Last September Minister of Communities Ronald Bulkan wrote Georgetown Mayor Patricia Chase-Green on the Mayor and City Council’s seeming lack of authority on municipality matters being managed by Town Clerk Royston King, emphasizing that “King was not supreme to the Council.” Minister Bulkan cited Section 8A of the Municipal and District Council Act of 2013 which outlines the general duties of city councillors and identifies the Town Clerk as an administrator hired to carry out the directives of the council.
The Minister’s intervention followed Mr King’s unilateral decision to clear out vendors from Robb Street and it was important for two reasons: firstly, because of the continuing practice of municipal authority being exercised without appearing to accept the concomitant responsibility for the outcome of its actions, and secondly, because of the council’s open endorsement of actions by the Town Clerk that have helped fuel a rise in social discontent in the business districts of the capital which threatens to intensify in the absence of a well thought out approach to the issues.
Street vending at the Stabroek Market Square was ineffectively regulated and disorganized, and this had reached worrying levels, but the question is whether the council would perpetuate this broken system or seize the opportunity to make meaningful reforms that allowed street vending to continue and to thrive within the confines of the law and orderliness.
Since assuming office the council led by Mayor Chase-Green has been dithering on the issue of the vendors which, although not a complex issue, certainly requires clear strategies to be implemented taking cognizance of the human factor and the negative implications of rushed actions on vendors, their dependents and the public at large.
Currently, approximately 600 vendors are waiting to be registered to conduct their business in the vicinity of the Stabroek and Bourda markets, including those operating on the Merriman Mall. These persons are an integral part of the urban economy and provide access to essential goods and services to the middle class and the urban poor.
The vendors themselves are mostly women, single mothers, and persons in search of opportunities who are unable to find regular employment. Vending gives them a relatively independent livelihood, and the opportunity to provide for themselves and family. One vendor, recently evicted from Merriman Mall, told this newspaper that she was there because her qualifications were not enough to secure regular employment.
For years these vendors have shared a turbulent relationship with the City Council. The council itself for far too long has had its own operations characterized by internal power struggles, ineptitude, and squabbles with central government. This has no doubt contributed to the haphazard manner in which a number of the vendors have been conducting their business, leading to public health concerns arising from violations of basic health and safety practices.
The lack of proper oversight from the council over the years resulted in the untenable outcome where some vendors plied their trade with little concern for garbage buildup and its disposal, and with illegal structures being erected, while law-abiding vendors, shopkeepers, store owners and the general public were all caught up and negatively impacted amidst all the turmoil.
Then, as now, the situation continues to be poorly conceptualized and poorly managed by the city authorities. Far from seeking a handout, vendors are simply looking to make a decent and honest living. The very nature of the business of vending means that they can ill afford the hasty and often unexpected evictions with the attendant disruptions in business. Indeed, even the threat of disruption leads to unpleasant consequences as the purchasing public is impacted and business still suffers. It is not unreasonable then, that in the absence of a comprehensive and cohesive short, medium and long term strategy being adumbrated by the council, that the vendors are asking to be involved in the decision-making that affects their livelihoods.
Last year, the government announced a restoration of the capital city for the 50th Jubilee celebrations, and around April the City Council through Mr King called the vendors to say that a temporary relocation was planned from Stabroek Market square to the vacant lot, south of the Public Buildings. However, when Mr King made the announcement, the council had apparently not yet finalized terms of the move with the businessman.
The move, King said at the time, was to facilitate the resurfacing, cleaning and reorganising of the bus and car parks and vending spots to restore the image of the capital city. These efforts were explained as part of the government’s long term plan to preserve the heritage status of the Stabroek and eventually, to stop vending. It was a replay of the actions taken by the previous administration when this country hosted the Carifesta celebrations, that is, stash away the vendors while a temporary transformation of the market square was being attempted.
During this period of manufactured crisis, the vendors struggled to eke out a living at the new location and they spoke of the assault on their economic stability by the City Council and the negative impact the decision has had on their lives, and the lives of their families and dependents.
Now that the arrangements with the businessman have expired, the council announced last week that the vendors would return to the square, but this time under firmer guidelines and with careful monitoring. There was also a notice in the press that the vendors would have to register with the council. There was, however, no acknowledgement by the council that they neither anticipated nor gave advance notice to the vendors about the impending volte face.
This apparent wielding of authority without due responsibility and accountability at City Hall is a microcosm of what obtains in the wider political culture that has enveloped Guyana over the years. With each uprooting of the vendors there are casualties who suffer tremendously in varying ways. It is simplistic to treat the vendors as a single unit; they are actually individuals, each eking out a living independent of and in competition with the other. So with each uprooting there is no guarantee that persons will retain the spots they previously inhabited. We can assume that the council is now seeking to fix this situation via the registration of vendors, but this raises the question as to the basis on which council was collecting monies in fees from these same persons if they were not entered into a database.
While the vendors have been paying taxes and complying to some extent with the rules and regulations, the council appeared to have been sleeping at the wheel. Every market vendor should have been registered and in a database years ago, and certificates should have been issued to eligible vendors and subject to periodic review.
The fees paid by vendors also imply responsibilities and potential duties of the council towards the vendors. These should be spelled out clearly together with each vendor’s rights, duties and privileges. Important issues such as sanitation and order must not be left up to individual interpretation but must be clearly articulated both to the vendors and the enforcing employees of the city. Indeed, many larger more established businesses are guilty of similar breaches relating to health and sanitation.
The City Councillors may consider being guided by the words of John D Rockefeller, Jnr, who said: “I believe that the law was made for man and not man for the law; that government is the servant of the people and not their master” and “I believe in the dignity of labour, whether with head or hand; that the world owes no man a living but that it owes every man an opportunity to make a living.”
