Experts call for alternative model of development for Hyderabad
Professor K Nageshwar, a former MLC, has emphadata-sized the importance of establishing the telangana Urban Commission along the lines of the kerala Urban Commission to influence urban planning and provide hyderabad with an alternative growth model. He was giving a speech on saturday at Sundarayya Vignana Kendram in Baghlingampally at a seminar sponsored by the CPM hyderabad Central Committee on the subject of "Urbanisation in telangana, government policies, alternatives."
Speaking on the need to see urbanization as a good thing that fosters creativity and boosts the economy, Nageshwar stated that the "ease of living model" should take precedence over the "real estate oriented growth model" and the "ease of doing business model." He claimed that a symbiotic relationship between the working class and the profiting class was necessary for this to occur.
The threat of ‘ghettoization’
He noted that there was a significant gap between the supply and demand for major infrastructure, such as transportation, sanitation, drinking water, and other necessities, given the fast urbanization of the city. He warned that this could lead to the "ghettoization" of the city since caste and class division is already occurring.
"There is a shift occurring in the urban demography. similar to how the wealthy class lives in suburban regions while the impoverished class resides in the heart of the US city. Similar circumstances exist in hyderabad, where the wealthy classes and castes have been relocating to Neopolis in Kokapet and other areas, while the working class and impoverished are living in slums. He noted that to prevent future disruptions of the peace, infrastructure must be developed in the areas where the working class and lower classes thrive.
Estimates and solutions for creating social infrastructure
Bringing up the World Bank's estimate of 70 lakh crore and McKinsey and Company's estimate of 90 lakh crore required to build social infrastructure in the nation's cities, Prof. Nageshwar pointed out that whenever the idea of urban reforms came up, policymakers always tried to raise the property tax, which put the burden on the people.
Rather, he argued that the Centre might allocate 10% of income tax revenue for the development of capital infrastructure (urban social infrastructure) that benefits the working class, in accordance with the recommendations of the KC Sivaramakrishnan Committee.