More voices join the chorus against privatisation of Coastal Road Gardens

As HT reported on September 29, the Mumbai Coastal Forest, a citizen initiative, first opposed the project in separate letters to Reliance Foundation chairperson Nita Ambani and chief minister Devendra Fadnavis

MUMBAI: Citizens’ voices against the 15% ticketing of the proposed 130-acre Coastal Road Gardens, planned as a waterfront public open space along seven km of Mumbai’s Coastal Road between Priyadarshini Park and Worli, are growing. Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), which is developing the gardens through a corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative of Reliance Foundation, has submitted a final master plan to the BMC, with a ticketed component of 15% after the Supreme Court on June 11, capped the “recreational activities/ticketed access control” at that percentage.

More voices join the chorus against privatisation of Coastal Road Gardens

As HT reported on September 29, the Mumbai Coastal Forest, a citizen initiative, first opposed the project in separate letters to Reliance Foundation chairperson Nita Ambani and chief minister Devendra Fadnavis. NAGAR (NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal), in a letter to municipal commissioner Ashwini Bhide on September 22, has also opposed the monetisation. “It is a bad precedent to have ticketed areas in public open spaces. The Coastal Road Garden is a public open space and must be open to all citizens equally and at all times,” said Nayana Kathpalia, trustee of NAGAR.

NAGAR, along with the Urban Design Research Institute (UDRI), has argued that all six zones of the garden should be designed as universally accessible spaces. It cited Cross Maidan as an example of a public space that supports everyday recreation as well as large public events while remaining free of ticketed and commercial activities. NAGAR has asked the municipal commissioner to reverse the decision.

“When the decision permitting the 15% ticketed zone was taken, our matter was not clubbed with it, resulting in the ticketing issue being considered in isolation,” said Goenka. “One of our major initial concerns was that the land reclaimed for the project would eventually be used for commercial purposes, and this is becoming a reality.” Goenka pointed out that the BMC in 2020 had stated in an affidavit that the reclaimed land would not be used for commercial purposes.

Goenka also questioned the rationale of introducing ticketing into a public open space being developed through CSR. “CSR and the commercialisation of an open space are at odds with each other,” he said, adding that citizens would have little control over ticket prices or over how much revenue was recovered and spent on maintaining the gardens.

The Mumbai Coastal Forest, which advocates an urban forest on the reclaimed land, has also backed NAGAR’s position. “We support NAGAR’s objection to ticketing,” it said. “This is public land that should serve a vital environmental function; reducing heat and flooding, improving air quality and giving Mumbai much-needed relief from the intensity of the city. Recreation is welcome, but it should be within a generous, densely planted native forest, not a ticketed attraction or commercial destination.”

Attempts to reach out to the BMC commissioner were unsuccessful.