CM reaches out to ally, Oppn for smart cities Will smart cities project lead to privatisation of essential services?
Makes sure all 10 cities from state send proposals for Modi’s pet project
NAGPUR: Chief ministerdevendra Fadnavis has finally managed to get civic bodies of 10 cities, including Mumbai, to submit proposals to be part of the Centre’s ambitious smart cities project.
From reaching out to tricky allies like Shiv Sena and Opposition, to overruling the decision of a civic body like Navi Mumbai, Fadnavis used all possible ways to ensure that none of the municipal corporations embarrass his government by refusing to be part of the prestigious project.
”Proposals for all ten cities were submitted today [on Tuesday] within the deadline,” said principal secretary (urban development) Manisha Mhaiskar.
The ten cities selected by the state government for smart cities project include Mumbai, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-dombivli, Pune, Nashik, Nagpur, Amravati, Solapur and Aurangabad.
The state had selected the cities in August and the civic bodies of those cities were to prepare a detailed project report and formally participate in the Central scheme through a resolution. Getting civic bodies of these cities to participate had become a prestige issue for Fadnavis, especially after ally Sena took strong objection to certain conditions of the scheme and called it “Centre’s encroachment on the powers of the civic bodies”. However, the Sena finally accepted the project with
We can always arrive at a common meeting point between these guidelines and the concerns raised by whichever city gets selected. MANISHA MHAISKAR, secretary, urban development department
a condition. As such, the BMC adopted a resolution to be part of the smart cities project with 14 conditions (see box) to ensure the control of the entire project would remain with the elected representatives.
A senior government official said the conditions laid down in BMC’S resolution at the insistence of the Shiv Sena cannot be accepted completely, but common meeting points can be worked out. The Sena wants the special purpose vehicle (SPV) formed to implement the project to be headed by the mayor and not the municipal commissioner.
Further, it wants the control of the SPV in the hands of the elected representatives. “The BMC has funds available at its disposal to implement the projects. If it doesn’t want funds from private investors, it can have control of the SPV,” said the official.
Significantly, other SENA-BJP ruled civic bodies such as Thane and Kalyan-dombivli did not raise any such objections. In case of Pune and Nashik, Fadnavis reached out to the NCP as well as Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray to get the two cities to be part of the
project. The NCP is a major party in power in Pune, while MNS rules Nashik. He spoke with both Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray to get their support.
The Ncp-ruled Navi Mumbai civic body refused to be part of the Smart Cities and adopted a resolution to this effect at the insistence of local NCP strongman Ganesh Naik. However, Fadnavis used the state government’s powers to overrule the decision and ensured the satellite city of Mumbai participates in the Central scheme.
“Fadnavis has done what the Centre was expecting him to do. It
would have been embarrassing for him had some of the cities opted out of the Central scheme, which is a prestige issue for PM Modi. Fadnavis has scored a brownie point with this exercise,” opined a senior BJP minister.
The proposals submitted by various cities across the India will now be evaluated. “The evaluation of the project reports will be done by third party consultants appointed by the Centre and cities will be selected. Now we will have to wait to see the outcome of the evaluation process,” the official said. MUMBAI: What does creating a smart city entail? If the Centre’s guidelines are to go by, creation of a body with a corporate-style chief executive officer (CEO) who can take over crucial services, imposing taxes and charges on citizens and giving up as much as 40% of stake to corporate interests. These guidelines have now led to many critics even calling it a backdoor entry to privatisation of crucial amenities such as water supply and infrastructure building.
Beyond the politics played by different parties over the Centre’s Smart Cities mission, a closer look at the guidelines gives an inkling of why the policy is courting controversy. The mission guidelines, instead of strengthening local civic bodies, have proposed that control over certain areas and projects be handed over to a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that the mission seeks to create. The SPV will have all powers a civic body has, while implementing those projects. Also, the powers of the state government’s urban development department -- largely related to town planning processes and approvals - should be given to the SPV’S board of directors. The SPV, in addition to having nominees from the Centre, state and civic body, will also have private sector nominees.
Dr Amita Bhide, chairperson of the Center of Urban Planning, Policy and Governance in Tata Institute of Social Sciences, said, “The government has been consistently trying to, instead of improve on its inadequacies, minimise its own role and allow the private sector to step in. In fact, this should be seen as a continuation of the trend set by the special economic zones (SEZ) act as well as the private townships act.”
The funding of these bodies, too, may pose a problem. While the Centre and the state will pool in equal amounts, the SPV has been encouraged to raise its own funds. According to the Centre, the SPVS can levy user charges and surcharges. Such a move could mean citizens, in addition to paying regular taxes, will have to shell out ‘user charges’ for particular services that the SPV may short-list.
“The 74thamendment to the Constitution had sought to empower the local civic bodies, while the mission does exactly the opposite. How can the powers of the bureaucracy be handed over to a board of directors,” asked Pankaj Joshi, executive director of the Urban Design Research Institute
Some beg to differ. Narinder Nayar of Mumbai First, an ini tiative by India Inc to further its involvement in urban governance said it was a perfect answer to poor governance. “Our traditional governance structure through municipal bodies has failed. If there are committed private play ers who want to improve services what is the harm?”
Bureaucrats in the state meanwhile, said the fear over private entry into governance was exaggerated. “It’s up to each city to decide whether it wants private investment in the SPV or not,” said a bureaucrat Manisha Mhaiskar, secretary urban development department said, “We can always arrive at a common meeting point between these guidelines and the concerns raised by whichever city gets selected.”