The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has made a firm decision not to prolong the public hearing for its fourth city plan revision. Despite fervent appeals from various quarters, BMA asserts that Bangkok’s residents from all six district groups have already voiced their opinions. The revised plan is slated to come into effect towards the end of next year.
The proposed fourth draft of BMA’s Bangkok City Plan has garnered significant criticism from numerous civil society organizations. Critics argue that the plan falls woefully short in addressing the capital’s enduring problems, including the perennial traffic jams, inadequate water management, and the dearth of affordable living spaces. Furthermore, they claim that public consultation has been sorely lacking throughout the process.
Deputy Bangkok Governor Wisanu Subsompon has highlighted that the primary concerns raised by Bangkokians revolve around changes to the city’s color-coded zoning, rules surrounding land expropriation, and the insufficient provision of open public spaces.
Bangkok Governor Chadchart Sittipunt had already extended the public hearing period twice—from December 23, 2023, to January 22, 2024, and again from February 29 to August 30—to ensure that all stakeholders had ample time to thoroughly consider the revised plan and share their insights. In light of these extensions, the BMA has decided against another prolongation, asserting that sufficient public feedback has been gathered.
Mr. Wisanu indicated that the subsequent steps involve BMA’s Department of City Planning and Urban Development evaluating the public’s feedback and presenting it to both BMA’s advisory committee on city planning and the Department of Public Works and Town and Country Planning for approval. Following this, affected parties will be given an opportunity to file their complaints, which will be reviewed by the provincial urban planning commission.
He expressed optimism that the updated city plan could be published in the Royal Gazette by the end of the following year.
However, the plan has faced staunch opposition from several organizations. The Thailand Consumers Council (TCC), the Foundation for Consumers, and the Society for the Conservation of National Treasure and Environment (Sconte), along with a coalition of residents impacted by the proposed changes, have petitioned Governor Chadchart to abandon the plan, arguing that it breaches both legal and human rights standards.
According to TCC Secretary-General Saree Aungsomwang, the plan does nothing to resolve the pressing issues that deteriorate the quality of life for Bangkok residents. She warned that if the BMA fails to amend the plan within 30 days, the council will pursue legal action against the administration.
As this unfolding drama persists, the fate of Bangkok’s fourth city plan lies in a delicate balance. The key players, from city planners and government officials to civil society advocates and everyday citizens, are grappling with their vision of what the future metropolis should encompass. Will Bangkok finally find resolutions to its long-standing urban challenges, or will this plan become just another chapter in its complex history?
It’s ridiculous that the BMA is pushing this plan despite all the criticism. This plan clearly doesn’t address the real issues like housing and traffic!
I completely agree, Anna. The traffic situation is a nightmare, and affordable housing is almost non-existent. It feels like they are ignoring the residents’ real needs.
Honestly, there will always be critics. People need to stop complaining and recognize that progress can’t please everyone.
Perhaps the expansions for public hearings were enough. How much longer do we want to stall progress for more opinions?
I smell corruption. Why such a rush to push this through? Follow the money.
Totally skeptical too! Always seems like there’s some backroom deal being made.
Conspiracy theories won’t solve anything. Such a defeatist attitude!
Calling it a conspiracy theory is naive. Follow the money trail and see for yourself!
I don’t get why people are upset. Change is necessary for growth, and yes, some inconveniences are part of it.
The lack of affordable living spaces is devastating for many families. This plan is just out of touch with reality.
You have a good point, Sarah. Affordable housing should be a priority, especially in a city as densely populated as Bangkok.
They can’t just build affordable housing everywhere. There’s a lot more to city planning than that.
I think the extensions for public hearings prove that BMA is trying to be fair. People need to read the full report first.
The environmental impact of this plan is concerning too. What about green spaces?
True, Vivian. Green spaces are crucial for a liveable urban environment.
City planners often overlook green spaces. This is another example of poor foresight.
Exactly! Long-term health and happiness of residents depend on having adequate green spaces.
They should have involved more locals in the planning process from the start. This could have avoided much of the backlash.
Agreed, Kitty. Community involvement is key in city planning.
Land expropriation rules always stir up controversy. The transparency of this process is what people are most worried about.
Transparency is indeed crucial. It’s a matter of trust. Once lost, it’s hard to regain.
The idea that public feedback was sufficient is laughable. It’s clear many voices were brushed aside.
Legal action over this plan seems extreme. Wouldn’t it be better to focus on collaboration?
Maybe, but sometimes legal action is the only way to be heard. Collaborations have failed before.
This plan sounds like it’s a step in the right direction but needs further refinement. More public input should have been allowed.
The BMA has already extended the hearings twice. How much more public input do you want? Decisions need to be made.
It always seems like these decisions benefit the wealthy more than the average citizens. Will this ever change?
Unfortunately, that’s often how it goes. Change remains elusive for the average citizen.
I can’t believe the BMA is disregarding such strong opposition. It’s like residents’ opinions don’t matter.
They did not disregard it. They extended the period twice. That shows they care.
But those extensions weren’t enough. More time might have allowed for better solutions!