Delhi Master Plan (2021) [R-zone fraud]
Delhi Master Plan (2021) Revision Monitor,
Delhi's Master Plan came into force in 1962 for a perspective up to 1981, was then revised for a perspective up to 2001 and is currently being revised for 2021. A description of the 1962 Plan and Plan 2001 and the vision guiding the revision can be seen on Delhi Development Authority's website.
As a document of citizens' entitlements in benefits of planned development Delhi's Master Plan is arguably adequate, but its implementation has not been so. Accountability on implementation, however, features nowhere in the Plan revision discourse, leaving citizens no choice but to mind their entitlements themselves.
The purpose of this Monitor is to track the Plan revision end-game and place it in an entitlements' perspective to facilitate informed public participation in those 90 days to, in turn, secure Plan ownership for the next two decades. The entitlements' perspective of planned development might also be of interest elsewhere as Master Plans are currently being revised in several cities.
[1] The citizens’ groups who have been pursuing Master Plan implementation include residents in villages, old bastis, recent flats, service providers’ settlements, resettlement colonies, etc. They have been engaging separately with DDA through letters, reports, etc. And they have been engaging jointly or collectively on matters of mutual interest. There have been partnerships, such as between flat residents and hawkers for organising hawking according to hawkers’ entitlements under the Plan. There have been coordinated efforts, such as slum and flat residents seeking implementation of conditions for, respectively, free seats and local enrolment in schools, and residents in old bastis, recent slums and resettlement colonies opposing Plan violating inferior low-income housing options. There have been support actions, such as flat residents objecting to slum resettlement in support of slum residents’ demand for housing according to Plan, basti residents supporting hawkers' in carrying out a survey, etc. There have been joint efforts on court matters, such as a joint petition by village, flat and basti residents and hawkers to challenge up-market disposal of local commercial facilities in violation of the Plan and substantive engaging leading to the PIL that stopped DDA’s illegal HIG scheme in green belt. There has been collective action, including a 2 month long demonstration in support of Plan implementation, a 2-week long effort to mobilise over 1700 objections in response to a Public Notice for land use change of green belt, etc. There has even been a collective attempt to position planned development on the political agenda through participation in the municipal elections of 2002 with a proxy candidate to seek a vote for the Master Plan. The joint efforts of citizens’ groups separately engaging on their entitlements use a synergy platform called Master Plan Implementation Support Group (MPISG). MPISG is a platform of citizens’ groups, primary stakeholders, but for expediency has as member the Planner who is consultant / adviser to its member groups. The independent documentation contributing to this Minder is that of MPISG Planner. It has tracked in relation to the on-going Plan revision most Plan issues (housing, industries, commerce, facilities, environment, heritage, etc). Their inter-connections are captured in a ‘case study’ at 100,000 population level (mid-hierarchy planning level at which most Plan norms are explicit and most issues converge) where MPISG groups from different sections are active. Implementation, revision, participation, etc, processes have also been explored. All this is chronicled in reports, court cases, audiovisual material, a book, papers, correspondence, etc. Only a small part of this substantive professional work is posted here, but all is available to anyone for any use consistent with its purpose and position.
[2] The dominant pro-Plan position views the Plan as a pretty-picture blueprint requiring ruthless clearance of unplanned development for planned development in the likeness of global cities.
The anti-Plan position argues for regularisation of all unplanned development on grounds of planned development being anti-people.
The Plan-ambivalent position is a curious combination of anti-Plan rhetoric and ‘data’ suggesting need for implementation, of simultaneous demands for Plan implementation and regularisation of unplanned development, etc. All these three positions take an inadequate view of Plan entitlements of citizens, especially the poor.
The pro-Plan and anti-Plan positions disregard these altogether and the Plan-ambivalent position, despite its ‘data’ about failures to implement (some) pro-poor Plan provisions, obfuscates them with its overall anti-Plan stance. All fail to acknowledge that the pro-poor provisions of the Plan represent, besides entitlements of the poor to city space, entitlements of all to squalor-free sustainable development and, though the Plan is aimed at fostering synergistic society, project it as somehow being at the root of class-conflict. All these three positions also take an inadequate view of Plan revision process, especially by failing to insist on mandatory provisions that guarantee implementation accountability.
Even the Plan-ambivalent position, despite its own implementation failure ‘data’, stops short of demanding simply Plan implementation and, instead, posits original ideas to imply planning failures. By using the Plan revision as an opportunity to advocate their own planning ideas all these positions have in effect contributed to sweeping under the carpet implementation failures adding up to a massive land scam, something not possible in Plan revision by due process of law. All these three positions also take an inadequate view of participation in Plan revision, reducing it to one-time effort in merely Plan-making, or rather support for their positions by their constituencies.
The opportunity to build broad-based Plan ownership in course of Plan revision has been foregone by undermining public faith in the Plan through unfounded criticism and advocacy of inferior alternatives as ‘better’. And marginalisation of professionals in the planning-without-planners paradigm that all three positions take pride in has led also to missing the opportunity to promote ownership of the Plan among young professionals who are its future custodians.
The entitlements’ perspective of the Plan and its revision, although it has not found place in the discourse dominated by these three positions, is potentially more useful especially for citizens and young professionals whose ‘turn’ to participate is guaranteed by the Public Notice process. >> more about the entitlements’ perspective of the Plan and its revision in the DEMYSTIFY section.
Delhi's Master Plan came into force in 1962 for a perspective up to 1981, was then revised for a perspective up to 2001 and is currently being revised for 2021. A description of the 1962 Plan and Plan 2001 and the vision guiding the revision can be seen on Delhi Development Authority's website.
As a document of citizens' entitlements in benefits of planned development Delhi's Master Plan is arguably adequate, but its implementation has not been so. Accountability on implementation, however, features nowhere in the Plan revision discourse, leaving citizens no choice but to mind their entitlements themselves.
The purpose of this Monitor is to track the Plan revision end-game and place it in an entitlements' perspective to facilitate informed public participation in those 90 days to, in turn, secure Plan ownership for the next two decades. The entitlements' perspective of planned development might also be of interest elsewhere as Master Plans are currently being revised in several cities.
This "minder" is based on professional planning work since 1999/2000 with citizens’ groups seeking Master Plan implementation and on independent engagements to track Plan related developments and place them in an analytical perspective to generate a basis for informed participation in the ongoing Plan revision.[**1] What emerges from the account forming the basis of this "minder" is by no means a pretty picture. There have been gross Plan implementation failures adding up to a massive land scam involving perhaps a fifth of the city’s land and Plan revision is poised to legitimize this.
The premise of this assessment and this "minder" is that planned development is not Plan-making but development according to Plan, which is a document of entitlements on which Plan revision must provide implementation accountability and enhancement assurance while seeking participation to build Plan ownership. This position is different from the dominant pro-Plan, anti-Plan and Plan-ambivalent positions that the 4-year long discourse has thrown up, which view the Plan as a plannerly artifact, its revision as a moment to posit alternatives and purpose of participation in it as advocacy rather than ownership.[**2]
[1] The citizens’ groups who have been pursuing Master Plan implementation include residents in villages, old bastis, recent flats, service providers’ settlements, resettlement colonies, etc. They have been engaging separately with DDA through letters, reports, etc. And they have been engaging jointly or collectively on matters of mutual interest. There have been partnerships, such as between flat residents and hawkers for organising hawking according to hawkers’ entitlements under the Plan. There have been coordinated efforts, such as slum and flat residents seeking implementation of conditions for, respectively, free seats and local enrolment in schools, and residents in old bastis, recent slums and resettlement colonies opposing Plan violating inferior low-income housing options. There have been support actions, such as flat residents objecting to slum resettlement in support of slum residents’ demand for housing according to Plan, basti residents supporting hawkers' in carrying out a survey, etc. There have been joint efforts on court matters, such as a joint petition by village, flat and basti residents and hawkers to challenge up-market disposal of local commercial facilities in violation of the Plan and substantive engaging leading to the PIL that stopped DDA’s illegal HIG scheme in green belt. There has been collective action, including a 2 month long demonstration in support of Plan implementation, a 2-week long effort to mobilise over 1700 objections in response to a Public Notice for land use change of green belt, etc. There has even been a collective attempt to position planned development on the political agenda through participation in the municipal elections of 2002 with a proxy candidate to seek a vote for the Master Plan. The joint efforts of citizens’ groups separately engaging on their entitlements use a synergy platform called Master Plan Implementation Support Group (MPISG). MPISG is a platform of citizens’ groups, primary stakeholders, but for expediency has as member the Planner who is consultant / adviser to its member groups. The independent documentation contributing to this Minder is that of MPISG Planner. It has tracked in relation to the on-going Plan revision most Plan issues (housing, industries, commerce, facilities, environment, heritage, etc). Their inter-connections are captured in a ‘case study’ at 100,000 population level (mid-hierarchy planning level at which most Plan norms are explicit and most issues converge) where MPISG groups from different sections are active. Implementation, revision, participation, etc, processes have also been explored. All this is chronicled in reports, court cases, audiovisual material, a book, papers, correspondence, etc. Only a small part of this substantive professional work is posted here, but all is available to anyone for any use consistent with its purpose and position.
[2] The dominant pro-Plan position views the Plan as a pretty-picture blueprint requiring ruthless clearance of unplanned development for planned development in the likeness of global cities.
The anti-Plan position argues for regularisation of all unplanned development on grounds of planned development being anti-people.
The Plan-ambivalent position is a curious combination of anti-Plan rhetoric and ‘data’ suggesting need for implementation, of simultaneous demands for Plan implementation and regularisation of unplanned development, etc. All these three positions take an inadequate view of Plan entitlements of citizens, especially the poor.
The pro-Plan and anti-Plan positions disregard these altogether and the Plan-ambivalent position, despite its ‘data’ about failures to implement (some) pro-poor Plan provisions, obfuscates them with its overall anti-Plan stance. All fail to acknowledge that the pro-poor provisions of the Plan represent, besides entitlements of the poor to city space, entitlements of all to squalor-free sustainable development and, though the Plan is aimed at fostering synergistic society, project it as somehow being at the root of class-conflict. All these three positions also take an inadequate view of Plan revision process, especially by failing to insist on mandatory provisions that guarantee implementation accountability.
Even the Plan-ambivalent position, despite its own implementation failure ‘data’, stops short of demanding simply Plan implementation and, instead, posits original ideas to imply planning failures. By using the Plan revision as an opportunity to advocate their own planning ideas all these positions have in effect contributed to sweeping under the carpet implementation failures adding up to a massive land scam, something not possible in Plan revision by due process of law. All these three positions also take an inadequate view of participation in Plan revision, reducing it to one-time effort in merely Plan-making, or rather support for their positions by their constituencies.
The opportunity to build broad-based Plan ownership in course of Plan revision has been foregone by undermining public faith in the Plan through unfounded criticism and advocacy of inferior alternatives as ‘better’. And marginalisation of professionals in the planning-without-planners paradigm that all three positions take pride in has led also to missing the opportunity to promote ownership of the Plan among young professionals who are its future custodians.
The entitlements’ perspective of the Plan and its revision, although it has not found place in the discourse dominated by these three positions, is potentially more useful especially for citizens and young professionals whose ‘turn’ to participate is guaranteed by the Public Notice process. >> more about the entitlements’ perspective of the Plan and its revision in the DEMYSTIFY section.
0.0/5 for 0 rate
0
Posted on: 25-07-2014
Permalink URL:
Delhi Master Plan (2021) [R-zone fraud]
in category
MPISG-II
Site tags :
R-zone
Url
www.dwarkaproperty.in
Hits
1150
