Praying for heritage

The property is not currently listed for the purposes of protection under the National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago Act. Had it been so, the State would have a clear case to invoke powers under that Act to make the owner preserve the property and allow the Trust to take steps to fund such works. A person who demolishes a listed property has to pay a fine of $5,000 — which is admittedly low — but the judge may also order compensation to the Trust “such sum as the Court thinks fit for the purpose of repairing or restoring the property”. Under the law, the owner of the property has a legal right of appeal to the line minister.

Instead, though sold by church officials since August, the property is arguably in a legal grey zone from the perspective of the heritage laws. All that has occurred to date is a placing of it in an informal inventory of heritage sites. A legal notice, however, was issued to the owner of the property Alfred Galy informing him that the State intends to list the property formally under the Act. Yet, that legal process — for mysterious reasons — is yet to be concluded.

What is not mysterious is the fact that Mr Galy owns the property and has a Constitutional right to the enjoyment of that property. While there are moral claims and arguments over the need to preserve heritage sites, the black and white truth is that the building is a property, made of mortar and stone, and sits on land. Galy has a prima facie right to do whatsoever he wants to do with it.

But Greyfriars is also next to the City Hall, the seat of the city corporation which had, weeks ago, issued a stop work order. The owner claimed then that work being done on the site was not for demolition purposes. He said then that the roof was not sound and the centuries-old building was potentially unstable, needing support, and was undergoing assessment. Then, there was a report that the owner of the property sought a demolition permit. However, all parties — the Ministry of Diversity, the City Hall and the owner — began talks over the property. In this context, the decision to proceed with the demolition was surprising given the timing, and it rightly raised suspicion over the motives of actors.

While Galy may have a first instance legal right to the property, the stop-work order, the intention to list the property, combined with the talks being embarked upon, suggest there was some expectation that demolition would not have been forthcoming. If not a legal case, a moral case could be built to say this move was too hasty. That moral case can be bolstered when we consider the historic importance of the building and the need to preserve the nation’s heritage generally. But on this front Galy is not the only person who can be criticised here.

Why has the church not been listed to date? Why must the process of listing take so long? Does the State not envision that property sales may sometime occur and there will be a need to move quickly to list a site? Why is the process so convoluted? Why are the Act’s fines so low? Minister of Diversity Dr Rodger Samuel may have seen wickedness in the Sunday demolition works, but perhaps that outrage would have been better directed at fast-tracking the listing process and reforming the law. Or perhaps applying to the courts to enforce what residual legal rights — if any — the State had or has in the matter. Why was this property not listed long ago? After all, it has been sitting there for centuries, under successive administrations. Why did it take the August sale for the State to suddenly notice its importance? In this regard we think the State must support the Council of the National Trust — which has been suffering from vacancies over the decades — to ensure it is always properly constituted so that work can be done on heritage on a permanent basis and to make sure there is no fallout during the transition between councils.

More long-term work needs to be done so that things do not deteriorate in the way they did on Sunday. If Greyfriars — which up to yesterday still partially remained in place — could not be saved entirely then maybe another property can. After all, that’s what happened with the Gingerbread House around the Queen’s Park Savannah. We hope and pray.