13 Megaprojects as an Instrument of Urban Planning and Development …
159
to this law are not subject to public tender, while the Constitution prescribes that
international agreements must be in accordance with the market economy).
The introduction of specific legal and policy instruments in Serbia under neoliberal
economic pressures is a key source of the future change in the metropolitan tissue
by the BWP. Potentially negative development impacts of the BWP in some legal
aspects of the urban construction land might comprise: (1) Leaseholds of public
urban land without fees to the Belgrade Waterfront Company which is in dominantly
private ownership of BWP investor (by Regulation, 2012); (2) Right of lease to the
Belgrade Waterfront Company gratis will be converted into the right of ownership.
This Company can transfer the right of ownership to other parties without a fee (after
constructing building/s and obtaining a use-permit) in accordance with lex specialis,
Regulation (2012); (3) The obligation of Serbia and the City of Belgrade to finance
and build all external and internal capital infrastructure till December 31, 2019; (4) An
enactment of necessary legislation allowing full set-off of all land development fees
against public land development costs on the project level. Land development fees
will be governed by a separate agreement between the City of Belgrade and national
institutions. If Serbia does not fulfill contractual obligations, it has to pay damages
to the strategic partner; (5) The final calculation of the costs between investors and
the City of Belgrade will be made after completing the construction of all planned
facilities, but without a stated period; (6) Serbia could not change the BWP plan
without the approval of a strategic partner, while the partner can change some parts
of the plan; and (7) Serbia has an obligation to adopt the necessary changes to other
laws that are desirable according to the JVA, and it can limit the independence of the
national government in passing the laws.
Citizens are mainly excluded from the decision-making, including low level of
public informing. The protests of citizens and NGOs reflect insufficient transparency
and democracy in the planning of BWP.
13.4 Recommendations for Future Research
and Application
In many regions of the South-East, state policies support urban development compatible with elite tastes and consumption that promotes socioeconomic inequalities, thus
enabling global finance capital to shape the city (Watson 2012). This “privatization”
of planning, as Shatkin (2011) calls it, through megaprojects tends to undermine
the public administration of urban space and replace local authority with private
governance. Recent research of megaprojects in cities of the South (Kennedy et al.
2014) showed the decreased significance of local government within the process of
economic development.
The empirical findings of the BWP open possibility for a new insight into planning
and appraisal of UMPs, that includes an alternative/improved approach and the following recommendations: more transparency and real public participation, improved
159
to this law are not subject to public tender, while the Constitution prescribes that
international agreements must be in accordance with the market economy).
The introduction of specific legal and policy instruments in Serbia under neoliberal
economic pressures is a key source of the future change in the metropolitan tissue
by the BWP. Potentially negative development impacts of the BWP in some legal
aspects of the urban construction land might comprise: (1) Leaseholds of public
urban land without fees to the Belgrade Waterfront Company which is in dominantly
private ownership of BWP investor (by Regulation, 2012); (2) Right of lease to the
Belgrade Waterfront Company gratis will be converted into the right of ownership.
This Company can transfer the right of ownership to other parties without a fee (after
constructing building/s and obtaining a use-permit) in accordance with lex specialis,
Regulation (2012); (3) The obligation of Serbia and the City of Belgrade to finance
and build all external and internal capital infrastructure till December 31, 2019; (4) An
enactment of necessary legislation allowing full set-off of all land development fees
against public land development costs on the project level. Land development fees
will be governed by a separate agreement between the City of Belgrade and national
institutions. If Serbia does not fulfill contractual obligations, it has to pay damages
to the strategic partner; (5) The final calculation of the costs between investors and
the City of Belgrade will be made after completing the construction of all planned
facilities, but without a stated period; (6) Serbia could not change the BWP plan
without the approval of a strategic partner, while the partner can change some parts
of the plan; and (7) Serbia has an obligation to adopt the necessary changes to other
laws that are desirable according to the JVA, and it can limit the independence of the
national government in passing the laws.
Citizens are mainly excluded from the decision-making, including low level of
public informing. The protests of citizens and NGOs reflect insufficient transparency
and democracy in the planning of BWP.
13.4 Recommendations for Future Research
and Application
In many regions of the South-East, state policies support urban development compatible with elite tastes and consumption that promotes socioeconomic inequalities, thus
enabling global finance capital to shape the city (Watson 2012). This “privatization”
of planning, as Shatkin (2011) calls it, through megaprojects tends to undermine
the public administration of urban space and replace local authority with private
governance. Recent research of megaprojects in cities of the South (Kennedy et al.
2014) showed the decreased significance of local government within the process of
economic development.
The empirical findings of the BWP open possibility for a new insight into planning
and appraisal of UMPs, that includes an alternative/improved approach and the following recommendations: more transparency and real public participation, improved