Recently, Georgetown Mayor, Ubraj Narine posited that the fine for littering should be increased from $10,000 to $40,000 to curb the distasteful habit that seems to be possessed by too many city dwellers. Mayor Narine in visiting several areas of the city was “disappointed to observe how those areas are overtaken with litter.” Over the years, Georgetown has always struggled to justify its designation as “the garden city,” and at times it has even been referred to as “the garbage city,” particularly when garbage pile-ups result from garbage collection issues.
The Mayor’s concerns are legitimate but should be recognised from a two-fold position: that of littering which is usually done by individuals, but also garbage dumping which is done by families and businesses. While littering can lead to an unpleasant build-up of unsightly garbage, it is the widespread and irresponsible dumping of garbage that exacerbates the problem. Additionally, these two practices feed off each other and people are more likely to throw away litter wherever they see garbage being dumped, and to dump garbage wherever litter has accumulated into a pile.
How to combat these two maladies among the population is the challenge that the current Mayor seems to have taken on but appears to have fallen prey to the Guyanese tendency to try to legislate problems away, when adequate legislation already exists, but what is usually lacking are the systems, resources and ultimately the desire or political will to execute the mandate. The answer to the question of whether the current $10,000 fine is adequate must flow from an assessment of the number of arrests and fines meted out within a specified period – monthly, quarterly, or annually. The analysis must also consider the areas where the offence of littering or garbage dumping took place and whether these are the areas prone to littering and garbage dumping.
If arrests are only being carried out occasionally and in relatively clean areas, then the City must redirect resources to policing the areas more prone to littering and dumping. All this is simple logic and only the gathering and compiling of data and information requires any real effort, and this must be the focus of the City Council. Important decisions should always flow from correctly gathered data and accurately compiled information.
The City Council’s own modus operandi in carrying out its tasks necessary to keep the city clean is also key to transforming the public approach to littering and dumping. Many years ago, the City Council workers were observed in every ward and community in the City on a regular basis, weeding the parapets and cleaning drains as a part of their daily routine. Nowadays, outside of the actual weekly collection of garbage which is farmed out to professionals, the City worker is a rare sight in the Georgetown communities. Keeping the city clean is not an event that is done once for all time, rather it is a process of regular maintenance that is carried out periodically, and with as much frequency as necessary in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness in the various areas.
The release from the Mayor’s office stating that, “The Chief Citizen noted that it is unfair for the Council to be expending resources to engage in clean-up activities around the City and in a short space of time the areas that were cleaned have returned to a very untidy state” is a both a valid observation and a little naïve at the same time. City Council cannot execute its mandate to keep the city clean using the strategy of engaging in bouts of clean-up exercises without a regular maintenance presence in the said areas. A regular maintenance presence is very likely to pinpoint the perpetrators of garbage dumping, as well as instilling a sense of pride among the residents if their community is well maintained and make them more willing to point out renegade residents to City inspectors.
The City Council must also seek to immediately rehabilitate public restroom facilities and maintain them in a clean state as part of their approach to change the mindset of Georgetowners to public cleanliness. It is difficult to impose a desired behaviour pattern on others if you are not willing to subject yourself to standards of behaviour you have set. The City Council has developed an unwelcome reputation in the management of the city’s waste collection and disposal and simple edicts and increased penalties are unlikely to have the required impact on the population if the City Council does not clean up its own house regarding waste management, the state of public conveniences, and the cemetery among other matters. Cleaning of the cemetery too is done on an episodic basis with no system of basic maintenance following afterwards. Most householders know that it is easier (and cheaper) to keep the place clean than to indulge in periodic “clean-ups.”
Of course, the City Council does have an ongoing financial insufficiency crisis, and is currently being audited, but some might argue that the sporadic way that the Council manages its operations, results in a high degree of wastage of scarce financial resources and the underutilisation and misuse of human and other resources. That the City Council is yet to clean up its act is the only certain thing as we observe the day-to-day squabbles that mar each sitting of the Mayor and City Councillors. As the Councillors continue to “litter” important statutory meetings with their irresponsible behaviour, eschewing their responsibilities in the process, they will find it difficult to effect the public change needed to reduce the continuing pile up of garbage in the city.
