It is the easiest thing in the world to take sides in the prevailing brouhaha between the Georgetown City Council and the vendors who ply their trade in the area of the Stabroek Market following what turned out to be the forcible removal of the vendors from areas where – in some cases – they had been trading for several years.
There are those who would say – and with every justification – that the problem of street vending cannot simply be dismissed or wished away in circumstances where it has become a means of livelihood and survival for large numbers of families in circumstances of high urban employment. On the other hand and the jubilee celebrations notwithstanding, the state of the city has long been a sore point and some sort of determined effort to address that particular problem cannot be faulted.
Georgetown, of course, is no longer big enough to provide adequate space for all those who live and work within its environs and in the case of downtown Georgetown the demands on space now mean that whatever the City Council does there will always be space-related challenges.
That is what the situation is and what it amounts to is a circumstance in which tough decisions will – from time to time – have to be made and at any given time some individuals and groups will be left unhappy.
The other problem, of course, is that issues of space and the configuring of accommodation of the various groups (including the vendors) that require space in the city are really issues that ought to have been contemplated and worked out over a period of time. Rather than that, the space-related problems, particularly around the Stabroek and Bourda Market areas – while we have been aware of them for several years – have only relatively recently descended on us in all their fury amidst what is clearly a sense of urgency associated with putting the capital into some reasonable shape for the jubilee celebrations.
It is, of course, difficult to leave out from this discourse, the delinquencies of the previous municipal administration, the dynamics of the politics that attended local government administration under the previous political administration, the impact of irresponsible vending practices of the state of areas of the city and what, very often, was the toxic relationship between the municipality and the vendors arising out of a combination of overindulgence, heavy-handedness and corrupt practices.
What would appear to be the case is that central government and the municipality are now at one in the matter of the imperative of transforming the appearance of the city and there is evidence of an assertiveness on the part of City Hall in pursuing what it clearly considers to be a mandate – restoring the capital. The problem is, of course, that the zeal and enthusiasm of the municipality is colliding with the belligerence of the vendors in circumstances where old grievances have created ‘bad blood’ so that there is little love lost between the two sides. Sometimes, too, there is evidence of a limited ability (perhaps preparedness might be a better word) of either side to talk through situations though some on both sides may argue that there is really nothing to talk through.
In this context it has to be said that all too frequently the engagements between the vendors and the enforcement arm of the municipality are often tension-laden and potentially volatile so that one is tempted to ask whether there is no room for and some sort of mechanism that can, perhaps, ensure that the aforementioned engagements are less potentially volatile. Certainly, the vendors, in their condition of assertive militancy might, in the view of the City Police, provide reason for a measure of steadfastness (for want of a better word) on their part. When one considers, however, that the vendors perceive themselves as defending their livelihoods perhaps there is, after all, room for the creation of a less toxic environment.
From whichever angle you look at it, the situation is challenging. When one looks at the transformation that descended on the Stabroek Market area in the wake of the removal of the vendors it becomes difficult to make an argument for a return to the status quo ante. There are, however, some outcomes of the removal of the vendors that are rather less visible and those can surely impact on the city in an equally profound way as has the transformation that has been created by the removal of the vendors. That is not a consideration to which the government can remain indifferent. If there is no gainsaying the importance of creating a permanent transformation in those unsightly areas of city where many of the vendors ply their trade there is also equally weighty responsibility of protecting the lives and livelihoods that will be affected by the change. We simply must find a way.
