On November 7, 2023, Omnibus Law No. 7471 introduced noteworthy amendments to Law No. 6306, also known as the Urban Transformation Law, as well as to various other laws and decrees with the force of law. These amendments raise concerns that urban transformation may transform into a mechanism for generating rent and enable arbitrary interference with private property rights.This law, first and foremost, modified the definition of a "reserve construction area" in Law No. 6306 by removing the phrase "as a new settlement area," allowing for the designation of existing settlements as reserve construction areas. Consequently, prime real estate locations within cities have been labeled as reserve construction areas, creating a pathway for the expropriation of privately owned residences and businesses, even in the absence of earthquake risk. A reserve construction area pertains to regions earmarked for use in applications under the law, precisely urban transformation initiatives. These areas can be designated for residential and commercial purposes and opened up for construction.However, the law does not specify which areas will be designated as reserve construction areas or outline the criteria for such designations. Areas can be designated as reserve construction areas by the Urban Transformation Presidency based on requests from TOKİ, municipalities, special provincial administrations, or through ex officio determinations.It is evident that this regulation, which grants the administration the authority to designate any location as a reserve construction area for urban transformation without established criteria, poses a threat to private property rights. The absence of specific criteria in the law also undermines the effectiveness of judicial review in lawsuits filed against the declaration of reserve construction areas. This wide-ranging discretionary power granted to the administration has also limited the scope of judicial oversight. Concerns are further justified by the observation that urban transformation efforts have predominantly been implemented in high-rent areas rather than in regions with the highest earthquake risk or the most structurally vulnerable buildings.Additionally, the law specifies that undesignated areas located within the urban transformation implementation zone, or areas designated for use by the Urban Transformation Presidency, can be transferred to the Presidency after being registered under the treasury's name. Alternatively, they may be transferred to TOKİ and the Administration without charge upon the Presidency's request. This opens the door for publicly owned areas, mainly military properties in high-rent areas, to be converted into revenue sources under the pretext of urban transformation. Unfortunately, the law lacks both objective criteria and institutional safeguards to ensure that each of these transactions is conducted in alignment with the public interest and in a manner that guarantees societal benefit. As in numerous other domains, the administration has been endowed with extensive discretionary authority.To enable both real and legal entities to request the conversion of areas under their ownership into reserve construction areas, the law stipulates that they must consent to the transfer of ownership of thirty percent of the square meters of the land area intended for constructing the immovable in question. Alternatively, they may offer an equivalent amount to the Presidency to be allocated as revenue for special accounts dedicated to transformation projects. It is apparent that the requirement to allocate thirty percent of the land area for construction to the administration represents a substantial portion, which may deter the designation of privately owned areas as reserve construction areas. A more reasonable ratio might serve as an incentive for individuals to participate.Additionally, the law specifies that in cases where the identification of risky buildings is obstructed, the determination can be made ex officio. This involves the opening of closed doors/areas by an adequate number of law enforcement officers, authorized by written permission from the local administration chief. It is evident that such interventions represent infringements on property rights and the sanctity of residences. Nevertheless, it is challenging to assert that the regulations in the law fulfill the requirement that rules granting the authority to infringe upon fundamental rights must be foreseeable and incorporate safeguards to prevent arbitrary actions. Consequently, the law poses significant threats to property rights.

The Freedom Observer

Nevertheless, it is challenging to assert that the regulations in the law fulfill the requirement that rules granting the authority to infringe upon fundamental rights must be foreseeable and incorporate safeguards to prevent arbitrary actions. Consequently, the law poses significant threats to property rights.

Urban Transformation ile ilgili hikayeler