The consultant appointed by Goa State Urban Development Agency (GSUDA) has very secretively unveiled the draft Master Plan 2041 for Margao before a select audience last week, much to the surprise of ordinary citizens. The draft plan which is believed to be a roadmap lists out the developmental changes that are on the cards, but unfortunately, only a few have had the privilege to get a peep at what's in store. Interestingly, the area earmarked for development has been divided into three zones — Margao, Fatorda and South Margao (Railway Station area).
From an integrated transit system, rejuvenation of River Sal with a buffer zone, promotion of agro-tourism, commercial use of spaces, pedestrian-friendly city centre, and agro-tourism there are major changes incorporated in the plan which are to be executed in a phased manner depending on the availability of funds. Projects to the tune of Rs 120 crore have been planned in the commercial capital itself.
A cursory glance at the proposals gives a rough sketch of what's in store, and it is obvious that Margao could witness sweeping changes to the extent that it can completely change the existing vibe of the city. The question however is, why no transparency? The consultant has unveiled the plan to councillors with only nine of the 26 city fathers turning out to actually see what is being drawn — out of which 8 were from the BJP camp. The silence at the presentation gives a fair idea of which way the script is drifting. There was also a presentation for a select group of citizens by “invitation” only which included mainly builders and some professionals. The common citizen has been left completely out of the loop.
In a democratic set-up, a draft of this nature has to be placed before the public for scrutiny so that lacunae are addressed. The way the consultant is going about secretly is suspicious of the fact that an attempt is being made to bypass public scrutiny and serve vested interests. A plan cannot be imposed on the people of Margao, no matter how good it is from the development perspective.
There is a whole lot of clarity needed — from sustainability, carrying capacity, impact on lives and livelihoods, agricultural areas demarcated in the plan, the fate of farmers whose land and fields are being now taken up for development, the rehabilitation plan, etc. Also, there has to be clarity on whether the commercial hub proposed at the Margao Railway Station will come up at the GSUDA-acquired fields or whether it will consume the fields owned by locals. Lack of transparency leads to opposition and conflicts that breach the trust of people in the establishment.
We fail to understand Margao MLA Digambar Kamat's reasoning for not having a separate PowerPoint presentation for residents of Margao and Fatorda when these are the very people who are going to be impacted by the plan. The cold response at the presentation meant for councillors explains the fact that people were not well represented with two-thirds of the council giving the session a slip. Authorities cannot handpick the audience in such sensitive matters that are going to have long-term implications.
GSUDA must clear the air over the plan and put it in the public domain through various forums so that there is absolute transparency. There has to be a public hearing for grievances and suggestions. The exercise cannot be a one-way system, and people cannot be kept in the dark.
