritise when there is rapid change. Whose rights are more suppored
> than others? How do we think about local, regional, national and global.
> Whose rights and interest should prevail where? How should authorities work
> . I remember David Harveys article on 'from managerialism to
> entreprenuerialism' in IJURR about the nature of urban governance in the
> world today. -quite an old article though.
>
> Or are we all thinking hard about corruption-within planning authorities,
> government etc.. or are we all observing our helplesness with the interests
> of capitalism and developers influence on our cities? But without these
> capitalists how do we provide the activities that help many people today to
> eat twice a day in our country, and many to enjoy the privileges that once
> only the powerful and rich could enjoy? or is the concern about managing
> that growth-keeping that pace? Are we becoming ideologists or pragmatists?
>
> some thoughts ... any critiques, comments and clarifications would be much
> useful.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jayaraj
>
>
> Jayaraj Sundaresan :http://personal.lse.ac.uk/SUNDARES
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD Research Room no: S 504 London School of
> Economics London WC2A 2AE UK Ph: +44 7862219546
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: mpisgmedia-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of aruna bhowmick
> Sent: Wed 30/07/2008 10:14
> To: Master plan issues in media
> Subject: Re: [mpisgmedia] The BRA shapes our city without us
>
>
>
> Dear Vinay Baindur,
> I dont know why this mail, or what good it is to us after virtually all of
> Delhi has just got notified as 'Commercial' by the powersthat be, with all
> of SC, thinking public, law abiding public, et al totally defeated by the
> note and vote bankers. And all of Plannerdom just waxing eloquent about
> what
> is happening in Timbaktooo! With 'RWAs' assigned to take major
> decisions!!!!!
> We can only rue our fate. So please just spare us the academics.
> Sincerely,
> Aruna Bhowmick.
>
>
> On 7/26/08, Vinay Baindur <yanivbin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > *The development authorities have violated our zoning and public spaces
> > laws
> > for long and now with NURM in the picture there is ongoing massive forced
> > urban renewal for the benefit of the "Global Investor"
> >
> > the city and its citizens are being entered into a Great Competition
> > and the Competitive city has arrived here ---- conditions apply
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The BRA shapes our city without us*
> > by Shirley Kressel
> > contributing writer
> > Thursday Jul 17, 2008
> > http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=columns&sc=city_streets&id=77590
> >
> > In my last column, I reviewed some of the ways the *Boston Redevelopment
> > Authority* takes money from all of us. Now, let's turn to some of the
> BRA's
> > impacts on development, planning and public policy.
> >
> > The BRA, created in 1957, used stealth legislation to eliminate our
> > Planning
> > Board in 1960, elbowing the City Council, our legislative branch, out of
> > its
> > rightful role in planning and land use regulation. It has since taken
> over
> > many other Council roles, depriving us of essential checks and balances.
> >
> > The BRA uses its planning/zoning role and its urban renewal powers to
> make
> > what is illegal, legal. The BRA confers enormous wealth on favored
> > developers with its loophole-laden zoning code, shielding them from
> > lawsuits
> > for violating laws meant to protect the community. Politicians can make
> > private deals with developers, drawing campaign contributions that keep
> > them
> > in office. The BRA conducts the "public process" of review and approval
> and
> > absorbs the helpless wrath of citizens, while the officials remain
> > insulated
> > from public retribution.
> >
> > The BRA's "four finagles," as I call them, are:
> >
> > - Planned Development Areas (PDA), projects of an acre or more;
> >
> > - Chapter 121A agreements granting tax breaks, zoning relief, and eminent
> > domain power, for sites the BRA declares "blighted" *(in Boston, City
> > Council is cut out of 121A review);*
> >
> > - U-Districts, within the BRA's 3,000 acres of original Urban Renewal
> Plan
> > areas and constantly added "Demonstration Project" areas, where the BRA
> > conveys land to a developer; and
> >
> > - *Institutional Master Plans (IMP) of expanding tax-exempt
> institutions.*
> >
> > In these self-zoning districts, development rules are simply negotiated
> > with
> > the BRA. But such relief is illegal. It violates the Boston Zoning
> Enabling
> > Act, which gives the power of zoning relief only to the Zoning Board of
> > Appeal, whose process provides legal recourse: aggrieved parties can sue.
> > Thus, the BRA, having disarmed the legislative branch, has also largely
> > deprived us of the judicial branch, leaving the "three-legged stool" of
> > democratic government standing on the executive alone.
> >
> > No neighborhood is protected from the BRA's magical self-zoning wand,
> given
> > its liberal criteria - *although the BRA routinely violates even these*.
> > Even a project with only a half-acre of land has been made a PDA, by
> > counting nearby streets and sidewalks. Abracadabra!
> >
> > Even when the zoning code included provisions that the BRA's own lawyers
> > warned cannot be changed by a PDA, it used a PDA designation (indeed, the
> > half-acre one) to remove the code protection of the historic Gaiety
> Theatre
> > and destroyed it for an unlawful tower. Hocus pocus!
> >
> > Even where the code prohibits PDAs altogether, the BRA simply gets the
> > puppet Zoning Commission to delete the prohibition when it approves a
> PDA.
> > The tower replacing Filene's in Downtown Crossing was legalized this way.
> > The Columbus Center project was given a PDA, when, as a Turnpike air
> rights
> > area, it is not even subject to city zoning. The BRA's project manager on
> > the Columbus Center wrote in a memo in 2003 to the several local
> > neighborhood associations: "PDAs are not permitted in the Bay Village
> > Neighborhood District, the Open Space Urban Plaza subdistrict of the
> South
> > End Neighborhood District, or the portion of the Downtown IPOD that
> > includes
> > the Site. Text Amendment No. [blank], submitted by the BRA for approval
> > immediately prior to approval of the PDA Plan, would make such provisions
> > inapplicable to the Site." Presto!
> >
> > The BRA granted a 121A to Two Financial Center, a tower proposed in the
> > booming historic Leather District. Residents sued and lost: the BRA, the
> > court said, may declare blight at its discretion. That developer's
> revised
> > proposal for a still over-sized building stated that if the community
> > opposed a variance, he would take the 121A and not only over-build but
> take
> > the tax exemption as well. Loew's (now W) Hotel near the Theatre District
> > got a U-District when the BRA seized a few square feet of land near the
> > site
> > and conveyed it to the developer. Shazam!
> >
> > Coming up: the redevelopment of the Government Center Garage. It's big
> > enough for a PDA, but the BRA owns the adjacent parcel. By adding it to
> the
> > project, it can make a U-District, become an equity partner, and profit
> by
> > approving the biggest possible building. A 121A is also possible, and
> would
> > leave more money in the developer's budget for the BRA's lease fee.
> >
> > Institutional Master Plans are by used all colleges and health care
> > facilities. With their unfettered expansion, residential buildings become
> > student dorms, neighborhood-serving retail disappears, neighborhoods are
> > destabilized, voting power diminishes, families move out. And the tax
> > burden
> > of their exempted property is shifted to the rest of us.
> >
> > The BRA owns hundreds of acres of land rights, where it simply writes it
> > own
> > rules, an egregious conflict of interest the Boston Globe editorialized
> > about on April 6, 1999, "On top of South Station?": "The BRA ought to be
> > the
> > watchdog for the project, but it owns the air rights over the station and
> > stands to gain a fortune in lease payments..." It is a profit-seeking -
> and
> > unfairly advantaged --competitor in the real estate market. It tilts the
> > playing field with cronyism in developer designations (it is exempt from
> > competitive bidding laws), encourages (and engages in) speculation,
> permits
> > development that hurts our environment and quality of life, causes an
> > artificial land scarcity, and drives up land costs, driving up housing
> and
> > business costs.
> >
> > These few examples barely scratch the surface; the BRA's zoning
> shenanigans
> > could (and should) fill a book.
> >
> > Meanwhile, for a half-century, we, in the cradle of democracy, have been
> > without a planning entity that cares about anything besides the profits
> of
> > big developers (including itself). Its social mission remains to remake
> > Boston for better people. Its political mission as an "ethics laundry"
> > remains as well: to do the dirty work while keeping politicians' hands
> > clean.
> >
> > Accountable only to its own board, dissolvable only by its own hand, and
> > apparently out of reach of the ethics commission or any law enforcement
> > agency, the BRA is "da bums" we can't "t'row out."
> >
> >
> > Shirley Kressel is a landscape architect and urban designer, and one of
> the
> > founders of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods. She can be reached at
> > Shirley.Kressel@xxxxxxxxxxx.
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpisgmedia mailing list
> > at http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> at http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media
>
>
>
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
> communications disclaimer:
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/secretariat/legal/disclaimer.htm
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> at http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media
>