Too many tongs in the fire

Now that the government’s integrated townships on a Public Private Partnership mode’s draft policy has come into the public domain, initial excitement seems to be giving way to trepidation. Stakeholders concerned like real estate developers, technocrats and experienced officials have been raising quite a few pertinent points on the issue.

Few are ready to buy the argument that the current slump is the right time to get “budget projects” grounded, the basic premise on which the new policy envisages. As much as 40 per cent of the purported township’s plotted area is to be earmarked for economically weaker sections, low income and middle income groups.

People in the business wonder if it’s practical to go for such housing when 10 per cent of the township is reserved for open spaces and another 10 per cent of residential area is to be handed over free to the sanctioning authority for its own usage? “Can any entrepreneur be successful by taking such a project? Is the government washing off its responsibility to provide housing for poor,” asks an official, incredulously.
Business lobby pressure

He points out that an earlier plan to earmark 20 per cent land in each layout for such a purpose in Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Area (HMDA) came tumbling down to five per cent following incessant pressure from the builders-politicians lobby. “And, even there are no proper modalities on how the reserved space is to be utilised, the cost factor, selling price and probable beneficiaries,” he says.

A previous attempt to sell such houses did not serve the purpose as even the “low price” was way above the affordable range of the target group.

Putting onus on private parties to develop townships is fraught with risks as the contentious land acquisition could lead to more legal wrangles as incentives are simply not enough, argue few others.

“The market value rates upon which cash compensation is to be paid will not be acceptable since it denotes to official values which is too low,” points out a developer. There was also a danger of such townships becoming inaccessible from rest of the urban area.
Gujarat example

Instead, the government should follow the Gujarat example where the urban development authority takes over all the land delineated for a township, builds basic infrastructure like internal and arterial roads, earmarks public spaces, etc. Most importantly, it allows a plot owner to retain his ownership allowing him or her to sell when the time is ripe.

Also, asking developers to build and also maintain civic amenities in such townships is expecting too much, say critics. “When governmental agencies have failed to provide for proper civic infrastructure anywhere, is it possible for private players to do the job? What is the guarantee the developer will do it, if at all or qualitatively, after the plot or apartment is purchased? There are many cases of such failed promises,” says an official.

While giving a push to real estate is imperative, government should seriously consider giving it an industry status as there will be easy finances and tax benefits along with some much needed regulation to protect the consumers’ interests, feel some.
No Master Plan

Without a proper Master Plan in place, it is foolish to go ahead with such projects as it would do against the very tenets of the policy of organised growth, is an overwhelming opinion among stakeholders. Hyderabad itself had a Master Plan in 1975 and a new one is yet to see light of the day even as it has been a stupendous growth.