The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government’s flagship “City Revival Plan,” marketed as the long-awaited transformation of Georgetown into a modern “Garden City,” is facing pointed and multilayered scrutiny from Alliance for Change (AFC) interim leader and former Minister of Public Infrastructure David Patterson. In a detailed letter, Patterson argues that the administration’s decision to make Tiger Bay, one of the capital’s most socially complex zones, the first major intervention site is not merely ambitious but potentially fraught with legal pitfalls, policy contradictions, and political calculations hidden from public view.
Patterson describes the modernisation agenda as “commendable,” but his analysis underscores a reality the government has not publicly confronted. Tiger Bay is not a squatter settlement on state land, and therefore cannot be treated as such. In fact, he stresses that “most if not all of the land in this area is privately owned under legal titles.” This fact alone, he argues, immediately places the City Revival Plan at odds with established government policy on squatting, a policy that the administration frequently touts as one of zero tolerance.
Here lies the central contradiction. The government cannot legally build permanent or temporary structures on Tiger Bay lands without the explicit approval of private owners. Patterson notes that such approval is improbable because new structures would weaken owners’ future legal claims. The implication is that the redevelopment vision may be structurally impossible without heavy state spending to legally acquire the land, a move he describes as “extremely costly” given Tiger Bay’s high value location near the city’s commercial hub.
Patterson’s analysis suggests that the government may contemplate prescriptive acquisition, a long-term and contentious legal path that hinges on proving uninterrupted public use. Yet such a strategy would bring financial and political consequences the administration has not acknowledged. Without land ownership, Patterson argues, the modernization plan reduces to public works such as drainage, roads, lights, sewer upgrades, and public Wi-Fi. These would be helpful but incapable of changing the area’s physical landscape, and doing more would force the government to contradict its own anti-squatting doctrine.
His critique also exposes a recurring historical pattern. Relocation has repeatedly failed. He recounts that past governments, both PPP C and APNU AFC, offered Tiger Bay residents free or subsidized house lots. Yet relocation rarely materialized because families lacked resources to build or sustain new homes. Even when residents moved, “new persons would immediately take up that vacated dwelling,” reinstating the settlement and eroding any long-term impact.
To break this cycle, Patterson argues that relocation cannot be treated as a land distribution exercise but must be holistic, involving completed homes, deeply discounted repayment schedules, and free or subsidised transportation, since Tiger Bay residents rely on proximity to jobs and schools. His analysis points to a broader truth. Redevelopment is not just a housing issue but a socio economic challenge requiring models aligned with the realities of urban poverty.
Beyond policy concerns, Patterson raises the political question many Guyanese are whispering but few officials are addressing. With no detailed plan disclosed, he warns that the government has left space for “conspiracy theorists” to fill the vacuum. Among circulating theories are claims that the state intends to relocate residents and return the land to private owners under quiet agreements, or that the administration is timing the most politically explosive aspects of relocation early so that “negative political and social consequences would have been forgotten by the time the next general elections are due in 2030.”
Whether these theories hold merit or not, Patterson’s analytical point is clear. The opacity of the plan fuels public distrust. In his words, “transparency has not been the hallmark of the PPP” and without full disclosure the initiative risks being perceived not as urban development but as politically engineered displacement of a vulnerable community.
Patterson’s summation frames Tiger Bay not as a simple urban upgrading project but as a test case of governance philosophy. Will the City Revival Plan be driven by transparent, citizen centered development or by concealed political and economic interests. In his view, the devil will always be in the details, details the government has yet to reveal.
