The ?guidelines? that were announced on 28.07.2003 (or
rather, re-announced, as they have been time and again
since 1999), arguably unlawfully and certainly in
disregard of the Master Plan and due process of its
revision as well as legal Public Notice, judicial and
Parliamentary processes that are underway, are poised
to substitute the legal and democratic Public Notice
process.
LG and Union Urban Development Minister announced the
?guidelines?. An exclusive ?debate? is raging in media
with ?experts? speaking ?against? them putting up very
weak criticism. MCD chief and chief planner have come
out in open support, Delhi government, while
?rubbishing? the announcement has gone on to claim
credit for the content of the ?guidelines?, and now
Prime Minister has called for a constructive view and
there is talk of review of DDA?s statutory mandate.
Amidst this emergent ?consensus? DDA, pulling out the
oldest trick in the book of pseudo-participation, has
invited ?comments and suggestions?.
There is nothing new in the ?guidelines? and the
radical ideas that they purportedly espouse have been
and will remain open to debate till tested and proven
right or wrong. What makes the ?guidelines?
objectionable is the manner in which they are being
unlawfully pushed. That is the point on which those
who wish to engage ?against? them would do well to
concentrate and those who wish to engage ?for? them
would also do well to resolve for a smoother last lap
to the winning post that must seem to them in striking
distance now.
I, of course, am ?against? the ?guidelines? from the
overall position that holistically considered
long-term planning is indispensable for equitable and
sustainable urban land use and any ?innovation? that
claims to be ?better? should first of all be able to
stand up to ruthless assessment against what is
?good?. This is considered a ?regressive? position
amidst the so-called ?consensus? on the so-called
?dynamic planning? paradigm, part of the larger
liberalization paradigm, purportedly progressive ?
not, as far as I can make out from conceptual and
empirical evidence, for any proven worth but on the
rebound, so to speak, for not being old-fashioned
lawyerly plannerly. The paradigm is popular as it
allows all development-walas to ?participate? at will
with their little pieces of the urban development
action while the city crosses its fingers and toes and
waits for everyone?s two-bits to somehow add up to a
nice big picture. On the side of those like me whose
jaws drop at this childlike optimism is, so far, the
law. The legal basis of Delhi Master Plan is uniquely
strong and that is really the only reason that the
?regressive? position in its support still survives
and ?progressive? dynamic planning guidelines, such as
these being pushed since 1999, have not entirely
?won?.
The following I think, from my ?regressive? position,
are in public interest at the moment:
1. not commenting on the ?guidelines? and, instead,
asking for clarification of legal / constitutional
authority with which they were announced rather than
just sent to DDA as ?suggestions? (see letter to the
Minister at
<http://www.delhiscienceforum.org/dmp2021/documents/A_GL.htm#moud>)
2. not responding to DDA?s call for comments and,
instead, asking for clarification of statutory basis
for inviting comments and official procedure by which
they will be considered (see 2nd request in letter to
DDA Vice Chairman at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/message/29>)
3. using the opportunity to ask for (a) status of
lawful Plan revision and/or (b) analysis of civic
surveys and implementation monitoring data for
comparative assessment with existing provisions (see
1st and 3rd requests in letter at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/message/29>)
4. using the opportunity to raise again questions
about implementation accountability already raised by
due processes ? ie, Public Notices, matters in courts
or commissions, response to Parliamentary Committee
(see 4th requests in letter at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/message/29>)
5. [most importantly] doing the above, preferably
synergistically.
I am not presuming to be ?planner adviser?. This is
just to tell what some others and I are doing. I will
be updating the DMP-2021 Minder at
<http://www.delhiscienceforum.org> at the earliest and
from next week I?ll post these mails only to the
mailing list at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/ so all who
feel pestered by plannerly prose can rejoice and
masochists and others interested in ?regressive?
planning can join the list and if lazy tell me to add
their eml ids to it since I have progressively figured
out how that is done.
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner / 04.08.2003
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
rather, re-announced, as they have been time and again
since 1999), arguably unlawfully and certainly in
disregard of the Master Plan and due process of its
revision as well as legal Public Notice, judicial and
Parliamentary processes that are underway, are poised
to substitute the legal and democratic Public Notice
process.
LG and Union Urban Development Minister announced the
?guidelines?. An exclusive ?debate? is raging in media
with ?experts? speaking ?against? them putting up very
weak criticism. MCD chief and chief planner have come
out in open support, Delhi government, while
?rubbishing? the announcement has gone on to claim
credit for the content of the ?guidelines?, and now
Prime Minister has called for a constructive view and
there is talk of review of DDA?s statutory mandate.
Amidst this emergent ?consensus? DDA, pulling out the
oldest trick in the book of pseudo-participation, has
invited ?comments and suggestions?.
There is nothing new in the ?guidelines? and the
radical ideas that they purportedly espouse have been
and will remain open to debate till tested and proven
right or wrong. What makes the ?guidelines?
objectionable is the manner in which they are being
unlawfully pushed. That is the point on which those
who wish to engage ?against? them would do well to
concentrate and those who wish to engage ?for? them
would also do well to resolve for a smoother last lap
to the winning post that must seem to them in striking
distance now.
I, of course, am ?against? the ?guidelines? from the
overall position that holistically considered
long-term planning is indispensable for equitable and
sustainable urban land use and any ?innovation? that
claims to be ?better? should first of all be able to
stand up to ruthless assessment against what is
?good?. This is considered a ?regressive? position
amidst the so-called ?consensus? on the so-called
?dynamic planning? paradigm, part of the larger
liberalization paradigm, purportedly progressive ?
not, as far as I can make out from conceptual and
empirical evidence, for any proven worth but on the
rebound, so to speak, for not being old-fashioned
lawyerly plannerly. The paradigm is popular as it
allows all development-walas to ?participate? at will
with their little pieces of the urban development
action while the city crosses its fingers and toes and
waits for everyone?s two-bits to somehow add up to a
nice big picture. On the side of those like me whose
jaws drop at this childlike optimism is, so far, the
law. The legal basis of Delhi Master Plan is uniquely
strong and that is really the only reason that the
?regressive? position in its support still survives
and ?progressive? dynamic planning guidelines, such as
these being pushed since 1999, have not entirely
?won?.
The following I think, from my ?regressive? position,
are in public interest at the moment:
1. not commenting on the ?guidelines? and, instead,
asking for clarification of legal / constitutional
authority with which they were announced rather than
just sent to DDA as ?suggestions? (see letter to the
Minister at
<http://www.delhiscienceforum.org/dmp2021/documents/A_GL.htm#moud>)
2. not responding to DDA?s call for comments and,
instead, asking for clarification of statutory basis
for inviting comments and official procedure by which
they will be considered (see 2nd request in letter to
DDA Vice Chairman at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/message/29>)
3. using the opportunity to ask for (a) status of
lawful Plan revision and/or (b) analysis of civic
surveys and implementation monitoring data for
comparative assessment with existing provisions (see
1st and 3rd requests in letter at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/message/29>)
4. using the opportunity to raise again questions
about implementation accountability already raised by
due processes ? ie, Public Notices, matters in courts
or commissions, response to Parliamentary Committee
(see 4th requests in letter at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/message/29>)
5. [most importantly] doing the above, preferably
synergistically.
I am not presuming to be ?planner adviser?. This is
just to tell what some others and I are doing. I will
be updating the DMP-2021 Minder at
<http://www.delhiscienceforum.org> at the earliest and
from next week I?ll post these mails only to the
mailing list at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgplanner/ so all who
feel pestered by plannerly prose can rejoice and
masochists and others interested in ?regressive?
planning can join the list and if lazy tell me to add
their eml ids to it since I have progressively figured
out how that is done.
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner / 04.08.2003
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com