URA: who will put the people first?

Redevelopment schemes should not be decided solely by the authorities or developers, and the affected communities must be engaged at the very outset.

From Peter Leong and JS Han

The storm surrounding the Urban Renewal Bill (URA) went into a brief lull last month but that could be expected to intensify again soon. The question on many minds now is whether in the tail-end of the Dewan Rakyat sitting, post the hubbub of the Sabah state election, the Bill will again be slated for reading (Dec 1-4).

From the outset citizens’ groups and NGOs voiced concerns on the Bill’s gaping deficiencies in the area of safeguards and processes for ensuring fair and equitable outcomes. These demands are by and large publicly supported by politicians across the political divide, including MPs of the ruling coalition.

Umno has been the loudest voice within the ruling coalition calling for clearer safeguards and a more measured approach, with the public pronouncements from their URA Convention of Oct 3 being seen as a major factor in the housing and local government minister’s temporary climbdown.

A latest draft of the Bill was sighted, said to date from Oct 30, which suggests that the ministry has not incorporated tangible changes in response to public feedback and criticisms.

The ministry did make some public engagement efforts, but these have fallen short. The KL Residents Action for Sustainable Development (KLRA+SD) was among an unwieldy group of ~140 organisations invited to a Oct 29 half-day dialogue. While some concerns were discussed within the limited time, assurances given remain mostly verbal.

Another “Dialog Perdana” is now expected to take place at the end of November, apparently with a more selective list of invitees.

KLRA+SD for its part consistently advocates for comprehensive multilateral dialogue amongst stakeholders across the divides, given how pervasive the issue of redevelopment is.

At this upcoming session, the “property development caucus” will be fully represented, including the professional bodies bringing key technical and regulatory compliance expertise to the table. Nevertheless, without the inclusive participation of diverse citizens’ groups, the perception of closed-door policymaking inevitably arises.

KLRA+SD has previously engaged with professional bodies given their accountability to society at large, and we call upon representatives of the property consulting, town planning, surveying, construction and legal professions to fulfil their public interest obligations.

Rethink needed

A rethink is needed as to whether it is appropriate for federal and state executive committees (FEC/SEC) to “authorise” developers to frame redevelopment schemes.

Without first consulting owners and facilitating their collective exploration of technically/economically feasible options under independent expert advice, fundamental rights may be violated.

The ministry has yet to outline any simple stepwise framework to aid the lay public’s understanding of the processes underlying the Bill’s legislative verbiage. Not that the rakyat have any natural appetite for legislative and bureaucratic details.

What they wish for is simply an assurance of fair and reasonable treatment, framed simply in layman language – in a manner which builds confidence that their elected representatives and the civil servants can and will do the needful to safeguard public interest.

What fair should look like

KLRA+SD has drawn up a version of what a fair urban renewal process should look like, encapsulating our findings from working with impacted communities and validating them through conversations with industry professionals and some conscientious developers.

Our framework is rooted in the following principles:

1. Renewal should prioritise people.

Redevelopment schemes should not be decided between authorities and developers. Communities must be engaged at the outset in feasibility studies to articulate a reality-checked redevelopment vision, guided by independent studies such as preliminary social and traffic impact assessments (SIA and TIA).

2. The process must be government-mediated throughout.

Consent has to be informed, expressed and transparently validated, without being influenced by developers. This may necessitate a paradigm shift to one in which independent consultants/advisers drive the process towards a majority bought-in redevelopment concept, before involving any developer. Communities’ access to the services of professionals such as valuers and town planners could be supported by a self-sustaining revolving fund under the ministry.

3. Inclusive urban renewal should not displace tenants.

A significant proportion of residents in mature neighbourhoods consist of rental tenants. Tenants, especially in strata properties, should be given the option to participate through purchase at affordable price points.

4. Market-driven compensation.

This is inextricably intertwined with economic feasibility. Owners must get a fair deal and developers a fair profit margin within a computation that transparently captures the full redevelopment potential. Terms should not be pre-fixed by developers, and the options sought from developers should be framed based on owners’ aspirations within a competitive RFP (request for proposal).

Due process for mediation and appeal

Formalised mediation must start as soon as issues surface during consent-taking, and continue on beyond threshold achievement by presenting initial non-consenters with an opt-in opportunity. Where mediation fails, a non-consenter should have recourse to an appeal board appointed by the state authority (not the federal executive committee or FEC itself) – mirroring the appeals process of the Town and Country Planning Act (Act 172).

Minimise use of Land Acquisition Act (LAA)

Use of the LAA must be limited to resolving exceptional cases such as owners who cannot be located. In invoking the LAA for urban renewal purposes, every effort must be made to ensure that it is used only where absolutely necessary, with great care and judiciousness, and always demonstrating a sufficiently broad public interest in order that its legitimacy not be questioned.

Doing the right thing

This visualisation of a fair process is but one of many ways of looking at it. Ultimately such assurances can only come through embedment of various safeguards at the right levels within the primary and secondary legislation (Act and Rules, respectively).

With over 70 residents associations in its fold, KLRA has visibility of the challenges faced in confronting redevelopment, which policymakers and even professionals need to pay close attention to in outlining the process frameworks.

While it is not our place to make any prescriptive demands, we hope that our government pays due heed to “on-the-ground” inputs from civil society, by engaging broadly and representatively with residents’ groups in formulating the right frameworks. These seem to be the current missing links. - FMT

Peter Leong and JS Han are public policy advisers to the Kuala Lumpur Residents Action for Sustainable Development Association.

The views expressed are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.