Dear Editor,
The government has announced an ambitious “City Revival Plan” which aims to transform our Capital into a sustainable “Garden City”. This is a commendable and long overdue plan and should be supported by all citizens. Phase I of this grand modernization plan will be the transformation of the area commonly known as Tiger Bay (“The Bay”) into a modern neighbourhood. This well-intentioned intervention has unsurprisingly drawn mixed reactions from various sections of society. Modernizing the Bay poses some unique challenges for several reasons including but not limited to those outlined below:
1. Squatting predominately occurs on state owned lands – an activity which the government has previously stated that they have zero tolerance for, but this is not that case with the Bay. Most if not all of the land in this area is privately owned under legal titles. This immediately poses a legal challenge to this modernization plan, since government cannot fund the erection of temporary or permanent structures in the Bay without the prior approval of the legal owners. This is something which they are unlikely to obtain since permanent structures diminish the opportunity of the owner regaining possession of their lands in the future.
2. The details of the modernization plan for the Bay have not been publicly revealed; however, the government may be considering taking possession of the Bay via prescriptive action. Such a move will be extremely costly, since despite its current state, the Bay is extremely valuable real estate given its proximity to the City’s commercial and business center. Without such action, the government’s modernization plan will be limited to the much-needed improvement of drainage, roadways and the sewerage system, installation of street lights and possibly including free Wi-Fi hubs, which would greatly enhance the educational opportunities for school age residents. However, sadly, without an agreement with the legal owners little can be done to enhance the physical appearance of the various dwellings in the Bay, otherwise they will run the risk of setting aside their established policy against squatting.
3. Acknowledgment has to be given to all previous administrations, who would have attempted to address the challenges of the residents inhabiting the Bay – dozens of residents would have been allocated house lots in the past, either free of charge or at subsidized costs but these efforts have not been successful, primarily due to the residents being unable to afford the cost of building new homes, or making payments for provided houses. Additionally, as was discovered by the APNU+AFC administration, even if a former resident was able to relocate, new persons would immediately take up that vacated dwelling – thus restarting that cycle.
Any relocation attempt for the Bay must be holistic, going way beyond the provision of house-lots. It must include the provision of completed homes provided at a hugely discounted repayment schedule, as well as the provision of free or subsidized transportation since most of the residents in the Bay work or attend schools within proximity to their current location. There are several examples of rent to own housing schemes that take into account the true earnings of working class citizens that could be considered.
The call for the release of the details of the modernization plan for the Bay is not an unreasonable request, since the conspiracy theorists among us, of which they are many, would be thinking that the government is well aware of all the challenges (land ownership, squatters rights, political and social consequences) and would be wondering why this government would make this particular area the first major project in the City Revival Plan.
Some have suggested that the government intends to relocate the residents of the Bay, and return occupation to the legal owners with the undertaking that the owners will immediately upgrade the area. Some are of the opinion that the government may be hoping that doing such a mass relocation exercise so early in their new term would be beneficial since the negative political and social consequences would have been forgotten by the time the next general elections are due in 2030. Without a full disclosure of their plans, such theories and many more will only circulate.
The modernization of the Capital City is a long overdue and good initiative, but for it to be successful, the input of all citizens and agencies is required. An open and transparent process should be the foundation of such an important initiative. Sadly, transparency has not been the hallmark of the PPP. And even sadder, the devil will always be in the details.
Yours truly,
David Patterson
