Dear Editor,
It seems that within the Beterverwagting and Triumph Neighbourhood Democratic Council there is an inner Council, where decisions are made.
To the extent that the wider Council and by extension the Community are unaware of the happenings at the Council table. As a result of COVID, Council meetings were suspended for a while last year.
In this period, it seems that two portions of roadway were leased by the Council to Gafoors Ltd and BM Soat. The portion leased to Gafoors has since been gated and a shed has been partially constructed on it. These constructions according to the complete Council are unlawful. However, Gafoors has been unwilling to dismantle them. A situation which is viewed with disgust by the residents and heirs of the people who bought the then unprofitable plantations of Beterverwagting and Triumph in 1840 and 1856 respectively.
Currently on the area leased to BM Soat a steel frame structure is being erected. The issue with this lease is that, it is marked on early survey plans as a road way, hence Thus no structures should be erected on it. The fact that both of these parcels of lands are earmarked as road ways means that someone needs to sanction the change of land use. That someone many in the community feel should be the residents of the community.
The consideration, must be done by the residents, because they are the owners. The Council is simply there to manage the day to day affairs of the community. Any extra-ordinary decisions therefore should be sanctioned by the residents as was the practice up until the mid-seventies. There is no evidence that the Council or that small inner group attempted to seek the permission of the community to have a land use change approved.
From a financial view there is a concern as to the price at which these lands were leased. Residents have voiced their concerns that in both deals that something unhealthy took place. The pricing of the Gafoors lease is not in the public domain, so much would not be said. However as for the BM SOAT deal it is strange that the announced price of G$500,000 per year which the Minister of Local Government did question was accepted by the officials of the Council as a fair rental.
That lease price must be juxtaposed against the price received by the CEO of the Council who sub-leased a piece of land on the Triumph railway embankment to Smiling Supermarket for six times as much. Now one would assume that the CEO sits in the capacity as advisor to the Council since she is paid to work in the interest of the community would have alerted the council that the negotiated price of $500,000 is way below the market rate. Since she is aware that for a plot about one fifth the size and in a lesser conducive location for Supermarket business, much more was acquired.
In other words, it is twice the residents are being made to suffer, they would lose the use of roadway and are not receiving the maximum benefit for that loss. With regards the lease granted to Gafoors whether unhealthy or not the position of the residents is a non-negotiable. The lease must be rescinded, the gate must be removed and the shed taken down. It must be reiterated that Section 48, Chapter 28 -02 of the laws of Guyana is clear on the non-leasing of roads and definitely that inner circle of the BV/Triumph NDC has breached the conditions of that section and the residents are united that the furtherance of this lawlessness must cease. However, the situation facing them, is there seems to be no authority, save the ballot, to stop the BV/Triumph NDC from continuing trampling on the rights of the residents.
Yours truly
Elton McRae
Resident BV/Triumph
