[sustran] Re: Important parking ruling by India's Supreme Court

[ashok datar]

Paul Baxter,
You are right in providing a precise interpretation . However, there is
always a possibility of misunderstanding and we in India need to take up and
even educate the authorities as well as the courts that private parking can
and should not be considered public infra structure
and appropriate, fair and transparent pricing alongwith strict rules and
compliance machinery to ensure that road spaces are not carelessly and
freely used for parking - treating them as " public areas and hence free
parking to be allowed " this is a sad libertarian view
and needs to be curbed when the parking chaos is growing in a compounding
manner.
ashok datar

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Paul Barter <paulbarter at nus.edu.sg> wrote:

> Yesterday there was an important parking ruling by India's Supreme Court.
>  My question is: Does it outlaw 'parking unbundling'?
>
> India's Supreme Court ruled yesterday that developers cannot sell parking
> spaces as independent real-estate units. The court ruled that parking areas
> are 'common areas and facilities'. This upholds an earlier Bombay High Court
> ruling.
>
> I fear that this ruling may be misunderstood to mean that unbundling of
> parking has been forbidden completely. Some may even claim that charging for
> off-street parking has been outlawed.
>
> But I would argue that India's Supreme Court has ruled out only ONE KIND OF
> UNBUNDLING. It forbids the option of buying and selling parking separately
> as real-estate.
>
> For example, managing parking as 'common areas' is compatible with having a
> system of parking permits for tenants. These can be priced of course.
>  Managing parking as 'common area' is also compatible with deciding to
> charge visitors for parking, which would be most relevant for commercial
> complexes.
>
> See
> http://www.reinventingparking.org/2010/09/important-parking-ruling-by-indias.htmlfor more information.
>
> Any thoughts on this from India? Have I interpreted this ruling and its
> implications correctly?
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor
> LKY School of Public Policy | National University of Singapore
> 469C Bukit Timah Road | Singapore 259772
> Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020  | paulbarter at nus.edu.sg
> http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Paul_Barter.aspx
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>



-- 
Ashok R.Datar
Mumbai Environmental Social Network
20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016
98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org
* I hear, then I forget.  I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand.*