The Problem with Urban Redevelopment & Consultation

RE: Rochor residents unhappy at lack of dialogue over move
RE: Were local groups even consulted about Bukit Brown plan?
RE: 市区重建局放宽管制准则
RE: Conservation guideline upsets shophouse owners
RE: Fate of 4 conserved Tanjong Katong blocks in limbo
RE: Not possible to conserve every former school in S'pore: URA
RE: BlogTV.SG: Historic Sites or Plain Old History?

There has been a recent spike in unhappiness due to announcements of urban redevelopment plans by the Government. Bukit Brown, Rochor Centre, Tanjong Katong, Buona Vista Swimming Complex, Old School etc.

As a former public urban planner and a 35 year old member of public, I see the over-arching problem as such:

Points of Contention	From Member of Public's point of view	From SINGOV's  point of view	The Complex Reality
‘Changes’	What are you doing to my land/ property/ neighbourhood? Why now?	According to the relevant acts, Singov can, AT ANY TIME, make the following changes to any land/property in Singapore: Zoning  - What your property can be used for Gross plot ratio – How much floor space you can build on your property Development controls – How tall, how wide, how many floors etc your property can be. Other controls – E.g. the look of your property (e.g. type of windows, colour of roof tiles, retaining plaster mouldings etc) << the legal term is ‘Conservation’. Ownership – State can acquire your property on a compulsory basis and compensate you. Your property then becomes State property, and the State can do what it deems fit with the property.
Public Consultation	Why wasn’t I consulted before Singov finalised and announced the plans?	You HAVE been consulted. The planning intention for your land parcel/ property/ neighbourhood have been reflected in the Concept Plan and Master Plan all this while… since 1998 etc. At every Concept Plan and Master Plan review, we exhibit them for you to give your feedback. You didn’t say anything back then. If the changes were made as an adhoc process, we followed the requirements of the Planning Act, e.g. exhibited the proposed changes in the notice board at the ground floor of URA Centre for x weeks before the changes were finalised. You didn’t say anything back then.	(1)    Few members of public realise the difference between a PR exhibition by a typical stat board vs a Master Plan exhibition by the URA. The Master Plan exhibitions are not merely a PR effort, but are part of a statutory process to seek comments on the draft plan before it becomes a legal document. (2)    There have been occasions where the Master Plan exhibitions were held only at the lobby of URA Centre, i.e. highly reducing the possibility of members of public chancing upon the exhibitions, and giving their feedback if any. (3)    The changes to the Master Plan are: (i) Not specifically brought to the foreground in the exhibition and are instead presented as part of the new plan; and (ii) The individual owners of affected land parcels/ properties are not informed specifically at this stage. They are only informed at execution stage, i.e. after the plans have been approved and  when the land is being acquired or enforcement action is taken.
Appeal	Who can I appeal to?	Back when you were publicly consulted, you could have raised objections to the Minister of National Development. Now, you can always write an appeal to Minister of National Development.	Minister of National Development APPROVED the changes to begin with. Why would he overturn his decision now? That would make his entire decision-making process look silly. But NOW may be an opportune time to appeal, because there has been a recent change of leadership in Ministry of National Development.
Further Appeal	If the Minister of National Development turns down my appeal, who else can I appeal to?	You can take this matter to court.	From what I know, few people have gone to court for such matters. Those few who have, have lost their appeals. From my limited knowledge of the law and how the courts work, as long as the authorities have closely followed what's required by the law when making changes to your property/ land/ neighbour, the courts cannot rule otherwise. In other words, if you wanna change the situation, you need to change the rules (law).

Being High-Handed
Some see the current approach as 'being high-handed'.

But do not be mistaken. 'Being high-handed' is merely an approach, a tool. Like all tools, it can wielded to do good and damage. It depends on the wielder's intelligence and execution.

I am all for 'being high-handed', but such an approach should only be adopted to benefit a significant portion of the Singaporean population in real terms.
E.g. If the government needs to clear 50 families from a site to develop a high-rise public housing estate for 1,000 families, I say go ahead and be 'high-handed'.

(Having said that, it is not right to clear the 50 families now, then leave the site vacant for 10 years and more before redevelopment. Or acquire a building for conservation and redevelopment purposes, then not doing anything different from the previous owner for the next 2 decades, before the building site is put up for redevelopment. That's just being unreasonable and kiasu.)

However, in other cases, there is no good reason to be high-handed.
Take the Tanjong Katong case. This is a situation where the authorities wanting the blocks to LOOK a certain way. There will be no quantitative change to total number of people's consumption of the area. Benefits of any qualitative change are subjective and debatable.

Most importantly, the owners were not consulted BEFORE the policy was approved.
In other words, the authorities are shoving this 'beautification' policy down the throats of the owners and expecting the owners to comply and pay for the look which the authorities want, while suggesting that a huge fine and/or jail term awaits those who do not comply. Anything that's just about 'looks' is highly subjective, and as such, should not be approached in a high-handed manner.

Being Euphemistic about being 'Open'
Owners are supposed to be taking care of anything related to their private properties. It's your responsibility to be aware of what's going on. It's your responsibility to comb the papers and URA notice boards regularly. And of course, all documents and notices are in only in English.

But if the authorities want to claim that they are in open discussions with members of public and owners, I would expect a updated level of care and due diligence in its execution.

Some owners can't even understand the English notices. Not to mention that owners are not informed of proposed changes at the draft stage, but only after the approval and at the execution stage, i.e. land acquisition, enforcement etc.

And, just because owners fight to protect their private properties and way of life does not suggest that members of public believe that 'the government owes them a living'. Perhaps the officers in charge are just not used to dealing with conflict and/or not having things their way. An attitudinal change amongst public officers, especially those in management, is necessary, so as to cater changing public expectations.

'Consultation' does not mean 'Agreement'
I observe that some members of public tie 'consultation' together with 'agreement'.
In simpler terms, even if the government 'consults' you for its plans, it does not mean it will accommodate all or even any of your feedback and suggestions in the final plans.

Also, from the authorities' perspective, any public consultation will lead to speculation of property prices, difficulties in managing public expectations, flood of 'unreasonable requests/ suggestions' as not all members of public are adequately knowledgeable in the fields of urban planning, infrastructure engineering etc.

Hence, from a cynical point of view, it is possible for a 'consultation process' to end up being merely perfunctorily, e.g. the information provided by the authorities for public consultation is highly limited and as such inevitably leads to a couple of conclusions which the authorities seek.

A New 'Decision-Achieving' Framework
The member of public should not be fixated on asking for 'public consultation', but instead ought to be fighting for is a new 'decision-achieving' process and framework to be woven into the legislation.

In other words, working with the public and/or the public's representative(s) for future redevelopment plans, is no longer a 'good to have', but a requirement by law.

The public and the political leaders have to first come to an agreement on:

• WHAT types of urban redevelopment ought to fall under this 'decision-achieving' category. 
• Then move onto WHO ought to be consulted
• HOW and WHEN the decision-achieving process will take place.

It's certainly not straightforward to outline the above-mentioned. But not doing it is a sure sign of avoidance.

E.g. It's very clear to me that, if the authorities wish for 4 blocks of private apartments to LOOK a certain way as prescribed by the authorities, and that the owners have to pay for this look, the authorities have to (i) formally engage ALL owners, (ii) before the plans are approved, (iii) achieve a majority vote for this proposal, (iv) set a date for completion of the proposal.

However, it becomes rather dicey when it comes to compulsory land acquisition of homes/ work places for construction of public infrastructure, because it does not make sense to cancel public infrastructure plans for the benefit of minority owners. In such cases, perhaps the 'decision-achieving' process does not focus on the possibility of rejecting the redevelopment proposal, but tweaking details of proposal to ensure a smoother transition for affected individuals.

Is this new framework gonna slow down the pace of urban redevelopment in Singapore?
Perhaps.
Most urban redevelopment projects take years and even decades from inception to planning to announcement to execution to completion. I'm sure inserting the new framework into the project timeline will increase it by 20% at most.

Is this new framework gonna reduce the amount of unhappiness with urban redevelopment plans in Singapore?
Perhaps.
It depends on the sincerity and competence of the authorities and members of public to participate in this process, the design and the execution of the framework etc.

Whatever form it takes, it sure beats what we are doing about it now. An evasive and defensive approach, causing many to feel left out and unhappy.