Dear Editor,
I refer to the SN October 17, 2014 article, `Linden works committee puts Digicel rehab project on hold’.
Digicel should be commended for its interest in, and support of the “Children with Special Needs”. Its funding of the construction of the proposed Rehabilitation Centre in Linden sets an example of corporate engagement that other companies should emulate.
However, the Linden River Front, between the Egbert Benjamin Exhibition and Conference Centre (EBECC) and the Lands and Survey Commission office, for various reasons, should not be the location for the Rehabilitation Centre. The River Front is a unique environment and should be preserved for activities and structures that maximize its special social, cultural and ecological features.
It has been reported that the Company is eager to “move ahead” with the project. In response the IMC Chairman has asked the IMC’s blessing and approval for Digicel to move ahead with preparatory works. At the time of the request, no architectural or construction plans were available. Without the “plans” there is no basis for preparatory works.
The absence of the “plans” suggests that the request by the Chairman and approval by the entire Council, are both uninformed actions. Without the “plans”, there is no sense of how the various construction, infrastructure, environmental issues associated with the identified location are being addressed. And, there are issues.
The issues include appropriate land-use, drainage, parking, traffic, flooding and noise; the uninformed decisions by the IMC also raise the issue of governance and consultation.
It is doubtful that the design-criteria and operation needs of the Rehabilitation Centre require that it be located on the River Front; there are many other vacant properties controlled by the IMC, RDC and the Central Government that would suffice. Has there been any consideration for rehabilitation of the existing Handicap Centre in Retrieve?
The fact that Digicel requested the site does not mean that the community must drop every other consideration to meet the needs of the company.
Over the years there has been a steady increase in the public’s appreciation of the economic, cultural, recreational and tourism potential of the River Front; the River Walk and the Egbert Benjamin Centre are examples of developments that suited the River Front and have been welcomed by the residents.
In addition to the River Front Development Programme, Chairman Solomon has initiated the Linden Beautification Project that also promotes the development of the River Front. It is then confusing to have him acquiescing to Digicel’s request and turning the sod for a building/development that does not need to be on the River Front, and one that would most likely block the view of the River.
The proposed location for the Rehabilitation Centre has other problems: Access to the location would impede traffic on the “round-about” and could potentially endanger the parents and students; often there is pounding of water and flooding in the “round-about” during even moderate rainfall; noise from activities from the EBECC can disrupt the Centre’s activities; the location, as with the EBECC, experiences flooding along the river bank at high tides.
The design-criteria for the Bandstand Recreation Park (including the EBECC) stated that the activities must be family-centred and maximize views of the Demerara River. In this regard a miniature golf-course was proposed for the area currently identified for the Rehabilitation Centre.
This was not accepted because the land was “promised” to the Legionnaires. Even then it was noted that a “building” for that group did not need to be on the River Front.
Now six years later, the IMC Chairman is using the very argument to justify the “breaking” of the promise to the Legionnaires.
There is also the question of consultation. Were the natural stakeholders, parents, teachers, and community groups, engineers, consulted on the selection of the site? Digicel contacted the Ministry of Education and subsequently the IMC and RDC Chairmen. This does not constitute adequate consultation with the community. Effective local governance would certainly support some attempt at consultation with the stakeholders beyond the Local Government Agencies.
In response to the objections raised above, two IMC Councillors opined “you people always find a reason to stop development and chase away investors”. My response was that any investment must support the needs and aspiration of the larger community and that Digicel, being a responsible Corporate Citizen, would always support due process, effective land use, community consultation, and environmental awareness and responsibility.
Yours faithfully,
Samuel Wright
Linden
