The announcement earlier this week that City Hall is to demolish more than fifty buildings in the city deemed to be in a ruinous state and posing a danger to their occupants and to the public as a whole, will be greeted with satisfaction by a number of citizens. Not so by the occupants of those buildings, who in many instances comprise entire families, and who will now be forced to find alternative accommodation. This is a task that could provide considerable challenges, given not only the difficulty of finding accommodation but also the burden of meeting the costs associated with occupying more convivial living spaces. Derelicts and vagrants who currently ‘enjoy’ such shelter as these structures afford will, presumably, be faced with living on the streets.
The first thing that should be said about the demolition exercise is that some of the inner city areas of the capital harbour structures that are, to put it mildly, eyesores, and dangerous ones at that. They are in danger, in many instances, of collapsing without notice, or else suddenly becoming engulfed in flames and being destroyed in the twinkling of an eye. We have been indifferent to the risks associated with these structures, being occupied whether it be by vagrants, old and indigent people or entire families, for decades. If City Hall is now saying that we should begin to draw a line under that protracted and dangerous indulgence, then at least superficially speaking, that would seem to be a persuasive argument.
Of course, there are both responsibilities and consequences associated with the demolition of occupied derelict buildings, the primary one being the issue of addressing alternative accommodation for their occupants. People simply cannot be turned out onto the street, with or without notice. It may be that the city will need the assistance of central government in terms of finding homes, although it should be borne in mind that the occupants cannot be moved far out of Georgetown if they do not want to go. A quick demolition, therefore, may not be possible in all instances.
In this context, one would expect that in any civilized society there would be some kind of communication between City Hall and those persons designated for eviction, but it appears that the announcement of City Hall’s intended action has not been preceded by any serious consultation with the occupants. That, at least, is what has been reported to this newspaper. If this is so, it bears some resemblance to the way in which City Hall has been seen to be behaving with the vendors. Like it or not, there have been times, whether by their action or inaction, the leadership at City Hall has come across as high-handed, aloof, cold and perhaps even unmindful of both the rights and feelings of those whom it has been elected to serve.
There is a further problem with this proposed demolition exercise, and that is the buildings which have been selected. There is, for example, the large colonial-style house at 95 and 96 Upper Robb Street, which even to the untrained eye does not look as if it is anywhere close to collapse. Two families live here, and they told the Stabroek News reporter that no part of the house represented a hazard, and that it just needed washing and repainting.
Is City Hall bent on inflicting further damage on our material heritage when the circumstances do not warrant it, and when there are clearly urgent candidates for demolition (vacant in some cases) dotted around which for some reason it has bypassed? For the insensitive incumbents at City Hall, destroying a solid colonial structure is not removing an eyesore, and will do nothing to beautify the capital or assist in the retention of its character. And have they not considered the possibility that in one or two instances – the Upper Robb street house might be a case in point – that repairs and/or a facelift are all that is required on the part of the owners, and not demolition by the council? Just what criteria did they apply when choosing their candidates for destruction?
There are fears, legitimate ones, some believe, that the post-2016 local government elections have ushered in a style of management underpinned by precipitate and high-handed behaviour and which, rather than resolve the issues that they are intended to address, actually makes them worse, attracting a great deal of public opprobrium into the bargain. From the handling of the parking meters controversy to its increasingly acrimonious relationship with urban vendors, City Hall, by its actions, sometimes appears to cast aside any mindfulness of its public image.
