Detailed land use maps were produced and presented on this three-day meeting. The maps and a General plan of several volumes describing the land uses were to be the base and reference for future zoning.
The General plan and a additional Regional plan related to the Canal hidrographic basin with its own land use maps became Law 21 of 1997. In the General Plan map nearly 90% of the area of Clayton was designated Low Density Residential, which was later designated by the R1 zoning code.
The first figure shows the Clayton area by Law 21 of 1997, the yellow color indicates Low Density Residential land use or R1. Dark green defines green protected areas (Cruces Trail or Camino de Cruces National Park), while light green defines urban green areas not for development.
Figure 1. Land use map from Law 21 of 1997
During 1999 the ministry of housing known as MiVi, and the Interoceanic Region Authority known as ARI, entity charged with incorporating the Canal areas to the economy, changed the land use of the urbanized sectors, including Clayton, using over imposed land use criteria and created new Zoning codes. Also, the land was subdivided creating new lots and polygons for future sale.
At the beginning of 2000 an obsure ordinance by MiVi described the change on land use for Clayton. Whay obscure, is because no edition of the Official Gazette shows it published, which is a requiremente to be legally biding. The main legal problem with this act is that in order to change the land use, Law 21 of 1997 requires a new, an institutional ordinance, ruling or decree CANNOT change or substitute a law!
The zoning map in Figure 2 is an excerpt of the Panama city zoning map from the MiVi showing the modified land use with codes to allow higher densities than the ones defined by Law 21 of 1997. The map is accesible online at http://www.mivi.gob.pa/ for you to verify that the information provided here is truthful.
Figure 2. Ministry of Housing's zoning map section of Clayton
As you can see, the lot of the project Clayton View had, by law 21 of 1997 as most of Clayton, a Low-Density Residential (R1) land use; however this was changed, illegaly as described above by an ordinance and not by law, to Mixed Urban Residential Medium Density (MRU2).
Figure 3 shows another view from a map published jointly by the former Interoceanic Authority and MiVi shows this illegal zoning in a more clearer way.
Figure 3 Colored Zoning Map in Clayton View area
This meant that now instead of 100 to 300 people per hectare (p/h) now a developer can put up to 3,000 p/h in the same space where once 3-single family duplexes stood. Not only that, high-rise building could be constructed.
At the end of 2005 once again MiVi acted without public consultation and put up a resolution, No. 237, to allow developers to move the construction line at their own discretion increasing the lot setbacks and therefore increasing the height of their buildings. MiVi even allow a “tolerance” to go beyond what the resolution allowed in principle. All the high-rise projects so far have asked for tolerances.
Betrayed by the authorities that sold them their properties assuring them no tall buildings will ever be constructed in the reverted areas, the residents requested in 2006 the Supreme Court for the suspension of that resolution and got it. MiVi, apparently upset by the suspension process, prepared by the end of 2006 another resolution “cloned” after No. 237, this time No. 368, to again allow developers to construct high rise buildings. This last resolution was also suspended by the Court after being requested by residents.
At the same time, on a private bid from former owners, the developers purchased the three lots on the side of Hospital road in which 3 single-level single-familiy duplexes where built in 1962.
Immediately, and by using the unlawful MiVi resolutions they designed a monstruosity of 3-towers 18-stories apartment complex. They pushed up the number of possible inhabitants based on both unlawful suspended resolutions.
Every project must submit an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to the Environmental Authority (ANAM). The developers did it, but it was first rejected by ANAM, prompting them to submit another. The new EIA was now subject to scrutiny by the residents and the neighbors association requested such scrutiny to ANAM. However this entity was uncooperative with the association and presented the public hearing under circumstances the residents were not willing to attend and with no guarantee of fair hearing. The developers filled buses with people in favor of the project and filled the hearing place with them; almost all of them were non-residents of Clayton, some even directly related to the architect of the project. An extended document of rejection, fully supported by scientific and legal data, was presented to ANAM, but it never considered and in a matter of days approved the EIA swiftly and without any further requirements to avoid the serious biodiversity impacts the project has. These impacts will be discussed in a further posting.
You might say, what is wrong with all this?
- First, It can be easily proved in a decent and truthful Court of law, that the project and any future property title is illegaly zoned.
- Second, the project design and construction are based on two MiVi resolutions that have been suspended by the Supreme Court, however the construction municipal officer apparently has approved the project. A letter and the document of rejection based on legal and environmental data was presented to this officer, who never answered back.
- Third, the extension, location and height of the project disrupts and destroys the Garden City urban character that should be protected by Law 21 of 1997.
- Fourth, the project is essentially a wall that will block winds, humidity diffusion, seeds dispersal, wildlife passage and by putting more than 500 people where once only 24 people could live, we have a 19-fold increase which translate into social, environmental, water, electrical and utilities shortages for current residents, and of course, more sewage.
In this era of environment awareness, biodiversity loss, you do not want to be known as someone that publicly contributed to a environmental catastrophe.
Be assured, if you buy an apartment on this project, you will be entering a virtual legal limbo. There will be no legal security on your purchase or investment. You could be considered a knownly accomplice of illegal acts committed by the authorities and the developers. Eventually legal demands and suits will caught on you and your property, your investment may well be worth nothing in the end. It will be like paying a quarter million for a property worth only $50,000. The US 2007 loan mortgage crisis effects will be pale compared to this.
Clayton View is a project that will undeniably damage the environment, the local tropical rain forest, the biodiversity, the Garden City urban character of Clayton, the quality of life of the current residents, the ecological tourism, and the integrity of the Canal reverted areas of Panama.
In order to have a clear view of this damage, you just have to see a aerial view of the project site. Figure 4 shows the abundant although somewhat fragmented tropical forest areas, which constitute the main base and attraction of the Garden City urban character of Clayton and the area of the project that will be damaged by the project Clayton View.
Figure 4. Forested areas the Clayton View project will destroy
As it was mentioned before, a more detail account of the environmental impact, and therefore the biodiversity impact, of Clayton View, check the next posting, since the project constitutes a GREAT WALL against wildlife survival.
Play it safe, DO NOT BUY or INVEST on apartments at the CLAYTON VIEW project.
Avoid by all means to get involved in a mess.
Your purchase title may be infringing the law, meaning Law 21 of 1997.
STAY AWAY of legal troubles and nightmares.
If you have purchased an apartment on Clayton View, sell it right away or ask for your money back.
Say a BIG NO to Clayton View project, do not be a contributor to the climate change and to the destruction of Panama's and the world's biodiversity.
Disclaimer: Here we are revealing to you the truth, nothing but the truth. Any loss of business by the developers of the project mentioned here because these truths are now being revealed to you, are entirely and solely responsibility of the developers. To reveal the truth cannot be a matter of legal suits.
No comments:
Post a Comment