Letter from concerned citizens to Chief Minister of Maharashtra, 9 May 2007

 

D.M. Sukthankar, IAS (Retd.)

c/o S. Burra

Flat #16, 4^th floor

“Ganga Vihar”

‘C’ Road

55 Marine Drive

Mumbai 400020

May 9, 2007

Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh

Honorable Chief Minister of Maharashtra

Mantralaya,

Mumbai

Subject: Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP)

Dear Shri Deshmukh,

I am writing to you on behalf of several organizations – including academic institutions and NGOs - as well as on behalf of different individuals who are concerned with the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) as it stands today. We have already had a few meetings with Shri Swadheen Kshatriya, IAS, Principal Secretary (Housing), Shri Ramanand Tiwari, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary (Urban Development), Shri A. K. Jain, IAS, Advisor All India Institute of Local Self Government. On April 13^th, 2007, we met Dr.D.K. Sankaran, IAS, the then Chief Secretary along with the empowered group of Secretaries. We are also hoping to meet you in the near future.

In this letter we will list the issues which concern us, raise certain objections to the present DRP, ask certain questions and make certain recommendations as to a future roadmap. We are aware that the GoM has sanctioned the DRP but we feel that it should be scrutinized afresh. The people of Dharavi are largely ignorant about DRP, but those who are aware of it, oppose it very fiercely. As a group, we are concerned that if the legitimate aspirations of the people of Dharavi are not met, their anger will spill out onto the streets and you may have a repeat of Nandigram, or the troubles of different Special Economic Zones in the country. In order to avoid such a possible confrontation, it would be prudent to have a thorough re-look at DRP. Our issues are listed below.

I. LEGAL ISSUES

In response to a notice under Section 37(1) of the MR&TP Act, 1996, we had submitted a list of objections and suggestions regarding modifications in the development control regulations (DCRs) for the DRP. So far we have not received any notice for a hearing on our objections. I am attaching a copy of our letter, of February 16^th, 2007, and request that an early hearing be given. To quote from the attached letter, we feel in this context that:

Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has been appointed as the Special Planning Authority (SPA) for Planning and Redevelopment of Dharavi Notified Area under Section 40 of the MR&TP Act, 1966 by UDD Notification dated 9 march, 2005. Having become the SPA, the SRA is obliged under subsection 3(d) of Section 40 of the MR&TP Act, 1966 to prepare and publish the draft plan and proposals for inviting suggestions and objections. The Regulations for controlling development have to be an integral part of the plan and proposals and cannot be published in isolation. We therefore believe that the publication of proposals to modify merely the Development Control Regulations (DCRs) is not in conformity with the law and must therefore be withdrawn.

In support of the above contention we wish to make the following additional points:

• The SRA has been given the status of SPA for slum rehabilitation areas. However, this was not adequate in the case of Dharavi as the entire area is not a “slum”. This is why the SRA has been separately appointed as SPA for the planning and redevelopment of Dharavi.
• The SRA’s writing of a letter (which confirms the above contention) to the government seeking to modify the existing DCRs, therefore, has no legal standing.
• Similarly, the government’s directive in response to such a letter to modify merely the DCRs appears to be ultra vires.

It has been argued that the existing DRP is nothing but an attempt to implement the existing, sanctioned Development Plan (DP) for Greater Mumbai. The assumption while making the DP was that an FSI of 1.33 is permissible for the development of Dharavi. However, as it stands presently, the proposed redevelopment of Dharavi follows the modified draft Development Control Regulations framed by the SRA, which allow for a maximum FSI of 4. Also, as per the proposed DCRs, the extent of development is based on the population to be rehabilitated. There have been so many changes within Dharavi in terms of the number of people living there, the number of structures there are, the kind of activities undertaken today, the programmes implemented such as the Prime Minister’s Grant Project (PMGP) and the increased connectivity of Dharavi with the rest of the city. In such a situation, it will be incorrect to go ahead with the existing DP which is completely out of date. We urge the GoM to prepare a fresh “Plan and Proposals” for Dharavi following the procedures prescribed under the MR&TP Act, 1966.

II. PLANNING ISSUES

1.Surveys and Data Collection

Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted (but not admitted) that the procedure prescribed under the MR&TP Act is not mandatory, we feel that it is absolutely necessary to conduct the following surveys to prepare the draft Plan and Proposals for Dharavi

a. Population Survey

The exact population of Dharavi is unknown. Census data for Dharavi and the SRA figures do not match. The basis for the SRA estimation of 57,000 tenements in unknown, and it is unclear whether the cut-off date for eligibility will be 1-1-1995 or 1-1-2000, and depending on this, the number of “eligible” families will change. Our own population projections based on Census reports suggest that the numbers are much larger than estimated by the DRP. If the population of Dharavi is ambiguous, it will be difficult to plan for its redevelopment. Only a Baseline Demographic-cum-Socio-Economic Survey (BDSES), which is open to public scrutiny, can give us the absolutely essential data needed for Planning.

b.Household Survey

The number of structures in Dharavi has not been determined. The various purposes that these structures are used for are not known, such as Residential, Residential + Commercial, Industrial, Religious, Educational, Health, etc. If any survey has been conducted, its methodology has not been published, nor have its findings. Only a BDSES will give us the needed data.

c. Infrastructure Survey

An infrastructure survey to assess existing conditions as also the extent and nature of deficiencies has to be commissioned.

d. Ownership Data

The DRP does not reflect any ownership data which can help to establish the pockets that can be developed and those which have to be left out from the process of redevelopment. The basis for the calculation of the figure of 144 HA for DRP is not made known to the public, and this problem is further compounded by the fact that the Sector Plans do not demarcate areas that are to be left untouched. The basis for calculations must be made public.

e. Physical Survey

A detailed physical survey showing the Topography of the Dharavi area has not been carried out. This is of vital importance as such a survey will establish natural drainage systems, flood prone areas and soil conditions, which are critical in any planning exercise. Such a physical survey should be commissioned urgently.

2.Projection Studies and planning standards

The increased population of Dharavi brought about by the “sale component”, and its implications on required Land Use distribution, Amenities, Infrastructure, Traffic and Urban Form have neither been understood nor carefully assesed. It is only on the basis of these projections that strategies for design of the master plan can be conceived. For example, without projections for the increased volume of vehicular traffic, people and commercial activities, we do not have any basis for traffic planning. The Projection Studies, coupled with the planning standards, would give us possible requirements for these. However, the planning standards assumed in this DRP have not been made public. Thus, it is impossible to assess the adequacy of the Infrastructure and Amenities proposed in this DRP. Projection studies need to be carried out and planning standards made public.

3.Planning, Design and Dissemination

a)An existing Land Use Survey needs to be undertaken and a Plan needs to be prepared.

b)A proposed Land Use Plan also needs to be prepared and published. Objections and suggestions for modifications to this have to be invited. Not only is this mandatory under law, it also becomes a way of involving the community and its representative organizations to participate in the planning of Dharavi.

Details of how the slum dwellers are going to be accommodated on 65% of the land need to be shown in this Land Use Plan and this data should be in the public domain. Today, these Dharavi residents are not aware about where they will be rehabilitated: for example, the rehabilitation of slum dwellers might be located in the worst low lying and flood prone areas of Dharavi without their knowledge.

c)Even a cursory examination of the proposed Development Plan of the DRP reveals that some “sectors” have a lesser area assigned to DRP reservations than that in other “sectors”, and this in turn does not seem to be a reflection of population densities in these “sectors”. Hence, the worry is that some sectors will have higher densities and taller buildings for rehabilitation as compared to others. This concern needs to be addressed.

d) The densities that are proposed due to the additional increase in FSI in the present DRP are of vital concern. Presently, Dharavi has a high tenement density of 416 tenements per Hectare of land. The increase in additional FSI, which will be brought about by a bonus FSI of 1.333, would lead to densities that have no precedent. Our studies show that the living environment thus achieved would be far from humane, as the increase in the FSI would put much greater stress on the per capita public amenities like open spaces, footpaths, educational facilities and health facilities. It would therefore be prudent for GoM to look at methods in which these densities can be reduced, and for this, we recommend a reduction in the bonus FSI offered to the Developer. The financial viability of various scenarios has been calculated by our group, and we can confidently say that it is possible to break even with only 0.25 bonus FSI. The Government has to make a careful choice between both, the densities and profits, in order to achieve a humane living environment.

e) As our study shows, the planning and design of the DRP should involve strategies for land use, traffic, urban form, infrastructure, housing typologies, and environment. The present DRP does not deal with these issues in depth and goes on to make vague assumptions and extravagant promises. For example, the study hints at MMRDA incorporating a metro into Dharavi. However there is no clarity in terms of the exact modified route, and the corresponding locations of stations in Dharavi. These routes and locations are important as they would vitally influence the Land Use pattern of the township. DRP should comprehensively deal with the above.

f)Another example is that of housing typologies suggested for the rehabilitation of Kumbharwada. While on one hand, the government in various meetings with this group has assured that it would not include Kumbharwada in the DRP, the presentation made to the Empowered Committee on Mumbai Transformation includes floor plans for the rehabilitation of the residents of Kumbharwada. Even these plans suggested for rehabilitation do not take into consideration the work activities which have specific implications on the design of the house. Housing typologies must be creative and respond to variation in local conditions.

g) Dharavi redevelopment model adopts a “sector” based approach. The existing “community” boundaries, however, are based on Nagars. These Nagars have evolved over the years from community claims over property, occupations such as tanneries, religious boundaries, etc. The “sector” based approach completely ignores these established boundaries, while imposing new divisions within and between communities. The existing Nagar boundaries must be central to the planning process.

h)Furthermore, there is no coherent plan to link up the proposed infrastructure in Dharavi with the city’s infrastructure. If individual developers take up work on their own, how can it be ensured that they fit in with the infrastructure of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai? For example, if nallas are diverted or built upon, it can lead to a flooding emergency as has happened in Mumbai in the recent past. A plan for linking Dharavi’s proposed infrastructure with that of the areas outside of Dharavi needs to be prepared, with a clear definition of roles and responsibilities between the SPA, MCGM and private Developers.

i) When there is a huge project involving more than five lakh people and an investment of more than Rs. 9000 crore, it is both mandatory and necessary to have an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project. This EIA must be done at the township level and commissioned by the Government rather than by individual developers for their own “sectors”.

IV. Issues regarding lack of clarity of purpose of the DRP

a)On 13^th April 2007, our group presented alternative scenarios before the Empowered Group of Secretaries headed by the Chief Secretary. We have shown how with an incentive FSI of a mere 0.25, it is possible to break even financially and have lower densities with G+3 or G+4 apartments. Another scenario is to give 0.75 incentive FSI, which abnormally increases both densities and profits, while having more high-rise buildings. Our contention is that if the purpose of the project is to redevelop Dharavi without the GoM spending money, it is possible to do so by even offering 0.25 incentive FSI. We feel that enabling huge profits for the developers and huge revenues for GoM should not be the main purpose of the project. As an extension to this argument, there is also no need to increase the cap of permissible FSI to 4.0.

In the same meeting on the 13^th April 2007, we were told that a Group of Secretaries would examine our financial calculations and projections. It is requested that this Group of Secretaries meet with us to look at our alternative scenarios and help define the purpose of the project better.

b)Although the Government claims that the DRP is a project initiated by the GoM, all tasks of conducting Surveys, Planning, Design and Construction have been left to private Developers. The Government’s role of negotiating and reconciling the interests of various groups, including its own interests, public interest and that of the community, has not been fulfilled. The role of Government as arbitrator needs to be clearly spelt out.

c)Time and again, Dharavi has been referred to as a “difficult area”, requiring a greater incentive FSI for redevelopment. It was termed as a “difficult area” because it was continuous slum land that housed polluting industries. It was argued that Developers would not be attracted to the area for piecemeal Slum Redevelopment. Now that Dharavi is being redeveloped as a township and having due regard to its extremely advantageous central location with excellent overall connectivity, there is every reason to believe that redevelopment of Dharavi would be very lucrative even at lower bonus FSI closer to 0.25. Our argument is further buttressed by Dharavi’s proximity to the Bandra Kurla Complex, which commands some of the highest real estate prices in the world. Thus, detailed Financial Planning has to be undertaken to establish the need and extent of the bonus FSI required for DRP.

V.Lack of clarity regarding Institutional Roles

a)DRP is considered a Government project with partnership from private Developers. Roles and responsibilities of SRA, MCGM, GoM and private Developers need to be clearly spelt out from the point of view of planning and implementation.

a)We see that critical State functions like Master-planning, Environmental assessments and seeking mandatory clearances have been handed over to the Developers. It is not at all clear how GoM can hold developers to account for their commitments. For example, DRP claims that the developers will maintain the rehabilitation buildings and pay for elevator maintenance for a certain number of years. What mechanism is there to enforce such an obligation? Roles need reassessment and contractual provisions clarified.

a)Similarly, DRP speaks of providing various amenities like Schools, HealthCenters, etc.; yet there is no mention of who will establish and run these amenities with affordable access to the weaker sections (EWS) of society, except for vague statements about some individuals promising to do some things. Also, it is doubted whether such facilities would be open to the existing communities, as has been seen with many private developments on public lands. We need MOUs and commitments from public and private authorities to establish and manage the proposed amenities, with guaranteed access to the EWS.

GoM should prepare a document spelling out clearly the roles and responsibilities of different public and private actors in the planning and implementation in DRP.

VI.Issues regarding absence of Community Participation

a)We feel that the DRP has not provided any space for community participation. This is surprising, since one of the main principles of Democracy and Developmental Planning is the involvement of the community in its own development. The 73^rd and 74^th Constitutional Amendments reflect the commitment of the IndianState to democratic decentralization and community participation, which has, unfortunately, been given a complete go-by.

b)The people of Dharavi have virtually no information about DRP, except that it is a sector plan. They do not know who is eligible for rehabilitation, what their entitlements are, the locations of the transit tenements, and where their permanent accommodations will be. They do not know what measures to take to protect their livelihoods and what types of housing will be provided. Furthermore, several residents have larger families, thereby making the 225 sq. ft. space inadequate for their purposes. Has the government considered making additional area available to them, either as a profit-sharing mechanism with the developers or as additional purchasable property? Similarly, should not the residential development (as a “free sale” component) by private developers have a mandatory component of lower and middle income housing?

c)As a group, we strongly urge the GoM to re-introduce the clause of Consent, so that the people can become involved in the process of rehabilitation. GoM should draw up a document to institutionalize community participation at every stage of DRP: Surveying, Planning, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation.

VII. Other issues

a)Communities that have been historically located in Dharavi, such as at Koliwada and Kumbharwada, have also been treated as slums! The GoM has wavered from its position regarding these lands in every meeting with this group, from excluding them in DRP to including them (with detailed plans of rehabilitation tenements). Therefore, we would like to stress that the publication of a plan showing the exact delineation of the 144 HA of DRP land is of utmost importance and must be done immediately.

b)Similarly, there seems to be no reason why a bonus FSI of 1.333 needs to be given for the rehabilitation of the communities staying in the Municipal housing and other areas included in the Urban Renewal Scheme, especially since these tenements are not high density and they cannot qualify as “difficult areas” under any circumstances.

In conclusion, we would like to say that the DRP needs to be examined afresh. In the light of the above objections/suggestions/ recommendations, the SRA model itself may be unsuitable for Dharavi in view of its peculiar circumstances. An appropriate model needs to be developed. As a group, we would be happy to work with GoM to prepare a road map for the development of Dharavi, that will be based on public scrutiny of all data; that will have the consent of the community; that will respect the links between housing and livelihoods; that will have diverse housing typologies to suit varied lifestyles and occupational factors as well as income groups; that will keep densities at manageable levels and restrict the role of developers to bidding for construction contracts. It should be possible to develop a low rise, high density settlement at Dharavi that keeps maintenance costs low and livability conditions high.

We look forward to further dialogue in order to bring about transparency and clarity in the entire planning and implementation process for Dharavi redevelopment.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

(D. M. Sukthankar)

I.A.S. (Retd.)

CC:

1)Shri Johny Joseph, IAS, Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra

2)Shri Ramanand Tiwari, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary (Urban Development Department) Government of Maharashtra

3)Dr. Jairaj Phatak, IAS, Municipal Commissioner

Municipal Corporation ofGreater Mumbai.

4)Shri Subodh Kumar, IAS, Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra

5)Shri Swadheen Kshatriya, IAS, Principal Secretary, Housing & Special Assistance Department, Government of Maharashtra

6)Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, IAS, Advisor, AIILSG

7)Shri Sanjay Ubale, IAS, Special Secretary (Projects), Government of Maharashtra

8)Shri I.S. Chahal, IAS, Chief Executive Officer/Officer on Special Duty, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Officer on Special Duty, Sra, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051