Recent actions by the Council to remove poor vendors from different parts of the city coupled with government actions to remove those plying their trade along the seawall with minimal notice underscore the need for a comprehensive plan to address this phenomenon. It is true that, the vending issue has been with us for as long as we can remember. It has not gone away; it has to be managed and properly incorporated in our economy. We must not shy away from it but confront it with a view to organising and regularising it. It can be done. It must be done.
Guyanese may recall that in the inaugural address, of Mayor, Hamilton Green, in 1994, he made specific mention of the street vending phenomenon. In that address he rightfully said:
“The vendor issue is not a simple move them out, charge them rent, lick them down, matter. It is a phenomenon, which we should try to understand”
Research into this matter would reveal that, in 1994, in an effort to regularize street vending, the Council approved A Plan of Action to solve the Street Vending Issue. A major aspect of that plan was the appointment of a special committee for street vending. That committee was appointed. The general responsibility of that committee included: identify suitable areas for vending, register street vendors and propose the design for stalls or kiosks for street vending.
At several meetings, the Mayor and vendors agreed on certain measures, including, that they should keep their surroundings clean and tidy, conduct their activities in a manner that would enhance the appearance of the city and not detract from it beauty and that they should not block the entrances and exits of shops and other legitimate business places and that they should not encumber or block the pavement, thoroughfares, corners, intersections and walkways.
There was also general agreement between the vendors and the council that, they should monitor the situation to discourage new vendors because since 1995 the numbers of vendors selling on streets and pavements were considered sufficient, by the council.
Since that time too the council attempted to acquire the Guyana Stores Bond to relieve the congestion in down- town Georgetown. It did not happen.
Street vending was one of the activities adopted by citizens to cope with the effects of the oil crisis on the local economy. There was heavy unemployment, underemployment and low wages. Therefore, people, particularly single mothers and women, sought and used various means to survive; street vending was a major one. But with that came many other challenges that affected not only the economics of the city but also its public health, public spaces and aesthetics. More than three decades after, the council continues to grapple with this situation.
It is clear that although some businesses share a symbiotic relationship with street vendors, others are finding it extremely difficult to sustain and improve the profitability of their businesses, in the face of the increasing number of vendors on pavements and walkways. As a result, several of them have successfully applied to the courts for Mandamuses to get the council to remove vendors doing business at the front of their legal business places.
So far, the council has removed about four sets of vendors from places in the central business district of Georgetown. While it is clear that the vending situation has become untenable and, in some cases, unacceptable, the piecemeal manner in which the removal is carried out by the council could eventually lead to certain social, and economic problems. In fact, under the law, the council has a direct responsibility to manage vending in the city. What worries me is the apparent lack of a comprehensive plan to cater to the needs of those vendors and to relocate them to appropriate places where they can continue to ply their trade. Sure, some will argue that the council does not have any responsibility to find places for vendors; that is true.
But, in this 21st Century, marked by ever- changing global politics impacting on complex factors involved in planning and designing of sustainable cities and urban centers, any municipal authority that is worth its salt must consider all of its duties and responsibilities, in the context of extant socio, economic and political circumstances, in which it operates.
It might not be the best thing for the authorities to remove those vendors from where they have been plying their trade for many years, [some vendors are second and third generations], without any consideration of resultant hardships that would be visited upon them by the actions of the council and the government. For many, street vending is their only source of income. When that is taken away, they are left bewildered.
And the social and economic fallout could be harmful not only to those families directly affected but also the local communities in which they reside and the city as a whole. We have to do better than that; there has to be a proper plan, to help those affected.
What is unusually worrying, is that in the face of all of that, the authorities have not met with those affected, to listen to them, to advise them, and to support them where practical to help them readjust their lives. They have had no meaningful consultation with those citizens.
Further, they were given very short notice. This lack of adequate notice given to poor vendors facing displacement shows a serious disregard for their rights and well- being. This action not only violates basic principles of procedural fairness but also deepens the sense of powerlessness and disenfranchisement among marginalised communities.
In fact, the government’s move to inform vendors along the seawall of their imminent removal with one day’s notice has demonstrated its decision to prioritise the interests of wealthy corporations over the livelihoods of poor vendors. Imagine, a few months ago, the government under questionable circumstances, sold a portion of land along that seawall to a mammoth foreign hotel corporation.
This very government is now attempting to remove vendors from areas contiguous to the land they sold to the foreign investor. By favouring huge hotel and entertainment developments over the survival of small- scale vendors, the government perpetuates a cycle of marginalisation and exclusion for the economically disadvantaged. This blatant disregard for the needs of vulnerable communities exacerbates existing disparities and undermines principles of social justice and equity.
More, the government’s failure to consult with those affected reflects a lack of inclusivity and accountability in decision- making processes. Those vendors were treated by the government as chaff.
I encourage the city authorities to adopt a stakeholder- based approach to vendor relocation. This involves engaging all relevant stakeholders in the decision- making process. This includes government officials, corporate entities, representatives from the vendor community, civil society, relevant none- governmental organisations. This would help to foster dialogue and collaboration. In such an environment, it would be possible to develop solutions that balance the needs of all parties involved.
Also, I encourage the mayor and city council to engage its collective faculties to design and develop a well- coordinated and comprehensive plan to address this issue in a holistic manner. Very soon many more business owners would approach the courts, to have street vendors removed from their legal premises. But why should the council wait for those embarrassing moments. The city authorities should act now. There are enough provisions in Chapter 28:01 that allow the Council to design an appropriate plan, create space and to incorporate vendors in the city economy.
