'TenderSURE roads unconstitutional'

Any investment in developing newer spaces of common ownership directly speaks to a 21st-century sensibility of participative governance and participative citizens, urban planners and experts have said.

Environment Support Group, a nonprofit, organised a discussion with experts on Thursday about the pros and cons of handing over state government's services to private companies. Be it TenderSURE roads or lake development authorities formed by private bodies, they all conclude works unsatisfactorily, they opined. They said privatisation does not really serve the public interest.

Citing the example of the TenderSURE work on Church Street, Kshitij Urs, Country Head, Greenpeace, said: "The cuddle stones used for Church Street gave away in a few weeks. Also, a lot of street vendors were made to vacate the place during the course of the work which is an intervention to street vendors' laws."

He added: "TenderSURE is outside the scope of the Constitution. It is but an agency that has taken over the government's work. It is the government that should sketch the plans, execute and control them."

Noted ornithologist M B Krishna raised concerns over losing vegetation on TenderSURE roads. He pointed out that Bengaluru was losing many trees which, in turn, were depriving the natural vegetation for birds.