Dear Editor,

THE issue of street vending has been an ongoing issue facing the Georgetown City Council. Some argue that vending has its genesis in the socio-economic constraints on urban dwellers.The issue of street vending has been a challenging situation for the Georgetown Municipality in every context. One side of the debate articulates that urban vending has become part and parcel of urban landscape, while other businesses cry about unfair competition and there are those who argue that encumbrances on the City thoroughfares have become unbearable.

Beyond the (5) Municipal Markets – Stabroek, Bourda, La Penitence, East Ruimveldt and Kitty — the council sought to provide alternative venues and facilities for vendors to ply their trade. The Georgetown Municipality has provided alternative venues, such as Stelling View Market, Vendors Arcade, Merriman Entrepreneur, Orange Walk Vendors Facility and the New Vendors Mall, for citizens to ply their various trades. All of these were birthed out of the need to provide alternative facilities for vendors to ply their trade.

The Georgetown City Council has always sought to find amicable and creative measures to help vendors ply their trade. The Vendors Arcade was constructed in 1976 to provide an opportunity for vendors to ply their trade in a legitimate way. In 1988, the Stabroek Bazaar, another municipal facility, was constructed at the cost of $1.6M to accommodate (220) vendors. Again, in 1990, the Stelling View Market, which has capacity to accommodate (250) vendors, was constructed by the Council. The Council continued in its effort to help vendors to operate in an environment that is organized and legitimate; hence two sections of the Merriman Mall were made available for vendors to ply their trade. As more people continued to flock the City Streets to earn a daily living, the City Council responded by building the New Vendors Mall on Water Street, which has the capacity to hold (240) vendors, in 2009.

The challenge that persists is that City Council is consistently faced with the drama of finding a new space for each new group of vendors that replaces the previous set. The new development is that many vendors have stalls at various municipal facilities but they use their stalls as bonds. Some have transferred their stalls to other relatives, or have rented them and returned to the streets to compete with the new roadside vendors.

The combined cleanup exercises done at the Stabroek Market brought out some interesting revelations. The Solid Waste Management Department removed five (5) truckloads of garbage from the canapé at the Stabroek Market, and eleven (11) truckloads from the Stabroek Market Square, sections of Water Street, America Street and contiguous areas.

This points to the congestion and difficulty to consistently carry out a regime of cleaning that is absolutely necessary. Besides an unhealthy environment that persisted, another interesting social problem was that many were living on the pavements.
In May 2016, The Council had served notices on the vendors who had built structures on Water Street, outside the Guyana Stores Bond, to remove such structures. The vendors took the matter to the High Court and sought an injunction. The injunction was discharged, the lawsuit was subsequently dropped, and the Council was awarded $ 40,000 in costs.

The Council is no stranger to injunctions. In December 1996, twenty- nine vendors who operated outside of The Museum on Water Street filed for an interlocutory injunction compelling the City Council to allow them to return to that location to sell. The injunction was not granted; the presiding judge made it pellucid that the Council was not seeking to deprive them of earning, but rather the Council was seeking to have them organized by providing alternative spots for itinerants.

In 2000, another group of vendors took the Council to court and filed an injunction. The application was dismissed and Council was awarded $15,000 in costs. The decision was appealed, and was heard before another judge. The matter was again dismissed, and the vendors were granted one month to remove from the location and to comply with Section (10)(1) of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01, which states that no person shall leave, store or place, or cause to be left, placed or stored, any vehicle, cart, dray, barrel, box, dustbin, tree trunk, branch, limb, or other thing upon any street, parapet, pavement or foot-path; or in any other way encumber any street, parapet, pavement with any vehicle, cart dray, barrel, box dustbin or other thing.

The Georgetown Municipality cannot therefore absolve itself from blame, since it often sought to strike a balance between how vending must be done, securing the integrity of the environment and populace, and considering the fact that people need to earn a living.

Over the past weeks, some vendors may have experienced some form of discomfort, which the Council regrets. However, several consultations were held, and the consultations are continuing. During these sessions, the vendors were allowed to voice their concerns about issues affecting them, and receive responses to their questions.

It must be understood that the Council does not have an agenda to deprive anyone of earning a living, but is seeking to restore the pride and beauty of the City.

Time and again, Council would plead with vendors to keep their immediate environment clean, and to ensure that they have bins. Some have graciously complied, while there are those who could not care less about environmental cleanliness and would not co-operate with the Georgetown Municipality.

Over the years, the Council has endeavoured to regulate street vending. Consultations were held with different stakeholders, and several possible locations that would meet and satisfy the criteria of a constant flow of people were suggested.
However, the Stabroek Market Square was never an option, since the location was unacceptable from an aesthetical perspective. Stabroek Market is one of the most historic buildings of beauty, and street vending obscures the view of the facility. It is also not the best activity to enhance the feature of this historic treasure. A report done by the Urban Development Programme has suggested that the area be designed as a civic square, to be used for functions of national interest.
Sincerely,
DEBRA LEWIS
Public Relations Officer (ag.)