The Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, hereafter AKP) government made a series of legal regulations in order to provide a suitable ground for implementations of urban transformations projects. These legal arrangements should be seen as the expressions of the neoliberal mentality and the carriers of neoliberal urban policies to every region of the country. Since discussing
22 I a m refe rring here to Ha rvey’s notion of “new entrepreneurialism” (Ha rvey, 1989). The new entrepreneurialis m turns a blind eye to the city’s and its inhabitants’ immediate needs and only focuses on speculative construction and market ing of the c ity for ma king profit. The ma in focus of the new entrepreneurialism is to invest in urban sp ace rather than amelio ration of derelict parts and inhabitants of the city.
23 As I mentioned in the introduction, Suluku le was one of the oldest historical parts of the c ity and dated back to the first settlement in the Byzantiu m era. Although Sulukule was under the protection of world heritage list of UNESCO, legislated laws on the authority of loca l mun icipa lit ies and protection of historical parts of the city c leared the way for the gentrification of Suluku le.
24 These four subheadings mentioned above are suggested as the some of the ma in characteristics of neoliberal urban policy. For further informat ion:
Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalis m, Neolibera lism and Urban Governance: A State -Theoretical Perspective.
Antipode, 34(3), s. 452-472.
Hackworth, J. (2007). The neoliberal city: governance, ideology, and development in American Urbanism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
all the arrangements on urban governance is beyond the scope of my thesis, I attempt to focus on the most essential laws, which prepared the basis for neoliberal urbanism.
In advance of giving information about the content of the laws enacted in the form of the neoliberal urban governance mentality, it is essential to mention the general characteristic of these arra ngements. The terms used for explaining the limitations of municipal’s authorities and definitions of urban land, which could be taken under transformation implementations, create a vague language. This questionable language causes administrative irregularities especially on the issue of how and in which period of projects authority would be shared by local and higher level of municipal and subcontractor companies. The arbitrariness of the addressee precludes legal opposition and accelerates the process of project implementation. In addition to the lack of a constant addressee, the definition of spaces also could be perceived as another tool for strengthening the local governors’ hand in the presence of its oppositions. Elusiveness in the definitions of spaces, which are declared suitable land for transportation projects, creating opportunity on behalf of the decision- making authorities. Since the definitions such as “historical areas” or
“distressed” places have broad meanings changing according to the context, intention, and personal attitudes of policy implementers, these arrangements were found legally problematic.
The content of the laws, which were enacted for preparing the basis of the massive urban transformation projects in general, Sulukule gentrification in particular, could be listed as below25:
25 For further informat ion about the legal changes concerning urban renewal and co mprehensive analyses of these laws see: Özden, Pelin Pınar. (2008) Kentsel Yenileme, Ankara: İmge.
Oral, Evren. (2009) Tarihi Kentsel Çevre lerin Korunmasında Yasal Düzen le me lerin Kent Kimliğ ine Etkileri Su lukule Örneği, Unpublished Master Thesis. İstanbul: Mimarsinan Üniversitesi.
Uzun, Nil.(2006) “ Yen i Yasal Dü zenle me le r ve Kentsel Dönüşüme Et kile ri” , Planlama Dergisi (2).
Law No. 5216, Metropolitan Municipalities Law (passed in 2004):
Metropolitan municipalities were authorized with the right to determine in which areas urban transformation projects could be implemented and to develop projects for urban transformation. IMP26 was established following this law.
Law No. 5237, New Criminal Code, (passed in 2004): For the first time, slum construction is defined as a criminal offense to be punished by five years in prison.
As Tuna Kuyucu and Özlem Ünsal indicated, this law is “… clearly showing the government’s ‘zero-tolerance’ approach. Gecekondu (slums) demolitions, which had been rare in Istanbul, sped up afterwards; between 2004 and 2008, 11,543 units in Istanbul were demolished, a record high for any period” (Kuyucu & Ünsal, 2010, p.
1484).
Law No. 5393, The Law of Municipalities (passed in 2004): The municipality acquired the right for implementing urban transformation projects by rebuilding or restoring the historical parts of the city and creating new ho using or commercial areas. Also the municipality became responsible for taking measures against potential natural disasters such as earthquake and protecting the historical and cultural features of the city.
Law No. 5104, The Northern Ankara Entrance Urban Regene ration Project (passed in 2004): This law is the first legal arrangement that specifically targets the urban transformation legality. The requirement of this law was legitimized based on the statement that developing physical and environmental outlook are indispensable implementations for improving the quality of urban life and arranging healthy residential places.
Eren, Özgür.(2008) “Toprağın Rantı, Rantın Yasası”, Express (4).
26 İstanbul Büyükşehir Beled iye Başkanlığı Metropoliten Planla ma ve Kentsel Tasarım Merke zi – Istanbul Greater Municipa lity Metropolitan Planning and Urban Design Center. IMP will be e xpla ined in the ne xt heading.
Law No. 5366, Renovation and Utilization of Deteriorated Historical and Cultural Assets (enacted in 2005): The proposal on the law was based the desire to take the immovable cultural and historical parts of the city under protection via revitalization and restoration. Moreover, the emphasis on the potential natural disaster in law as “precautions should be taken against natural disasters in risky regions” is also has importance for rendering possible the implementation of the law in a short time. This law could be the starting point of Sulukule gentrification because of the reason that the municipality, TOKİ, and its subcontractors authorized for demolishing 300 Sulukule houses and building 620 new flats by means of this law.
I would like to give brief criticisms of this law.27 There are illegalities in terms of authorization, format, and international conventions.28 Illegality in terms of authorization stems from the contradiction of position and authority of The Board for Protection of Renovation, because the board has different definitions in Law No.
5366 and Law No. 2863, which were enacted for the protection of cultural natural assets in 1983. While Law No. 5366 provides a suitable ground for forming a renovation board as private board that has right of approving the projects which will be implemented by the municipalities or private administration of provinces, Law No. 2863 authorizes the renovation board to conduct protection of cultural and historical assets related to scientific principles. In short, The Board for Protection of Renovation turned form being protector of cultural assets in terms of scientific
27 These critic is ms are main ly quoted fro m the lawsuit petition wh ich requests for motion fo r stay and deciding for cancellation of the resolution of the Regional Board for Protection of Cultura l and Natural Assets of Renovation Sites of Istanbul, the Min istry of Culture and Touris m, dated 02.11.2007, no. 20 and the resolution of Fatih Municipality Council, dated 10.12.2007, no. 2007/ 156, which approves imple mentation of that resolution. Since, this document was submitted to Chairmanship of Istanbul Administrative Court for cancellation of the pro ject, the reasons why this Project should be cancelled are e xpla ined in detail. This document could be seen in the Appendix F.
28 Illegality in terms of reason will be mentioned under the next t itle “the discours e of urgency”.
principles into urban renewal projects implementer. Apart from the contradictory definitions of competence of the renovation board, there is also another contradiction between these two laws on the protection of cultural assets. Since it is stated in Law No. 2863 (enacted 1982) “protecting the culture cannot be ignored by another law enacted for another purpose”, the validity of Law no. 5366 (enacted 2005) is challengeable.29
Moreover, the illegality in terms of format arises from the code of members of the Renovation Board. The Metropolitan Municipality and Fatih Municipality have a right to participate in the meetings of the board, making presentations in the decision- making process and voting for their projects. Unsurprisingly, the Metropolitan Municipality and local municipality mayors attended the board meetings as the board members and could have influence on the decision- making process of permanent members and voted their own projects. So, the objectivity of the board comes under serious question. The reliability and the objectivity of the board are also open to challenge.
Besides, the contradictions with international co nventions also throw suspicion on the legitimacy of this law. The World Heritage Committee, under the roof of UNESCO, the Education, Science, and Culture department of United Nations and its official advisory body ICOMOS defined standards and criteria for the management of sites. Although the international law formed by World Heritage Committee has clearly specified the criteria, Law No. 5366 ignores the standards suggested by international law. Law No. 5366 makes it possible to implement projects for renovation in protected sites, which are covered by the World Heritage List. There are also contradictions to Malta/Valetta Convention (Turkey signed in
29Lawsuit petition can be seen in the Appendix F.
1999), the Granada Convention (signed in 1989), and the Paris Convention (signed in 1983).
These legal arrangements above were made under successive AKP governments, which has been in power since 2002. All these arrangements share the same aim: to reorganize the local governments in accordance with the principles of neoliberal urban governance such as authorizing the local governors and accelerating the process of transformation of entrepreneurial cities.