Dear Editor,
The codes of local government were first formulated by the ex-slaves of Victoria Village. In William Arno’s work: “History of Victoria Village” we are able to grasp the foresight of our ancestors when they developed and implemented rules “for the good regulation and general benefit of the estate”. It took this group of 83 enterprising proprietors, women included, a little more than 14 years after the abolition of slavery and the purchase of the estate to define and demarcate their lands by a Survey which they commissioned in March 1853. This ought to have been a watershed moment in the lives of poor emancipated people who had acquired the right to decide how the lands were to be utilized for their individual and collective benefit. The Plan, which was produced by N. Newlands, is a surveying masterpiece. It is profoundly informative and thorough. The Surveyor did not spare any effort at meticulously cataloguing the names of the proprietors, the numbers of the various lots, the location of the church buildings as well as the plot of land that was earmarked for the burial of the dead. The lands located at the far south of the village (backlands) were used for subsistence and commercial farming. The lands south of the sea wall and immediately south of the Railway line contained residential buildings. The Government of Guyana’s recent advertisement dated July, 5th, 2020 “seeking bidders for the construction of a fish processing plant in Victoria” is very baffling. Firstly, as far as I am aware neither the Basic Needs Trust Fund (BNTF), the Community Deve-lopment Council, (CDC), the Grove/ Haslington Neighbourhood Demo-cratic Council nor the government has had any consultation with the residents of the community about this project. The residents have not seen a blue print of the fish plant containing the design of the building and more importantly the layout for proper drainage and irrigation if or when the operation commences.
Secondly, the location earmarked for the construction of the fish plant parallel to the seawall where quite a sizeable number of persons live down wind is by all means undesirable. That the government would seek to install a fish plant in a residential area boggles the mind. Clearly, the environmental repercussions of the project, the question of zoning and the rules and regulations governing land use must have been either brushed aside or deliberately ignored when this project was contemplated. About a month ago a number of concerned residents sign-ed and submitted a Petition to the Community Development Council, (CDC), the Grove/Haslington Neigh-bourhood Democratic Council, the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA) and the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) advocating against the intended manner in which the land has been earmarked to be used. As a consequence of that Petition this letter writer has seen correspondence by the Environ-mental Protection Agency addressed to the Community Development Council in which it has contended that based on its inspection and the location of the land it was inappropriate for the operation of a fish plant.
Importantly, the Grove/Haslington Neighbourhood Democratic Council has been exercising authority for the use and management of lands in the area for more than four decades. In 1996 the Council commissioned a survey of the lands on the seaside and allocated about 35 (thirty-five) house lots to persons for residential purposes. The proposed site for the establishment of the fish plant was clearly demarcated and earmarked on the Surveyor’s Plan for “water sports”. It is unimaginable that the Council has deviated from its initial contemplations in this regard.
The proposal to erect a fish plant in a residential area is a stark reminder of the need for proper land management, use and administration in our communities. People who live in this locality do not deserve to live either adjacent or in close proximity to a fish plant that could potentially undermine their health, comfort and well-being. The intended usage of this portion of land by the Govern-ment and the designated stakeholders goes against the grain of the order and discipline that our ancestors demonstrated 175 years ago when they purchased this historic village and implemented regulations for its management and governance. The site is inappropriate for a fish plant. The government ought to reconsider its initiative in this regard.
Yours faithfully,
Rexford Jackson
Attorney-at-Law
