13 Megaprojects as an Instrument of Urban Planning and Development …
157
The decision-making regarding megaprojects in Serbia is exclusive and elite
driven. This is visible: (1) by innovations in the existing Planning and Construction
Act (PCA), (2) by appreciation of the new lex specialis (expropriation for private
elite hi-tech housing and commercial purposes for the BWP), (3) by verification of
the BWP as a national strategic priority, (4) by property development regulation, (5)
local communities are excluded from decision-making and poorly informed about
BWP. Political leaders and the mayor of Belgrade provide the majority of the information regarding the BWP. Dogan (2015) argued that a strong national initiative in
this project represents a top-down approach to the regeneration of the wider Savamala district. Eror (2015) argued that “it’s a state-driven model” called “top-down”
or “hyper” gentrification.
13.3.1 Benchmark of Development Impacts of the BWP
The absence of accountability is evident in the BWP decision-making. Monitoring
and control systems are insufficient, as well as the approaches for evaluating main
social, economic and environmental impacts.
Benchmarking of possible development impacts of the BWP include intensive
social impacts (raising social inequalities, gentrification, involuntary resettlement,
networking of the key actors), intensive impacts on national level (overuse of
public funds, limiting the State in making laws that are incompatible with the
BWP interests), high public financial risk, strong urban transformations, intensive demographic growth (17,700 new inhabitants), low development and economic
effects, low transparency and public participation, environmental impacts, and others (Table 13.1). Policy-makers promoted the BWP, emphasizing its role in creating
employment (13,169–200,000 new employees), promoting tourism, using domestic
inputs, improving productivity, growth competitiveness, high-quality services, etc.
Due to the complexity of the BWP, it would be difficult to provide proofs for such
possible impacts and their exact scopes. The lack of a feasibility study for the BWP
and non-transparent data are reasons for the insufficiently reliable and quantified
assessment of its effects.
Total investment in capital infrastructure and utilities is 400 million EUR. The cost
of activating the location is between 790 and 1000 million EUR (Kontrapress 2014),
while expropriation costs will reach 7.1 million EUR. The Belgrade Waterfront Spatial Plan states that the revenues from urban development land and participation for
infrastructure are 1.03–1.33 billion EUR, while the potential revenue from urban
land (land value) varies from 168 to 336 million EUR.
2
Benchmarking of regulation indicates some open regulatory issues which may
have potential impacts on the development effects of the BWP, such as: (1) The
2 The expected project benefits do not include property tax, capital gain tax, real estate transfer tax,
levies, income tax, fee for use of public goods and others.
157
The decision-making regarding megaprojects in Serbia is exclusive and elite
driven. This is visible: (1) by innovations in the existing Planning and Construction
Act (PCA), (2) by appreciation of the new lex specialis (expropriation for private
elite hi-tech housing and commercial purposes for the BWP), (3) by verification of
the BWP as a national strategic priority, (4) by property development regulation, (5)
local communities are excluded from decision-making and poorly informed about
BWP. Political leaders and the mayor of Belgrade provide the majority of the information regarding the BWP. Dogan (2015) argued that a strong national initiative in
this project represents a top-down approach to the regeneration of the wider Savamala district. Eror (2015) argued that “it’s a state-driven model” called “top-down”
or “hyper” gentrification.
13.3.1 Benchmark of Development Impacts of the BWP
The absence of accountability is evident in the BWP decision-making. Monitoring
and control systems are insufficient, as well as the approaches for evaluating main
social, economic and environmental impacts.
Benchmarking of possible development impacts of the BWP include intensive
social impacts (raising social inequalities, gentrification, involuntary resettlement,
networking of the key actors), intensive impacts on national level (overuse of
public funds, limiting the State in making laws that are incompatible with the
BWP interests), high public financial risk, strong urban transformations, intensive demographic growth (17,700 new inhabitants), low development and economic
effects, low transparency and public participation, environmental impacts, and others (Table 13.1). Policy-makers promoted the BWP, emphasizing its role in creating
employment (13,169–200,000 new employees), promoting tourism, using domestic
inputs, improving productivity, growth competitiveness, high-quality services, etc.
Due to the complexity of the BWP, it would be difficult to provide proofs for such
possible impacts and their exact scopes. The lack of a feasibility study for the BWP
and non-transparent data are reasons for the insufficiently reliable and quantified
assessment of its effects.
Total investment in capital infrastructure and utilities is 400 million EUR. The cost
of activating the location is between 790 and 1000 million EUR (Kontrapress 2014),
while expropriation costs will reach 7.1 million EUR. The Belgrade Waterfront Spatial Plan states that the revenues from urban development land and participation for
infrastructure are 1.03–1.33 billion EUR, while the potential revenue from urban
land (land value) varies from 168 to 336 million EUR.
2
Benchmarking of regulation indicates some open regulatory issues which may
have potential impacts on the development effects of the BWP, such as: (1) The
2 The expected project benefits do not include property tax, capital gain tax, real estate transfer tax,
levies, income tax, fee for use of public goods and others.