This mail bounced back from the eml id mentioned on
DDA's website. Am trying again and if it bounces back
again will use 3d communication. Regards, Gita
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 08:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: ?Guidelines? for Delhi?s ?third? Master
> Plan
> To: mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> masterplan@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> DDA has invited (at
>
<http://www.ddadelhi.com/docs/310703-GuidelinesMPD2021.htm>)
> comments / suggestions about Master Plan
> ?guidelines?
> announced on 28.07.2003 and hotly debated ever
> since.
> The following is the text of my letter to DDA Vice
> Chairman - not really to comment on the content of
> ?guidelines? but to make in their context some
> urgent
> requests about the due process of Plan revision.
> For information, also to the eml id mentioned on
> DDA?s
> website for comments/suggestions.
> Gita Dewan Verma / Planner / 03.08.2003
>
> ------------------
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Firstly, this is to request you to make public the
> status of Delhi Master Plan revision expected of DDA
> by due process of law, inclusive of basis in
> planning
> data (civic surveys under s.10 of the Act and
> implementation monitoring under Master Plan
> provisions
> for Plan review), duly considered by sectoral
> experts
> and authorities for synthesis into holistically
> considered scenarios for a draft for public comment.
> I
> make this request in view of confusion created by
> ?guidelines? announced on 28.07.03 even as their
> announcement frustrates due process of Plan revision
> as well as public notice, judicial and Parliamentary
> processes currently underway. A letter to the
> Minister
> in this regard is at Encl.1.
>
> Secondly, this is to ask why DDA has invited
> comments
> on these ?guidelines?. Since the ?guidelines? are
> not
> of the type MoUD issues for minding DDA?s statutory
> mandate as its nodal ministry, there is no basis to
> treat them differently from other suggestions. And
> inviting comment, except on the draft through due
> process of Public Notice, is extra-legal and calls
> for
> transparency about purpose and mechanism. Also,
> comments were similarly invited on ?recommendations?
> in 1999 and a cursory perusal reveals that 11 of the
> 17 ?guidelines? of 2003 reiterate ?recommendations?
> of
> 1999 while 4 are perfunctory and 2 arguably
> premature
> (Encl.2). I am sure you will appreciate this places
> a
> question mark on four years of work on the Plan
> revision and calls for clarification of why these
> ?guidelines? are receiving special attention by DDA
> and being strongly advocated in the media by its
> Chairman.
>
> Thirdly, this is to request that analysis of surveys
> and monitoring be made public if DDA wishes to
> invite
> comment prior to Public Notice stage as otherwise
> meaningful suggestions are not possible, as obvious
> from ones made in the ?guidelines?. 4 of the
> ?guidelines? (about NCR, unauthorized colonies, Plan
> implementation, and built/natural heritage) merely
> restate existing Plan provisions and 2 do so in
> ?liberalized? versions (old city redevelopment
> instead
> of management and flexible land use instead of
> regulated mixed use for flexibility), while
> suggesting
> these are new ideas and so skirting accountability
> on
> implementation failures. The ?guideline? on slums
> and
> the parts of the ?guideline? on flexible land use
> relating to industries, likewise, skirt
> accountability
> on 5000 hectares meant for low-income housing and
> industries. The ?guidelines? about greater FAR along
> metro corridor, vertical construction, private
> developers and change in land policy are completely
> contrary to the overall structure of the Plan and
> since radical modifications are not permissible
> under
> the Act they can only be commented upon with
> reference
> to the holistically considered basis for proposing
> them. It must be emphasized that due process of Plan
> modification guarantees citizens accountability on
> Plan implementation and safeguard against radical
> changes amounting to abandonment of the Plan to
> sweep
> implementation failures under the carpet. In view,
> especially, of the obfuscation of planning failures
> and implementation failures in the ?guidelines? as
> well as by several ?experts? being quoted by media,
> the publicity being given to the ?guidelines? needs
> to
> be matched with awareness about the Plan and its
> implementation so that the discourse is sensibly
> informed in widest public interest. I have been
> requesting a more structured and
> accountability-ensuring approach to public
> participation since 1999 (see Encl.3) and would
> deeply
> appreciate a response at least now.
>
> Fourthly, this is to seek assurance that comments
> sought will be considered. I am constrained to ask
> this because over the last four years techno-legal
> objections and suggestions made in conformity with
> the
> premises of the Plan and the process of its
> modification through letters, reports, responses to
> Public Notices, court cases, etc, on nearly all the
> matters covered by these ?guidelines? and others as
> well have not been considered. If comments and
> suggestions of others are to be considered only if
> they ?endorse? suggestions already made by some in
> 1999 and periodically repeated at press conferences,
> then this should be specified. If comments are
> genuinely sought to refine the Plan revision in
> public
> interest, then assurance of this requires DDA to
> first
> respond to techno-legal objections already raised
> (illustrated in Encl.4) in matters covered by these
> ?guidelines?.
>
> Lastly, I request caution (since how seriously DDA
> is
> seen taking suggestions about land use affects real
> estate trends and investments once made can create
> pressures on the Plan revision process) and
> conscience
> effort to ensure that ad-hoc extra-legal initiatives
> for public participation do not undermine the public
> notice process (which remains the only legal and
> inclusive mechanism for citizens? participation in
> planned development).
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
DDA's website. Am trying again and if it bounces back
again will use 3d communication. Regards, Gita
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 08:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: ?Guidelines? for Delhi?s ?third? Master
> Plan
> To: mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> masterplan@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> DDA has invited (at
>
<http://www.ddadelhi.com/docs/310703-GuidelinesMPD2021.htm>)
> comments / suggestions about Master Plan
> ?guidelines?
> announced on 28.07.2003 and hotly debated ever
> since.
> The following is the text of my letter to DDA Vice
> Chairman - not really to comment on the content of
> ?guidelines? but to make in their context some
> urgent
> requests about the due process of Plan revision.
> For information, also to the eml id mentioned on
> DDA?s
> website for comments/suggestions.
> Gita Dewan Verma / Planner / 03.08.2003
>
> ------------------
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Firstly, this is to request you to make public the
> status of Delhi Master Plan revision expected of DDA
> by due process of law, inclusive of basis in
> planning
> data (civic surveys under s.10 of the Act and
> implementation monitoring under Master Plan
> provisions
> for Plan review), duly considered by sectoral
> experts
> and authorities for synthesis into holistically
> considered scenarios for a draft for public comment.
> I
> make this request in view of confusion created by
> ?guidelines? announced on 28.07.03 even as their
> announcement frustrates due process of Plan revision
> as well as public notice, judicial and Parliamentary
> processes currently underway. A letter to the
> Minister
> in this regard is at Encl.1.
>
> Secondly, this is to ask why DDA has invited
> comments
> on these ?guidelines?. Since the ?guidelines? are
> not
> of the type MoUD issues for minding DDA?s statutory
> mandate as its nodal ministry, there is no basis to
> treat them differently from other suggestions. And
> inviting comment, except on the draft through due
> process of Public Notice, is extra-legal and calls
> for
> transparency about purpose and mechanism. Also,
> comments were similarly invited on ?recommendations?
> in 1999 and a cursory perusal reveals that 11 of the
> 17 ?guidelines? of 2003 reiterate ?recommendations?
> of
> 1999 while 4 are perfunctory and 2 arguably
> premature
> (Encl.2). I am sure you will appreciate this places
> a
> question mark on four years of work on the Plan
> revision and calls for clarification of why these
> ?guidelines? are receiving special attention by DDA
> and being strongly advocated in the media by its
> Chairman.
>
> Thirdly, this is to request that analysis of surveys
> and monitoring be made public if DDA wishes to
> invite
> comment prior to Public Notice stage as otherwise
> meaningful suggestions are not possible, as obvious
> from ones made in the ?guidelines?. 4 of the
> ?guidelines? (about NCR, unauthorized colonies, Plan
> implementation, and built/natural heritage) merely
> restate existing Plan provisions and 2 do so in
> ?liberalized? versions (old city redevelopment
> instead
> of management and flexible land use instead of
> regulated mixed use for flexibility), while
> suggesting
> these are new ideas and so skirting accountability
> on
> implementation failures. The ?guideline? on slums
> and
> the parts of the ?guideline? on flexible land use
> relating to industries, likewise, skirt
> accountability
> on 5000 hectares meant for low-income housing and
> industries. The ?guidelines? about greater FAR along
> metro corridor, vertical construction, private
> developers and change in land policy are completely
> contrary to the overall structure of the Plan and
> since radical modifications are not permissible
> under
> the Act they can only be commented upon with
> reference
> to the holistically considered basis for proposing
> them. It must be emphasized that due process of Plan
> modification guarantees citizens accountability on
> Plan implementation and safeguard against radical
> changes amounting to abandonment of the Plan to
> sweep
> implementation failures under the carpet. In view,
> especially, of the obfuscation of planning failures
> and implementation failures in the ?guidelines? as
> well as by several ?experts? being quoted by media,
> the publicity being given to the ?guidelines? needs
> to
> be matched with awareness about the Plan and its
> implementation so that the discourse is sensibly
> informed in widest public interest. I have been
> requesting a more structured and
> accountability-ensuring approach to public
> participation since 1999 (see Encl.3) and would
> deeply
> appreciate a response at least now.
>
> Fourthly, this is to seek assurance that comments
> sought will be considered. I am constrained to ask
> this because over the last four years techno-legal
> objections and suggestions made in conformity with
> the
> premises of the Plan and the process of its
> modification through letters, reports, responses to
> Public Notices, court cases, etc, on nearly all the
> matters covered by these ?guidelines? and others as
> well have not been considered. If comments and
> suggestions of others are to be considered only if
> they ?endorse? suggestions already made by some in
> 1999 and periodically repeated at press conferences,
> then this should be specified. If comments are
> genuinely sought to refine the Plan revision in
> public
> interest, then assurance of this requires DDA to
> first
> respond to techno-legal objections already raised
> (illustrated in Encl.4) in matters covered by these
> ?guidelines?.
>
> Lastly, I request caution (since how seriously DDA
> is
> seen taking suggestions about land use affects real
> estate trends and investments once made can create
> pressures on the Plan revision process) and
> conscience
> effort to ensure that ad-hoc extra-legal initiatives
> for public participation do not undermine the public
> notice process (which remains the only legal and
> inclusive mechanism for citizens? participation in
> planned development).
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com