"Whose side are you on?" is the wrong question

Yesterday, the third continuation of the same public session of the Planning Commission on the detailed regulation plan of Bajdin was held, two and a half years after the previous appointment. Let us remind you that the development of this plan started in 2016, the early public review was held in 2017, and the public review was then waited for another five years. At the beginning of 2022, a public review of this plan was held, during which a public session of the Commission for Plans (public hearing) was held in two parts, due to the large number of interested citizens and the unsuccessful moderation of the public hearing and opposing views of citizens. A third sequel was also promised, but it did not happen in 2022, nor in 2023, nor for most of 2024. During those two and a half years, the competent institutions remained silent and did not undertake any activities or steps towards the public. On the contrary, the public and citizens in Belgrade are already familiar with the tactics of dragging out the planning procedure for an unreasonably long time, the goal of which is to passivize dissatisfied citizens, demotivate them from participating in planning and forget that there was any public insight and public debate in which they participated. In these circumstances, it is clear how significant the self-organization efforts of local civic groups are. An example is the group "Miri's green and healthy", which has been informing and mobilizing the local population continuously for the past three years, and thanks to their efforts, the citizens have not forgotten about the development of this plan and the proposed planning solution.

Like the previous two terms of the public discussion, yesterday's was also colored by an intense conflict of interests of various actors relevant and interested in the Bajdina area. Two groups of actors are the most pronounced in this case - citizens who are owners of individual plots in the area of Bajdina and citizens who live in Mirijevo and strive to preserve the existing green area in the area of Bajdina. This area (66 ha) is a territory divided into many smaller plots in the private ownership of individuals. However, on 54 ha of this area, the plan recognizes a naturally regulated green area. At the initiative of the plot owners and in accordance with their interests to adopt a planning basis on which those plots could be built, a planning solution was proposed that transforms the Bajdina area from a green area into a residential area for 12000 inhabitants, but on an active and potential landslide. The proposed planning solution is in conflict with the city's strategic goals, which envisage reforestation, primarily on landslides. Also, the green area in this area represents a kind of protective belt against harmful effects on the health of citizens who go from the direction of Vinča not only to Mirijevo, but also to the rest of the city. Although naturally regulated, this area is an ecosystem and habitat for more than 60 animal species, many of which are protected by law.

Such a situation of different and conflicting attitudes, opinions, needs and visions of the development of one area coming from many different actors is quite common for urban planning in today's circumstances. But the questions "Whose side are you on?" and "Which side is right here?" completely cast a shadow on much more important, fundamental questions: "How did such an escalation of the conflict occur?", "Why are the competent institutions unable to manage the process of creating this plan?", "Why is there no moderated public hearing and discussion?" and the most important "Whose responsibility is it all?".

First of all, the way in which the competent institutions (Secretariat for Urban Planning, Chief Urban Planner, Planning Commission and Urban Institute) manage the development of this plan actually produces and generates this conflict of citizens. Until the public inspection of the plan (6 years from the beginning of the plan development), the general public and the residents of Mirijevo were not informed about the fact that a plan is being prepared that envisages the complete transformation of a part of the settlement. At the same time, only one group of interested actors was informed and involved in the process. Favoring one group of interested parties and one type of interest, and completely neglecting other actors and interests, including the public interest, leads to completely different and unequal positions that different actors have in this process. The main task of the competent institutions is to first of all recognize what interests exist in the area and who are the relevant groups that should be included in the process, and then invest resources and efforts to reconcile the multitude of these interests and find a compromise solution. However, in this case (as well as many others), the competent institutions have done absolutely nothing for these 8 years to organize some format or event that would ensure a space for dialogue and discussion. The reason for this is not a lack of resources, but a choice not to allocate resources to those purposes. The reason is not a lack of professional staff, but a conscious choice to completely abolish the space for discussion and moderation of conflicting interests. In the absence of a moderated, safe and controlled space for dialogue, the authorities counted on the fact that then the opposing citizens would clash in every other space. And it would seem that they mostly counted on this happening at a public hearing, so that they could only support their beliefs and explanations "that citizens cannot cooperate and that citizens do not know how to participate in planning" and that this is why any public participation in planning is meaningless.

However, what is actually meaningless is that the institutions and bodies responsible for the coordination and management of the development of the plan create and reinforce the conflicts of citizens in the area of the plan. What this process looks like, how it is held and how long the public discussion itself is as a whole is the responsibility of the competent institutions and bodies.

At yesterday's public hearing, the president of the Planning Commission pointed out that there are "two opposing sides", and that the city of Belgrade still has no position on this plan and the questionable planning solution, and that they will try to "judge fairly and make a just decision". It is really necessary to point out that this is not a trial process, in which the Planning Commission is a kind of judge, who listens to the parties in a civil proceeding at a public hearing. The legitimacy of the decisions made by the competent authorities in urban planning lies in an adequately implemented participatory process from which those decisions arise. It is not possible to know what a "just solution" is without maintaining an essential and adequate participatory process. Whether the competent institutions will stop the development of this plan and start the procedure from the beginning, this time in a responsible and professionally ethical manner, is unlikely and questionable. Otherwise, it will be one more in a series of extremely illegitimate planning decisions, made outside the public interest. This is precisely the greatest damage, because continuous neglect of the public interest in urban planning will lead to long-term consequences for the city, which will be felt by everyone, even those citizens who have isolated themselves in expensive squares and closed blocks with the best conditions. At some point they will have to leave their residences, and everything else is a common space that we all have to pass through and use. When it is neglected, it affects the general condition, health and quality of everyday life of all of us.

"Whose side are you on?" is the wrong question

RELATED TEXTS