*
Sezen Tarakçı Şevkiye Şence Türk ORCID: 0000-0001-8595-867X ORCID: 0000-0002-7990-4138
In this study, the use of plan notes as a land value capture tool on urban re-newal projects in Turkey is examined, focusing on the Fikirtepe Urban Rere-newal Area. There are some reasons for choosing Fikirtepe Urban Renewal Area as a sample area. First, Fikirtepe is one of Istanbul's first slum areas, and has a high capacity to gain value, especially since it has a legal status from the slum area.
Secondly, the gain in value is provided by the plan notes. Thirdly, the Fikirtepe Urban Renewal Area is a large-scale project covering 131 hectares, and alt-hough the urban renewal has not been completed, the projects covering 10% of the area designated as the study area have been completed at a rate that can calculate the value increase gain.
This study examines the land value capture capacity in the Fikirtepe urban renewal process, the distribution of this value among actors, the plan notes cur-rently in use as the value capture instruments, and the value capture capacity of the public.
In order to calculate the distribution of value capture among the actors, all the actors in the process were determined. The developer and the Ministry of the Environment and Urbanization (central government) are the main actors in the process. The Ministry is the primary decision maker, and the developer bears all costs. The landowner is involved in the process of signing an agree-ment with the developer and is not included until the new building is given to him/her. The Kadıköy Municipality, the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM), and the Ministry of Finance are actors only by virtue of the fees, duties, and taxes they collect. Non-governmental organizations and associations have not been included in the study’s calculations as actors, for they receive no share
in the value increase here. The data for the study were collected from bilateral negotiations conducted with the construction companies, the Ministry of Envi-ronment and Urbanization, the Ministry of Finance, the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality and the Kadıköy Municipality; unit costs were obtained from the regulations and from measurements in the plan.
As a result of these expanded development rights and subsequent infra-structure investment decisions, real estate values in the urban renewal area in-crease (Van der Krabben and Jacobs, 2013). This inin-crease is not the result of landowners’ efforts, but rather of the acts of the public, which in turn justifies the redistribution of the increased value in such areas to the public (Ingram and Hong, 2012; Smolka, 2013). The concept of public value capture is based on the acceptance that land values that rise without landowners’ efforts cannot belong to landowners and that a large part or the whole of such value increases should therefore be used for the public good (Alterman, 2013, 2012; Munoz Gielen, 2010; Smolka, 2013). Residual value resulting from urban renewal is closely re-lated to the last two factors. In urban renewal projects, government bodies may oversee plan changes to floor area ratio, land use, the layout of public infra-structure and services, etc. (Hu et al., 2019).
A land use plan for Fikirtepe was adopted in 2005. Under this plan, the Fikir-tepe district was designated a ‘Special Project Area’ for the purpose of improv-ing its physical and social environment and livimprov-ing conditions by Istanbul Met-ropolitan Municipality (IMM, 2005). The detailed local plan of Fikirtepe came into force in 2011. However, this plan was cancelled by the courts. After cancel-lation, the Ministry of the Environment and Urbanization announced the neighbourhood as ‘a risky area’ in 2013. The Ministry’s subsequent detailed lo-cal plan for the risky area in Fikirtepe was approved in 2013. In the planning process actors adopted an approach that depended more on the plan notes than on legal regulations.
In the Fikirtepe Urban Renewal Project, plan notes were used to ensure pub-lic land value capture. There are two primary plan notes that ensure the pubpub-lic land value capture. The first plan note is the Infrastructure Participation Fee and the second is Land Contribution. In the plan notes, it is stated that all road and infrastructure costs shall be borne by the landowners or the developer. In the Fikirtepe urban renewal area, land contributions were made for social and technical infrastructure in accordance with the notes. The plan notes state that in the areas designated as residential, trade and trade-residential areas, a public service area shall be marked off of up to 25% of the total net parcel area.
According to the results of the analysis, it is clear that landowners earned the most in the area following the sale of the constructed projects, reaping 75%
of the total value. At the same time, they bore no costs during the process; only the land contribution was obtained from the owner. However, the total con-struction area was calculated before land contribution had been made. For this reason, land contribution did not alter the number of housing units acquired by landowners. This, in turn, gave rise to the landowners earning the largest share. The developer bore all of the costs during the process while earning 13%
of the total value. An examination of the distribution ratios showed that the lowest value capture was achieved by the public, with a share of 12%.
There are important lessons to be extracted from the Fikirtepe urban re-newal area. During the contract phase, both developers and landowners de-manded more development rights, which is also allowed by the items in the plan notes. However, a large construction area means greater costs and a longer process. Moreover, the fact that the process takes place not under the law, but through plan notes, gives rise to considerable uncertainty. One of the most basic features of Law No. 6306 is the exemption from charges, fees, and taxes.
At first, this is encouraging for a developer. However, additional fees can be defined in the plan notes, which can lead to uncertain costs over the course of the project. The developer faces extra costs that do not exist at the project’s onset but arise during the process. The fact that the process flows only depending on the contract between the developer and the landowner also leads to its depend-ence on the landowner. Additionally, a large number of landowners in an area extends the contract procedures. As the contract procedures are prolonged, both the developer and the landowners who make agreements and leave their house face difficulties. Some companies have gone bankrupt due to the delay in the process.
The value capture practice in Fikirtepe was performed by depending solely on plan notes without adopting a holistic value capture policy. In the plan notes, the public value capture tools were identified as infrastructure participa-tion fees and land contribuparticipa-tions. Moreover, the findings of the study illustrate that public value captured only by means of plan notes is not sufficient and leads to uncertainties in the process. These uncertainties translate into increased economic risks in the project.
Kaynakça/References
Alterman, R. (2012). Land-use regulations and property values the “Windfalls Capture”
idea revisited. K. D.-J. Nancy Brooks içinde, The Oxford Handbook of Urban Economics and Planning içinde (s. 755-786). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BIB, Kentleşme Şurası. (2009). Kentleşme Şurası (Cilt 1). Ankara: Bayındırlık ve İskan Ba-kanlığı.
Booth, P. (1996). Controlling development certainty and discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong. London : Taylor ve Francis.
Chan, , E., Lee, G. (2008). Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban re-newal projects,. Social Indicators Researc, 85(2), 243-256.
Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2013). Fikirtepe riskli imar planı raporu.
Demir, A. M. (2009). İmar planı değişikliklerinin değerlendirilmesi Zeytinburnu örneği. İstan-bul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Ergen, C. (2009). İmar Planları. Ankara: Seçkin Yayın Evi.
Ersoy, M. (2000). İmar planlarının kademelenmesi ve farklı ölçeklerdeki planlar arasın-daki ilişki. M. Ersoy, Ç. Keskinok Mekan Planlama ve Yargı Denetimi. İçinde Ankara:
Yargı Yayınevi.
Fikentder. (2019). Fikirtepe son durum raporu. İstanbul: Fikentder Derneği.
Genç, F. (2014). Gecekonduyla mücadeleden kentsel dönüşüme Türkiye’de kentleşme politikaları. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(1), 15-30.
Gökşin, Z. A. (2009). Sürdürülebilir mahalle yenileşmesinde toplum tabanlı model: Kadıköy-Fikirtepe için bir model önerisi. İstanbul: Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Grover, R. (March 19-23, 2018). Evaluating value capture instruments. 2018 World Bank Conference on Land and Property. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Gürsoy, N. (2015). Stratejik planlama yaklaşımının düzenleyici plan sistemine entegre edilmesi:
Fikirtepe Kentsel Dönüşüm alanındaki planlama çalışmaları. İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Havel, M. B. (2017). How the distribution of rights and liabilities in relation to betterment and compensation links with planning and the nature of property rights: Reflections on the Polish experience. Land Use Policy, 67, 508-516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.032
Hu, Y., Lu, B., ve Wu, J. (2019). Value capture in industrial land renewal under the public leasehold system: A policy comparison in China. Land Use Policy, 84, 59-69.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.038
Hui, E. C.-M., Ho, V. S.-M., Ho, D. K.-H. (2004). Land value capture mechanisms in Hong Kong and Singapore A comparative analysis. Journal of Property Investment, 22(1), 76-100. doi:10.1108/14635780410525153
Ingram, G. K., ve Hong, Y.-H. (2012). Land value capture: types and outcomes. G. K.
Ingram, ve Y.-H. Hong içinde, Value Capture and Land Policy (s. 3-19). New Hamp-shire: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
İstanbul 2. İdare Mahkemesi . (2013). K:2018/133 sayılı karar eki Fikirtepe Riskli Alan Raporu.
İstanbul.
Kalabalık, H. (2012). İmar hukuku dersleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Kanlı, İ. (2003). Türkiye´de Üst Düzey Planlama Sistemi ve Afet Yönetimine Afet Yönetimi Kapsamında Bakış. İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
Keleş, R. (2012). Kentleşme Politikaları (12 b.). Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
Kuyucu, T. (2018). Türkiye’de kentsel dönüşümün dönüşümü: hukuki ve kurumsal ça-tışmalar üzerinden bir açıklama denemesi. İdealkent, 24(9), 364-386.
Kütük İnce, E. (2006). Kentsel dönüşümde yeni politika, yasa ve eğilimlerin değerlendirilmesi
“Kuzey Ankara Girişi (Protokol Yolu) Kentsel Dönüşüm Projesi. Ankara: Gazi Üniversi-tesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Munoz Gielen, D. (2010). Capturing value increase in urban redevelopment . Leiden : Side-stone Press.
Munoz Gielen, D. (2016). An international comparison on public value capture instru-ments, and how they work within public and private urban land policies. ICUP2016 - International Conference on Urban Planning, içinde (s. 51-68). Nis, Serbia.
Munoz Gielen, D., ve Tasan-Kok, T. (2010). Flexibility in planning and the consequences for public-value capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 18(7), 1097-1131.
Ocakcı, M., Turk, S. S., ve Terzi, F. (2017). Kentsel dönüşüm uygulamalarında planlama ilke ve kriterleri. İstanbul: Birsen Yayınları.
Ökmen, M., ve Yurtsever, H. (2010). Kentsel planlama sürecinde oluşan kamusal ran-tın vergilendirilmesi. Maliye Dergisi, 2(158), 58-74.
Özbilen, N., ve Gülersoy, N. Z. (2016). Kentsel gelişim ve dönüşüm planlanması süre-cinde gayrimenkul mülkiyet haklarının değerlendirilmesi: imar hakları transferi plan uygulama aracı. Planlama, 26(3), 172-180. doi:10.14744/planlama.2016.22932 Özden, P. P. (2013). Üst ölçekli planlamadan projeci yaklaşıma planlamanın değişen
yüzü. K. Eyüpgiller, ve Z. Eres içinde, Mimari ve Kentsel Koruma / Prof. Dr. Nur Akın'a Armağan içinde (s. 435-455). İstanbul: YEM Yayın.
Özkan, H. A. (2012). Planlama sistemlerinde esneklik kavramı: Türkiye üzerine bir analiz. İs-tanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Ozkan, H., ve Turk, Ş. (2016). Emergence, formation and outcomes of flexibility in Turk-ish planning practice. IDPR, 38, 25-54.
Rivolin, U. J. (2008). Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: An un-bearable cohabitation. Planning, Practice ve Research, 23(2), 167-186.
Smolka, M. O. (2013). Implementing value capture in Latin America policies and tools for urban development. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Tarakçı, S., ve Türk, Ş. Ş. (2017). Flexibility in urban renewal practices: The case of Tur-key. AESOP Annual Congress'17 Lisbon - Spaces of Dialogue for Places of Dignity: Foster-ing the European Dimension of PlannFoster-ing. Lisbon.
Tekeli, İ. (2009). Kentsel arsa, altyapı ve kentsel hizmetler. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayın-ları.
Turk, S. S. (2018). Comparison of the impacts of non-negotiable and negotiable developer obliga-tions in Turkey (Cilt 75). Habitat International.
Turk, S. S., ve Demircioğlu, E. (2015). Use of market-led measures for land assembly in Turkey. Habitat International, 40, 201-210.
Turk, S. S., ve Gumru, B. (2019). Use of negotiable developer obligations (NDOs) in ur-ban planning and land development systems in Turkey. D. Munoz Gielen , ve E.
Van der Krabben içinde, Public Infrastructure, Private Finance Developer Obligations and Responsibilities. (s. 143-151).
Turk, S. S., ve Korthals Altes, W. K. (2010). Institutional capacities in the land develop-ment for housing on Greenfield sites in Istanbul. Habitat Internatıonal, 34, 183–195.
Türk, Ş. Ş., ve Ünal, Y. (2003). Arazi ve arsa düzenlemesi metoduna ilişkin olumsuz ön-yargı. itüdergisi/a mimarlık, planlama, tasarım, 2(1), 111-118.
Ünal, Y. (2015). Türk şehir planlama hukukunun dünü-bugünü 1985-2015. İstanbul: Legal Yayıncılık.
Ünlü, T. (2006). Kentsel mekânda değişimin yönetilmesi. METU Journal of the Faculty of The Architecture, 23(2), 63-92.
Van der Krabben, E., ve Jacobs, H. M. (2013). Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment: Reflections on the Dutch experience. Land Use Policy, 30, 774-783.
Van der Krabben, E., ve Needham, B. (2008). Land readjustment for value capturing: a new planning tool for urban redevelopment. The Town Planning Review, 79(6), 651-672.
Yayla, Y. (1990). İdare Hukuku-I. İstanbul: Filiz Kitabevi.
Zheng, H. W., Shen, G. Q., ve Wang, H. (2014). A review of recent studies on sustainable urban renewal. Habitat International, 41, 272-279.