Dear Editor,
I have been following with interest the controversy concerning the plan to develop a part of Merriman Mall into a commercial parking lot.
I am tempted to respond to Hamilton Green’s letter (SN, “Abominable decision to lease. . .” April 1, 2021), but because it is a peevish kitrie of sundry unrelated diatribes, I will just say this: Green, though he may be on the right side of the mall issue, has no moral authority to pronounce on anything concerning the development of our country’s capital. He is best remembered as part of the leadership of Guyana’s brutal dictatorship. Attacking the planner’s brains by writing that the “brains of some of us have been eaten” hardly furthers an intellectual discussion on this issue. His record is one of abysmal failure of gargantuan proportions, so we urge him to spare us any lecture on city planning.
Lynn Nicholas’ letter (SN, “Merriman Mall parking. . .” April 2, 2021), which reads like a bizarre speculative rant attempts to justify the city council’s egregious decision as a “practical and progressive move.” This can be deemed such a move but only in the interest of the investors, motivated by greed—not by the interest of the people of Georgetown. At any rate, Nicholas offers no practical solutions.
Finally, SN’s editorial board (“Mall Travesty,” April 4, 2021 has also surrendered. While I agree that the City Council “has no sense of aesthetics, no sense of history, no sense of the appropriate use of space and no sense of the democratic imperative to consult residents,” at this point we cannot throw up our hands in despair and walk away. SN’s strategy is a “wait-and-see” one: “wait to see” what the developer “means by beautification, and whether it entails anything involving the plant world which would allow for some very small mitigation of this travesty.” The people should not settle for “small mitigation.”
The time to have discussions is not tomorrow, but now. We need to promptly re-examine any contract to determine whether any regulations were ignored, whether any agreement made can sustain a court challenge. There may be case precedent to halt this plan. I am reminded of the Bel Air Park case in which the residents successfully challenged the Georgetown Mayor and City Council when they attempted to convert for private use an open space reserved for community purpose. The plaintiffs in that case argued that the Town and Country Planning Act, the Housing Act, and the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance recited the need for open spaces for the community. Specifically, the High Court ruled that M&CC breached “the real servitude” in the Bel Air Park plantation transport.
Additionally, the developer has other options—the city has many areas of open, unused spaces along the entire Lamaha embankment. This area was once productively used by city farmers to grow fresh cash crops. I believe, if my memory is accurate, that it was Mr. Green’s city council that went to great lengths to evict the farmers! Farther north, there are many other similar underdeveloped parcels of land along Woolford Ave., and Thomas Lands and Carifesta Ave. that are suitable with adequate land for hotels, casino operations and parking spaces. Also ideal would be the already paved area of the failed $1.5 Billion D’Urban Park plan (on Homestretch Ave.) that never materialized under the PNC.
Most of all, it is the developers’ responsibility to find transportation/parking for their patrons. They have to come up with their own solutions and leave us alone. They could even do shuttle buses. What they should not and cannot be allowed to is to usurp green public spaces reserved for and long enjoyed by the community.
Sincerely,
Fuad A. Rahaman, J.D.
