Comments on: No Consent Needed?

By: confused

confused — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:13:42 +0000

Pat,

Yes. No doubt you are right. But political pulls and pressures make broader consultation a tricky task.

Second, these are illegal encroachments, right? I am not sure I am prepared to give them the same rights. Ideally, I would have advocated demolishing them, unfortunately that is not an option.

By: Bombay Addict

Bombay Addict — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:30:56 +0000

Pat - broadly agree with what you say. Yet, the builder-politician nexus often ensures that while builders and politicians profit, the city and its residents loses.

On a separate note - No chances of you relocating to India, right ?! I was thinking that’s probably the only way I could see more of your writings on urban planning in Mumbai on your other blog. Sigh.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:57:23 +0000

Bombay Addict, Prabhu is more or less right. They are for the builder but if we consider the greater good i.e. if they end up giving affordable homes to low-income people while also earning a decent profit for the builder, then it achieves a doubled-ended objective. If builders do not profit, it will be hard to convince them to do it and public housing by the government is generally prone to failure.

The Dharavi Redevelopment Project might face numerous implementation issues but it is generally expected in a project of this magnitude. Citizen participatory measures not only lend the equitable angle but also give a voice to the people who might be actually using the space. The planners might be made aware of solutions they had never thought of. We have to understand if we want to do this quickly or we want it done right. Remember, planning and construction scheme decisions are irreversible and can have adverse consequences if not done right.

M, It sure is but we don’t want to worsen the situation by doing something totally opposite to a desirable solution.

By: m

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:29:33 +0000

perhaps in the midst of controversy some positive change might take place…………in a sense keeping the situation in its apalling conditions is not really the right thing to do.

By: Bombay Addict

Bombay Addict — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:14:37 +0000

Patrix - Valid points raised and I wonder if this was a result of the builder lobby. In my interview with Chandrashekhar Prabhu, he’d stated that slum rehab schemes in Mumbai are typically for, by and of the builder. (Link here).

Having said that, I was also wondering - only for a brief moment - if its not such a bad idea. Dharavi’s redevelopment was - and will always be - a hugely challenging task which will require single-minded political will and resolve to overcome vested interests such as (a) coalition politics between Congress and NCP (b) the chances of interference from parties like Shiv Sena, MNS and (c) political parties playing the NGO game.

I’m sure all these factors could play a role in manipulating Dharavi’s massive 1m population (and thats a huge vote bank to consider) ahead of the BMC elections (2007) and general elections (2009). Maybe the only way to do the redevelopment quickly is to get it done this way. I know this doesn’t sound right and surely not - as you pointed out - the done thing in a democracy.

But, like I said, this was just a passing thought. Would love to know your views, Pat.