I LIVE directly opposite Movie Towne. When you are in the parking lot of MovieTowne, and you look straight up into the sky, you see my house. There is a street that houses the temporary head office of EXXON and that street leads you to MovieTowne.
The street was just a narrow piece of bush and mud when MovieTowne was being built. I used to walk my dog through that area of bush and darkness to where MovieTowne was being built.
One night, I entered the compound, and a man with a gun longer than the Essequibo River said: Sir, you cannot come in here.” I replied, “I just live across the road, look that is my house; I’m just walking my dog.”
He felt it was alright and from that night, I walked my dog there, and my dog literally witnessed the construction of MovieTowne. After MovieTowne was finished, the company constructed a road where the bushes and mud were. The street leads from the Railway Embankment to the old Atlantic highway. It is that street people take to go to Massy Supermarket. The temporary head office of EXXON is at the southern tip of the street, and either EXXON or the Ministry of Public Works turned the pathway into a fully modern street.
It has no name. Mid-last year, a lady set up a vending booth right at the southern tip of the nameless street directly opposite Exxon. I was fortunate that morning to see the Ministry of Public Works officials asking her to move. I was on my verandah having a late breakfast.
That lady is gone. She hasn’t returned, and if she does, the ministry will evict her again, and she will be charged. But no one has charged Banks DIH and Hand-in-Hand from doing exactly what the vanished vendor did – illegally occupy the parapet. This has been a long introduction to yesterday’s (Monday) column by Leonard Craig titled, “Freddie Kissoon and Banks DIH: An Obsession?”

The exchange with Craig began two weeks ago when he noted that he cannot agree with me that Banks DIH only should be focused on by the authorities to remove encumbrances on the parapets. It should be a national policy including all offenders, including the vendors. I replied to Craig and conceded that his point is valid. But I added a vital, priceless footnote.

I asked Craig if the policy includes all offenders; then a sad situation is going to happen. The untouchables will not be touched. The people who will lose out are the poor vendors. And I am right by citing two gargantuan examples. The vendor opposite my house on the street with no name has been removed and is gone forever.

But Banks DIH and Hand-in-Hand, which did exactly what the vendor did opposite my home, have remained untouched, although the then Traffic Chief visited Thirst Park and Eve Leary and instructed Hand-in-Hand to remove the cones from the parapet. Those instructions were issued years ago.

I quote from Craig’s column yesterday: “I however have revolting sentiments towards a concept Freddie seems to be advocating. We should be wary of, and probably not attempt uniform application of the law because we perceive that there are untouchables in society who will get away with flouting the law. If we are to go by that theory, then “let the poor vendors do their thing because the privileged will resist” and the application of the law will be skewed against the poor. An endless cycle of inaction. We cannot fail to implement even-handed public-policy measures because we believe or anticipate that some wealthy violators will resist, it’s too Animal-Farmish.”

But this is my point and Craig has buttressed my ideological anxiety the way he has written it. That is what will happen. That has happened and that is happening. There is a uniform application, but all of Guyana knows what happens to that uniform. It becomes a tattered garment because powerful and untouchable men and women and powerful companies will not wear the uniform.

What happens then is that the lady on the street with no name vanishes because of a policy that is supposed to be uniform but is ignored and trampled upon by the corporation kings, the bourgeois monarchs, and the middle class with their ubiquitous status. So what is Craig saying? He is saying there must be a uniform policy for all. No offender should be spared. What am I saying? I contend in that uniform policy, the poor and powerless will become poorer and more powerless.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.