ONLY the heartless who watched last Friday’s Capitol News coverage of the Parliament View vendors’ situation would not be touched.Clearly from the standpoint of the vendors they are aggrieved and feel that they are not considered an important part of the society and economy. Even in the face of economic hardship and operating in a less than pleasing environment, thought-out approaches to dealing with the crisis have been proposed.

Earlier this year these persons were removed from the Stabroek Market vicinity, on the pretext of restoring the area to its original state and cleaning up the environs, within and around, as part of the deservedly embarked upon clean-up project. The relocation to Parliament View — a privately owned property on Hadfield Street opposite Parliament Buildings, which is being rented by the council, giving the site its name — was announced to be temporary.

Subsequently, the nation learnt that the Independence Day parade would assemble and move off from Stabroek Market Square, the very site the vendors were removed from, though initially it was said the parade would have started from the East Coast.  People of this society are not fools and are not easily fooled.

The promised temporary relocation of vendors, since early May for an initially promised three months, has found them in surroundings without basic necessities for human existence and ability to ply their trade consistent with hygienic standards.

From the vendors’ mouth via Capital News, the wider society is being made aware that they are catching hell. The tents provided to them by City Hall on the pretext of protecting them from the weather are evidently inferior, currently tattered, flying in the wind, and give the place the semblance of a shanty town. Some vendors, evident in the background, have said they were forced to resort to buying their own tents or having to repair what was assigned to them.

A vendor told the newscast portable water is not available. It would be recalled one of the reasons City Hall used to ruthlessly remove the vendors on Robb Street, however temporarily, was on allegation of the use of dirty water to sprinkle the greens, fruits, etc.  It boggles the mind that while City Hall used water as a mean of denying vending in one area, the responsibility to provide potable water in another area is not being fulfilled. Such double standards being exhibited are demonstrated in other spheres of the city’s management.

The Kitty/Campbellville bus service that operated in front of Demico was forcefully removed during the Stabroek Market so-called restoration campaign, the infrastructure dug up and disposed of, only to find within a few months the service was reintroduced in the same place by the very City Council that had removed it. What we are looking at here outside of proper planning and disregard for people, is that a cash-strapped council has to dig into its coffers to build what it had initially destroyed.

Planning would factor in that the city has grown exponentially since the 1800s.  More people are also traversing the area, and it follows that such traffic brings with it diverse and competing needs and interests. The vending population is addition to responding to this evolution, has by itself grown out of needs and crises situations.

Where City Hall did not plan for the inevitable, such as population growth, movement and needs, a group of people have used their ingenuity and responded.  Additionally too, where employment and economic opportunities were and remain scarce, and the country has had moments of economic disruption,  the vendors have filled the void and responded to these moments of crisis through internal and external trading, bringing what are considered needed items to the people.

Vendors are engaged in legitimate activities — given that City Hall has over the years been charging a fee — and providing for themselves and family, taking that responsibility away from the State and at a cultural level, free of the stigmatisation of being called lazy. Outside of the National Insurance Scheme, which remains this country’s only major social safety network and caters primarily to its contributors, Guyana has no other institution to cushion economic dislocation.

In some countries government provides vouchers to the unemployed and low-income workers to assist the primary parent/guardian, infant and child, during and after pregnancy. The employed who have become unemployed, once satisfying requirements, would be entitled to unemployment benefits.  Guyana does not provide such services neither at this stage seems likely to. So when persons have taken legitimate initiative to advance and protect their economic interests, it requires of the city finding ways and means in working with them in advancing and realising their pursuit.

For instance, with the relocation to Parliament View, City Hall could have provided basic support such as placing visible signs at Stabroek Market. Those who usually patronise the vendors or are aware of their presence outside the market, through signage could have been told of and guided to the new location, and be asked to continue showing their patronage.

Some vendors in the newscast proposed other measures to ensure their livelihoods that a compassionate council would find worthy of paying attention, interacting with them and their representative, at arriving at mutually agreed upon decisions with the aim of alleviating the crisis.

The matter also gives rise to concern about the necessity of a social-impact study to guide actions being taken by the council, and whether such has ever been done. A study of such nature helps in preventing these ever-emerging crises, resulting in less shock and animosity between and among groups.