Dear Editor,
The TV news channels were replete with depressing scenes of a most dilapidated Bourda Market – leaking from the roof, and flooding at the floor ‒ while a host of vendors complained about the prolonged lack of maintenance and repairs; of the threat of waterborne disease; of the stench of large amounts of garbage; of the loss of revenue and customers; and of still having to pay the statutory rental.
The fact, however, is that this portrayal of decay was not really news. For it was another stage in a long process of decay not only at Bourda, but at other city markets, most notably the site that is euphemistically described as Kitty Municipal Market. This structure of colonial heritage is in such a parlous state that it cannot accommodate what vendors there still are.
The dysfunctional city administration continues to overlook the responsibility of its Public Health section to evaluate the derelict site and condemn its obvious misuse (the Ministry of Public Health should also intervene). The only value that could possibly be attributed to it is for its restoration as a heritage site. It is nothing but a delusion for the council to pretend that Kitty Market could become viable in an area where there are so many businesses providing better services and products.
Instead, priority attention should be given to a comprehensive upgrading of the centrally located Bourda Market which, by comparison with similar sites in Caricom territories, can only be perceived not only as an embarrassment to the management, but if only from a tourist perspective, a national disgrace. One could not but help hearing the vendors’ articulate pleas for the ‘enhancement’ of the Bourda complex, which has been in the past the site of historic interactions, including sports. The council will be well advised to include this project as part of a strategic development plan for the City of Georgetown.
This must obviously include a major restructuring of the council’s operational capabilities, and communication systems, which may well require amendment of the Municipal & District Councils Act in order to adjust the authority relationship between the Mayor & City Councillors and the Town Clerk.
Also, attention should be paid to instituting the long omitted Local Government Commission.
Regarding the restructuring of the M&CC it is fortunate that they have as an immediate source of reference the report emanating from the inquiry into its operations headed by Keith Burrowes, current CEO of Go-Invest. Its recommendations are still relevant enough for them to be examined by the Minister of Communities who should have the authority to advise implementation.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
