If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Personally, I see it as a citizen advocacy movement fought by one person. She issues such a statement simply because she knows it will catch attention. She is indulging in a classic NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) routine and trust me, if you were in her place, you would be doing just as much or even more. You cannot justify shutting up Lata by saying that no one would listen to low-income people if they chose to protest taking of their legal property. It is a systemic problem and needs legal consultation on specifics regarding land ownership, compelling government interest, and fair distribution of costs. Honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with her statement. She would move out if she so wishes (probably it would be better for her health too) and does not even demand compensation. Housing supply is so crunched up in Mumbai that her flat would still command a hefty price tag although it should incorporate the existence of a flyover that would supposedly drive the price down. This fact alone would also deny her any compensation if she chooses to demand one.
She has chosen to make a personal statement that a public amenity (flyover) would impact her and the residents in the neighborhood the greatest; so much that it would make her reconsider living there – a place that is her home for the last 45 years. If she is stating a scientific finding (seismic zone and weakened foundations), then she should be answered relative to those concerns because they certainly raise not only a public safety issue but also a ‘taking’ of her property considering it would lose economic value. The second argument (taking of property; acquisition in Indian legalese) would probably not hold since it doesn’t result in complete loss of economic value or productive use of her property owing to the flyover. But if it requires her to move, then I guess the cost of the flyover on Lata is much more than the cost on the people that would use it. And I am not talking of the fiscal costs here.
Facts and legal arguments wouldn’t work here and instead she has chosen to make an emotional appeal; probably it has failed. Sonia Gandhi recently showed how to successfully use an emotional angle to recover from a hopeless situation. I bet she would be singing a slogan that we used on our college rivals in a sing-song manner when we have fooled them - ch#$@ banaya, bada mazaa aaya. But in this case, Mumbai seems to care less if she lives in Mumbai or not. Maybe she has exhausted her utility now.
I wonder how would people react if Sachin Tendulkar (not now but at the height of his cricketing prowess) would threaten to immigrate to Australia (just to rub it in) if a flyover was built near his home. I bet the flyover proponents would find another place for directing traffic. People, it is an emotional appeal; listen to it if you choose to or ignore it. Don’t berate the old lady for resorting to measures that we understand best.
by Patrix | on Friday, March 31st, 2006 at 6:00 am | 
India, Law, Urban Planning . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:10 am reply
Could not agree more. Though Lata did come out with a statement denying her threat.
Ok dude. Now tell me something-Should the flyover be built or not?
March 31st, 2006 at 10:12 am reply
Just adding to what I said above, since you are frim Mumbai you know the situation at Pedder road.
Quite apart from what Lata wants, do we need a flyover on Pedder road?
March 31st, 2006 at 10:26 am reply
Confused, now that’s a pointed question. I think Peddar Road could need a flyover only if the seisemic fears are unfounded. But I also admit that it will make life for residents hell and also doesn’t solve traffic problems completely.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:36 am reply
Interesting. Though it must be said if a large section of public benefits, what Peddar road residents want is immaterial. I hope you are not a liberterain :)…
Pretty strong thoughts here, but interesting.
btw, I am sorry for bothering you with all my questions, but policy is something which interests me and is something which I do.
you might consider writing a piece on Court ordered demolitions in Delhi, if you have followed the story.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:47 am reply
Confused, I wouldn’t call myself a libertarian. But don’t mistake me for not respecting individual liberty or rights. I do believe in the ‘compelling/substantial/rational (in decreasing order) state interest’ (that might be the reason I am not in the Cartel). If Lata Mangeshkar can legally prove that the state interest is not any of the above mentioned standards in accordance with the level of scrutiny, then the flyover should not be built. The Peddar road residents have to prove that the flyover results in significant loss of economic value (which I doubt) or is a major public safety issue (all the seismic stuff…am not sure about that).
No bother. This has been an englightening experience and helps me clarify my thoughts further. I’ll read up on the Court ordered demolitions but they have the human angle to it which cannot be always argued successfully in court.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:18 pm reply
Patrix, would you then call Lata Mangeshkar a “melodramatic drama queen” like you did in an earlier post ?
March 31st, 2006 at 2:38 pm reply
Bloghopper, sure I would but considering that she is acting in her best interest and knows that this was the only angle that would work (unfortunately, it didn’t), it isn’t as bad as the Sonia issue.
March 31st, 2006 at 4:48 pm reply
people are dying….icebergs are melting and we are talking about lata mangeshker???
flyover or no flyover that traffic is still going to be miserable- unless to take everything out to sea.
March 31st, 2006 at 5:31 pm reply
M, I talk about all sort of issues here (some ppl tell me that is the problem) so maybe it’s iceberg season next month.
March 31st, 2006 at 7:41 pm reply
@m
Cant help replying to that, frankly that was a stupid question. What do you mean we discuss nothing except icebergs and Iraq?
April 1st, 2006 at 10:17 am reply
of course you wouldnt understand - thats why you call yourself confused………….anyways- its a private ribbing to patrix ………which is why you would definitely remain confused.
April 1st, 2006 at 7:40 pm reply
All right n. My bad. Since this is not exactly a personal blog, I missed the ”private ribbing” part. Anyways, my apologies.
BTW, You know why my nick is confused? It is a source of a lot of juvenile mirth for well… juveniles…. and I enjoy it! I enjoyed your sense of humor!
Patrix, Vir Sanghvi has come out against the Peddar Road project in his latest HT column. You might check it out.
Later
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:41 pm reply
Lata is absolutely correct in her opposing flyover construction on Peddar Road. Peddar Road is not an area where flyover needs to be built but the sea-link construction needs to be expedited.
Where in the world do you find flyovers in residential areas. We as a nation, have become used to cacaphony and noise in our lives and have learnt how to spoil the quality of our lives. People who would have seen US, Switzerland, UK would know how residential areas are kept away from noise and pollution, so much so that flights also do not take off and land during nights! But for us these are all immaterial things - we do not bother about quality of our lives and fellow citizens but can we for a minute think about our children, the future generation. Can we work towards making our cities a better place to live in? Flyovers won’t make Mumbai Shanghai - a will and vision for a better family, home, town, city and country is what we need. For God’s sake stop opposing Lata and start understanding the selfish motives of politicians and media and think how we make our country a better place for us and our future generations,