ELAZIG GUNISIGI NEWSPAPER – April 2013
IMPORTANT BUT INSIGNIFICANT!
The headline may seem surprising, but it was the only way to describe the stance I wanted to explain. Our politicians, who have emphasized the significance of the Elazığ Environmental Plan, seem to have lost interest once the matter was sent to Ankara, as they no longer felt the need to follow up on it.
We can tell that it’s not being followed up by the changes that have been made. Only about 30% of the issues raised in the objections report, which the local commission worked on for weeks and reached a consensus on, were considered. Why was less than half of the request incorporated into the plan?
The firm responsible for the environmental plan stated in their meetings: “Objections must be based on documentation. If there is no document, it becomes difficult to consider them.” Although the commission documented and quantified all the objections it made, I find it hard to understand why two out of every three requests were rejected. If the firm disregards the documented objections, why don’t they provide justifications for their decisions? Why this undemocratic process? How can the future of a city be left in the hands of a firm’s discretion?
If the commission’s documented report wasn’t going to be taken into account, why was the commission even created? The commission included representatives from public institutions, experienced and technically strong individuals from the private sector, and representatives from the most influential NGOs in the city. Are their insights worth only one-third of what they contributed?
I have examined the plan that was posted for the third time on March 18, 2013, in great detail. Many important aspects from the commission’s report are missing from the plan. Some people, who don’t understand these matters, later claim, “It can still be fixed, you’re focusing too much on it.” Yes, there is a possibility of correction or change, but I ask, how will the firm, which disregarded the ideas of the 40-person commission representing Elazığ, handle a citizen’s request tomorrow? (Without the firm’s positive opinion, no changes can be made to the plan.)
The development of cities starts from the outskirts and moves inward. For Elazığ, we can take Malatya Road as an example. The settlement that began along the road has now transformed into a new neighborhood like Ataşehir. Our city’s road corridors are already saturated. One of Elazığ’s western openings, Malatya Road, has no further development areas. Therefore, it is noteworthy that Keban Road (or rather, Sivas and the new Ankara Road) has not yet been included in the urban development area.
If Elazığ has to base its requests on documents, why can’t the firm provide an explanation when rejecting these requests? Can this practice be logically explained? As I mentioned in my previous columns, in order to reach a goal, you must first set that goal. A future that is not accurately anticipated cannot be expected to bring happiness. There must be no room for chance in the future planning of cities. Steps must be taken within the framework of plans and programs.
This is my fifth column on the 1/100,000 scale Environmental Plan for Malatya-Elazığ-Bingöl-Tunceli. This plan has turned into a never-ending story. I would like to draw attention to the following: the people in the environmental plan commission feel hurt. The labor and intellectual efforts of these people, who volunteered and worked for Elazığ and its people, must be accounted for by those in charge. Those who fail to take responsibility for this will bear a great moral burden.