Showing posts with label lobbies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobbies. Show all posts

Sunday, May 5, 2013

SAS helped evasion of BBMP property taxes by commercial developers, some IT sector?

While the self assessment scheme (SAS) for property tax assessment was an original idea of the BMP there was support from BATF in terms of branding and marketing it. Yet the batf hyped up the SAS based on the transparency criteria and so while the common tax payer paid up their dues, the big wigs including WIPRO, Phoenix mall etc evaded the same; see below., wipro allegedly did not pay for a few years (total amount being Rs 19.28 crores)

The question is did the batf's support help in this evasion of property taxes? Did big properties remain un assessed ? So then without checks and balances by officer visiting the premises for simple assessment of properties huge amounts of taxes worth crores were evaded?

on top of all this evasion BBMP was not allowed to raise property taxes as per law.

This is a dangerous trend since it deprives the allocation or expenditure of funds for the basic needs for which the local property taxes are most important.

e.g. see news report below
===============================


CHITRA V. RAMANI


PTI A Bangalore Bruhat Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) squad conducting a "Drum Beating" session in front of the Wipro headquarters in Bengaluru on Friday.

Drumbeaters hired by the BBMP gathered outside Wipro’s head office


The IT city’s civic authority, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), applied thought and came up with a winner here on Friday. On a day when Wipro Ltd. announced its third quarter results, BBMP officials were busy drumming up pressure to get the Bangalore-based bellwether to cough up Rs. 19.28 crore in property dues.

Even as the country’s third largest software company trumpeted a net profit of Rs. 1,716 crore, a team of the feared drumbeaters hired by the BBMP gathered outside Wipro’s head office at Doddakannelli village, Sarjapur.


INSTANTANEOUS EFFECT

The effect was magical. Embarrassed company officials hastily handed over a cheque for Rs. 5 crore to Ramanand Rai, Deputy Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, with a promise to clear the remaining dues in a week, a gleeful official told The Hindu, adding that Wipro had not paid its property tax for five years. The official said the BBMP had sent several reminder notices, the latest on January 11.


===============================


At Tesco, the committee found that the establishment owed the BBMP nearly Rs. 10 crore. On insistence, Tesco immediately cleared 40 per cent of the dues by paying Rs. 4 crore.

Phoenix Mall owes the BBMP Rs. 3.5 crore.
================================

reference

  1. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/civic-body-applies-thought-to-force-wipro-to-fork-dues/article4320422.ece
  2. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/bbmp-panel-collects-rs-5-cr-property-tax-dues-from-malls/article4412112.ece

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

'privatising' politics: b.pac decreasing political risk to corporate investment ?

There are connections of b.pac founders and members to industry lobby groups like assocham, ficci, fkcci,nasscom or cii. these are industry or business chambers which influence and keep up group pressure on the Union and state govts for favourable policies. one such is associated chambers of commerce and industry (assocham) which has suggested points for the party manifestos :url link here (assocham moots 5-point growth agenda for parties in Karnataka )

and the report below correctly mentions that it is the IT- BT barons who are now funding 14 candidates from all parties with Rs 5 lakh each + campaigning online for them : url link here (IT-BT barons to fund 14 candidates).

Is it possible that the instability and inaction resulting from the 5 year term BJP govt has had an impact where rate of growth of Karnataka state has suffered due to which the it- bt honchos in the disguise of b.pac would like to ensure continued growth of their sectors? adb based in manila has cautioned the private corporate sector in general on the political risks and has therefore moved their project oriented decsion making to predominantly bureaucratic parastatal funding and investment institutions. If adb got a chance they would even have prepared a long term buisness plan for the KUIDFC in Karnataka -but were prevented from doing so at the last minute. Is this exactly the kind of business plan which is now being executed by b.pac through lobbying, and influencing outcomes so that political party manifestos and voting in elections by others need not create any setback for them, their business and business growth?


b.pac and other similar groups would like to decrease political risk arising in the KLA elections 2013, by asking parties to align with their it-bt business agenda, and their Bengaluru agenda viz.,
implementing the report of the Karnataka Information Technology and Communication (ict) Group which is over Rs 2,50,000 crores investment over 15 years just for Bengaluru : url link here ( The $50b Pai-Naidu Plan: too much, too late ). This was presented to the GoK after b.pac had coalesced but before it was formally launched as a trust on feb 3rd 13.
bmrg bill and bbmp legislation (initiated by abide but now backed by broad consensus in it-bt sectors through b.pac)

fact is that the pac's are a US phenomenon which gained strength before the 2010 elections to senate and congress and were supported by the US supreme courts 2010 decision in Citizens United vs Federal election commission.

b.pac has been inspired by them to push the agenda of ppp's (private sector-politician partnership) and it may well end up beginning the process of 'privatisation' of politics in Karnataka and India.

reference :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

JNNURM-II Failure is its own reward for MoUD

JNNURM-II

Failure is its own reward for MoUD

Indian city-dwellers, rejoice! JNNURM Mark Two is coming your way – bigger, brighter, bolder than its first avatar – more money, more reforms, more public-private partnerships, more contracts, more consultancies, more scams, and many many more creative reinterpretations of urban reality.

But how has this happened, you ask? Did JNNURM Mark One get where it was supposed to go? Did we not hear that it was facing criticism from several quarters, not just from chronic dissenters like the activist brigade? Did we not see respectable-looking middle-class citizens in some cities rubbing shoulders with scruffy activists and working-class types in street protests against some of the “reforms”? Wasn't there a notice in the papers inviting tenders from individual experts for carrying out the mid-term review of the programme? And wasn't there a rumour that some cheeky citizens were actually mounting their own home-made review? What happened to all of that?

Good questions. And there are plenty of answers. There's just one problem - the answers don't add up.

Let's do a flashback to the Prime Minister's speech at the star-studded JNNURM launch in 2005. “Our urban economy has become an important driver of economic growth” said the PM. “It is also the bridge between the domestic economy and the global economy. It is a bridge we must strengthen. The latent creativity and vitality of our cities and the people who live in them must be tapped to facilitate higher economic growth.”

JNNURM was unveiled as the miracle makeover that would enable 64 of our cities to become candidates in the global swayamvara where corporate investors prowl in search of the perfect marriage between their capital and the “creativity and vitality” of cities. This makeover was to be accomplished in a mere seven years, through a simple but brilliant strategy – polishing up and enhancing the physical infrastructure to bring it up to global standards, and simultaneously getting rid of the ugly evidence of the disorderly and less-than-perfect processes of urbanisation of the past.

JNNURM cities, we were told, would be clean, green and beautiful – cleansed of the shanty-towns and unauthorised housing colonies, the noisy pavement markets, the primitive rickshaws and polluting phat-phattis, the street vendors selling unstandardised products at ridiculously low prices, the higgledy-piggledy old neighbourhoods, the stinking landfills, the junkyards, the unhygienic dhabas. In their place would be multilane highways and toll roads, low-floor buses and elevated metros, gleaming malls and food courts, huge airports, high-rise housing, parks and promenades....in short everything gratifyingly like “phoren”.

Of course a lot of the rules would need to be rewritten – after all, it would not be appropriate to leave the management of these new global cities in the hands of the old guard, especially when the World Bank and the ADB were telling us how much better market forces were at running cities than anyone else. And no doubt it was entirely in the rightness of things to turn to these same old friends, ever ready with a loan, to underwrite the programme that would put their advice into practice. Needless to say, everything would be done in accordance with the best principles of good governance – online consultations, young professionals and corporations bringing in energy and initiative to design efficient services for the poor, the brightest and best bureaucrats given a free hand and a generous kitty to get things moving, and an impressive brains trust of experts and luminaries from the NGO world to provide technical advice and inject the civil society perspective into implementation.

Of course there were critics and prophets of doom (those self-important activists again). The Urban Development Ministry did not waste any time in responding to irritating questions from this known bunch of World Bank-baiters. The scheme was rolled out in grand style – of the total kitty of Rs. 50,000 crores, 463 projects worth Rs. 49743.46 crore were approved in three years and Rs. 8253 crore was released from the Centre to the States.

Cut to the present

3 June 2009. Speaking to a reporter from the Wall Street Journal, some officials of the Ministry of Urban Development (who refuse to be named) come out with an alarming statistic - only 32 of the 463 sanctioned projects have been completed in the three years since the scheme was launched. In case anyone should think of using this statistic as a stick to beat the Ministry or the scheme itself, the informant hurries to add that this dismal performance is entirely the fault of the States, which had been far too slow and clumsy in acquiring land, shifting existing structures and populations and acquiring the professional competence to handle large projects[1].

Surely, you say, regardless of who is responsible, this qualifies as a big-time fiasco? Apparently not. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a meeting on 10 June, the Secretary Urban Development was quoted as saying just the opposite. "There is definitely good progress made under the mission. Many of the projects (like drainage and sewerage) would not have been taken up otherwise," said Dr. Ramachandran.[2]

Dr.Ramachandran is not alone in his complacence. Vinayak Chatterjee, chairman of the National Infrastructure Council of the Confederation of Indian Industry and chairman of consultancy firm Feedback Ventures, is quoted in the same piece as saying "It is a very well crafted intelligent innovative programme. The pity is that the states and city administrators have not been proactive in pulling more funds out of the mission."

All of 32 projects in 64 cities in three years, and they manage to attract so much praise? Why are we not impressed?!

Strangely, and most unusually, this is one instance where the statistics shared by the unnamed Ministry source are actually endorsed by the folks on the other side of the fence. A Citizens' Review of the JNNURM, undertaken in 16 cities by a coalition of community groups – grassroot activists, workers' organisations, NGOs working in informal settlements – found yawning gaps between the issues prioritised in the City Development Plans and sanctioned projects, and between the sanctioned projects and the real situation on the ground. In the overwhelming majority of cities and locations, there was absolutely no physical evidence of any kind of developmental activity – not even a signboard to mark the fact that this was a JNNURM project site.

But Mr.Ramachandran is unfazed. The judgements of mere citizens regarding the success or failure of the programme are neither here nor there if the people who count are happy. On 29 June, the Ministry of Urban Development announced that a follow-up phase of JNNURM was under serious consideration. According to the Ministry spokesperson, more investment was required to reach the targeted levels of infrastructural growth. The proposed JNNURM Mark II will have a seven-year lifespan, a kitty of Rs.100,000 crores – twice the size of the present JNNURM. The new scheme will replace the present one, and will expand its reach all the way down to the level of mofussil towns with populations of 500,000, in addition to providing “top-up funds” to ongoing projects. The scheme has already been forwarded to the Finance Ministry, and the Ministry of Urban Development is hopeful of seeing it incorporated as one of the highlights of the Budget 2009-10. The World Bank, it appears, has already given its nod to the proposal.

Of course there is the small matter of the mandatory mid-term review before the World Bank signs on the dotted line and shells out the promised Rs.50,000 crores. Somewhere along the way, the tender for the consultants seems to have been dropped off the agenda. We can only speculate on the reasons. Maybe it was considered too risky? After all, even the best consultants have been known to sometimes bite the hands that feed them!

But the Ministry has found the perfect solution – a review by the Prime Minister, no less, assisted by a National Review Committee comprising that tried and trusted band of experts, the JNNURM Technical Advisory Group. In order to bring it up to speed for this onerous task, the TAG has been beefed up with the addition of three new members: Professor Amitava Kundu of JNU (whose credentials as an urban theorist are impeccable); Nandan Nilekani (whose persuasively imagined idea of India is completely in tune with the JNNURM ethos); and Roopa Purushottaman, described in her official bio as “the chief economist and strategist at the Future Group, India’s leading business group that caters to the entire Indian consumption space”. In case you are wondering about Ms.Purushottaman's qualifications for reviewing an urban development programme, we should point out that the Future Group is the corporate umbrella for a retail empire that includes Big Bazaar, Home Town, Capital and Food Bazaar.

We can all rest assured that the review process is in safe hands and will surely result in a well-argued case for JNNURM-II.

Buoyed up by the assurance of continued largesse in a era where everyone else is cutting down on spending, the corporate sector is regaining its faltering enthusiasm for urban renewal. Experts and visionaries are emerging from unexpected quarters, enthusiastically taking the lead in articulating a vision for the future of our cities.

Take a look, for instance, at the blurb for a conference organised by CII in Delhi on 18 June. “Commonwealth Games 2010 is round the corner and the capital is in the midst of a make-over as the city prepares for the biggest sporting event in its history. Will Delhi seize the chances offered by Commonwealth Games 2010 to boost its economic, social and cultural development. The time is ripe for the city to be transformed into a “World Class City” - what is required is a vision” says the CII.

Apart from the usual smattering of ministers and bureaucrats, there were several distinguished experts on various panels: Mr. Navin Raheja of Raheja Developers and Mr. Sudhir Vohra of Sudhir Vohra Consultants in the panel on the Delhi Master Plan; Mr. Sanjay Sharma of Coca Cola in the panel on water supply; Mr. Arjun Walia of Walsons Security Services in the session on public safety and Mr.Ajay Jadeja, sports personality in the session on “action planning for a better tomorrow”.

As for the rest of us, we can hold our tongues and wait for that better tomorrow

KALYANI MENON-SEN

New Delhi



[1] Rahul Chandran. 3 June 2009. JNNURM projects lag over land, utilities and personnel problems. Livemint.com,

[2] Vandana Gombar. 10 June 2009. Government may double size of JNNURM. Business Standard.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

First Lok Sabha Post-JNNURM election


15th Lok SABHA MP's must debate JNNURM

  1. In 2005 before the JNNURM launch, OUR MP's never debated the mandatory and optional conditions which were part of reforms package.
  2. Since these conditions were thrust upon the states who needed to enter a tripartite MoU with the Union, State and City governments being signatories, there is a need to debate the conditions of the reforms.
  3. These reforms were essentially a sop to the lobbies of Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) who had been demanding the same for a long time and still continue to do after 5 years of huge profits.
  4. The 15th Lok Sabha MP's must undertake a wide ranging public consultation process on the success/ failure of JNNURM !
  5. Urban areas have been developed in extremely inequitous manner.
  6. Costly and expensive Facilities are being provided to rich and elite people who get massive tax concessions (www.cbgaindia.org) in excess of Rs 300,000 crores / year for the last 4 years 2004-08.
  7. Projects must be prepared on priority to fulfil the essential needs services of the masses, the urban poor and the lower middle class.
  8. Funding for the same should also be provided adequately.
  9. Property taxes must not be escrowed to give an opportunity to payback investors THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. They must be invested in basic needs of the electorate such as drinking water, proper roads, air quality maintenance and pollution control.
  10. Social Audit and monitoring that the funds must not be misused is to be introduced as a peoples initiative.
  11. The GoI's 11th Plan document pushes back the date for achieving the urban drinking water targets to 2012. This needs to be relooked at and targets must be fulfilled earlier.
  12. Development cannot happen for the rich only leaving the poor behind.