Dear Editor,
Your editorial headlined ‘Vendors’ in the Sunday Stabroek of September 18, has succinctly described the general situation of street vending in the city of Georgetown. I have to say that Stabroek News has always supported our efforts to advance the interest and wellbeing of the city. This editorial is a good demonstration of that fact and we thank the editor and his writers for their understanding and support to our cause to lift Georgetown out of the maze of disorder, lawlessness and poverty encouraged by years of neglect and mismanagement of the city. What we are witnessing, particularly with the resistance to change, by a small fraction, is years of accumulated neglect by the authorities.
However, the editorial exhibits quite a number of weaknesses, which if not corrected, could affect the good intention and the positive effect of this skilfully written piece. I shall now address three of those weaknesses.
First and foremost, your editorial did not make any mention of the laws, by-laws, rules and regulations which govern the nation’s capital. This is an important point because unless we all recognize that the city is managed by a system of laws, by-laws, rules and regulations then our reactions and interactions with new measures being put in place by the administration to improve public health, environmental, economic and other conditions in the city could be unhelpful.
The Mayor and City Council and all of its actions, both internal, with the elected council and administration, and external, with local communities and the city come under the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, The Public Health Ordinance Chapter 145, and other legal articles and instruments. These laws were enacted to allow for justice and fairness; rights and responsibilities; equity and balance. In the absence of city laws, everyone would do as he or she very well pleased without taking into account the rights of others, while the council would manage the city on the basis of friendship and favouritism and social and economic systems would collapse. Yet, strikingly interesting, in an editorial of more than 1100 words on a main aspect of city life, it did not mention the words ‘laws’ or ‘by-laws’ ‒ not even once. I have concluded that, perhaps, it was an oversight or that the writer did not see the need to mention or make reference to our city government by-laws. An editor or a journalist can do that and get away with it, but not the city administration. We must of necessity and duty refer to and predicate our actions, at all times, upon these laws because it is from them we derive our authority and powers, and by them we are guided, judged and held accountable.
Perhaps, too, more than two decades of disorder, confusion and lawlessness in the city have made obscure the significance and importance of the city by-laws to a well-managed and sustainably developed city. As a matter of fact, it is now very fashionable to go contrary to the laws and defend contraventions of them. Indeed, some of our social commentators, in an effort to promote their personal and not-so-hidden agendas and political profiles and ambitions, are the loudest among those who criticize the council for seeking to restore law and order in the city. However, as chief administrator of the city and the municipal clerk of Georgetown, I am obliged to enforce compliance with those by-laws. I have said that it is the responsibility of all of our citizens to adhere to the city by-laws and I remain demonstrably focused and firm in that position in the face of the army of letter-writers who have arisen out of the unfortunate circumstances of the vendors and who use the traditional and new media to bash the council. Maybe, this is why the editor seems to think that I “fall into the hot-headed category,” as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the editorial; not so.
Second, the editorial is factually incorrect. For example, vendors plying their trade at Robb Street, between Alexander and Bourda Streets, have an agreement with the council. Vendors agreed that they would have proper receptacles to dispose of their waste in an environmentally friendly manner; they would not dump waste or block the entrances and exits of legitimate private and public places; they would bring out their goods in manageable amounts every day, making space for others who wish to vend; and that they would keep the areas in which the operate clean and tidy at all times.
Notwithstanding this agreement, officers of the council observed that vendors were storing and placing for sale their produce and goods on the ground and roadways, they had no receptacles, they were dumping their garbage in front of Mike’s Pharmacy, encroaching on the public roadway and had the entire stretch insanitary and ugly. And yes, they were given notices about their negative actions. In spite of our pleadings and notices, they persisted in their ways not caring for the environment in which they operated. As a result, I instructed that all vending activities be suspended for effective sanitization of that area; vendors were never removed or relocated. No responsible council could have ignored what was happening there. It had enormous implications for the public and environmental health of the city.
Subsequently, I held a meeting with those vendors. They admitted that they were not honouring their side of the agreement; returned to that area; and cleaned it. The Fire Department assisted us in washing and sanitizing that section. After that, they were permitted to resume their activities, which they did two days after the suspension. I say with pride that since then they have been keeping the entire section clean and tidy. Mike’s Pharmacy can now open its doors and citizens no longer have to negotiate the piles of garbage to get into the pharmacy to purchase their medical supplies. We thank them for their cooperation with our effort.
The protest by Councillor Marks had nothing to do with their return as the editorial supposed. In fact, much to my amazement, her protest took place long after the area was sanitized and the vendors had happily resumed their activities.
Again, on the question of the vendors union, the editorial missed the essence of my argument. I am willing to meet with any group or organization in the city; it would be silly not to talk or engage stakeholders in our effort. However, it is important that the council knows who, what and why it is meeting; context and content are vital to the success of discussions. In the case of the union, I wrote asking the union for copies of its documents (constitution, names of office bearers, categories of vendors from which areas, methods used to select or appoint office bearers) to establish legitimacy. We have not had a reply from the union. Until such time as we do, we cannot go forward recognizing this group as representing the vendors.
In the past, Stabroek News had published photographs of piles of garbage on almost every street corner, stagnant drains, rotting waste on our parapets, pavements and thoroughfares, congested public roadways, cemeteries with heavy overgrowth and overhanging trees, broken bridges and dilapidated municipal buildings. Fifteen minutes of rain left the central business district of the national capital under water that remained stagnant and smelly for days in stores, schools and other places. Citizens were anxious and worried about what would become of Georgetown. Some even expressed the view that perhaps we should relocate the nation’s capital somewhere else, perhaps, on higher ground. The city council was terribly criticized by all and sundry. There were loud cries of “remove the council” from some of our friends. One official of a previous administration even wished for an outbreak of an epidemic to facilitate the removal of the then council. Over the course of two decades some citizens have developed a way of life that was perfectly wedded to an unhealthy and unsafe environment; they knew and saw no different. The city had earned the name ‘the garbage city.’
Less than seven months after this new administration took office, the numerous piles of rotten garbage began to disappear, canals and waterways are clean and flowing, new green spaces are being created, and municipal buildings are being restored to their original glory. We have only just begun; we have a far way to go to sustainably develop and modernize Georgetown. This will demand change in the way the city is organized and managed; it requires understanding, cooperation and the support of all of our citizens; recognition of and compliance with our laws and by-laws; and acceptance of our rights and responsibilities to the city.
It is worrying but not surprising that now the council has decided to reorganize and revitalize the city and its local neighbourhoods, unbelievably, we are seeing and hearing new kinds of criticisms from some of the very people who once condemned us for inaction. The old adage – damned if you do and damned if you don’t ‒ rings very true in this case. I would only note that the Mayor and City Council has demonstrated its care for the vendors more than any and all of the old and new social prophets who will lead their listeners astray, and long-winded trumpeters whose band continues to play offkey the realities of a new Georgetown that is part of a globalized world. This is the future.
Over the years, the council has provided numerous areas and facilities for vendors to ply their trade, including the Vendors Arcade, constructing the Stabroek Bazaar, Stelling View Mall, Merriman Mall, and New Vendors Mall, as well as permitting vending on Regent Street, Robb Street and other areas designated by the council for vending.
Even now, the council is examining different architectural designs of shopping malls and allied facilities, financial models and systems of management to assist all vendors operating in Georgetown. In addition, council will repair and expand the East Ruimveldt Market and Albouystown Market, and construct a modern mall in place of the old Stabroek wharf. Construction is moving apace on the Kitty Market including the addition of a western wing to accommodate more vendors.
The council has an active interest in ensuring that all vendors are properly accommodated within market facilities. It is not interested in encouraging people to squat on city pavements and public roadways which they can never own or pass on to their children or grandchildren as an inheritance. Vendors must own real estate and do their business in a secure and well-managed environment, just like all the other businesses. This is where we are going and how we are planning for our vendors.
Third, the editorial did not proffer an alternative or venture to suggest solutions. Perhaps it was not the aim of the editor in this piece. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that Stabroek News, a highly respected, credible and widely circulated newspaper, would have, at the very least, suggested an alternative to what the council is seeking to do. After all, it continues to influence public opinion and the national agenda.
Finally, the editor reminded me that I am a public servant. He is right. I am paid by the taxes of property-owners and others who use city facilities and services including vendors. I do believe that they expect me to deliver to them a city that is clean, safe and healthy. I hope not to disappoint them.
Yours faithfully
Royston King
Town Clerk
