This is madness in St Ann’s

With other young women from the area I used to walk around that field when I was pregnant with my first child forty-six years ago.

My children played there as did other children from the constituency when they were young, as did my grandchildren, come to think of it, as there are really no other open spaces there for young people to run and kick balls of various sorts and to play sports . In this, I am no different from any of the other residents of the area who have joined together to guard what we, quite rightly, regard as communal space which we all have shared and used for many years. It is not progress to remove this common space from the citizens. It is destructive of all that community development stands for, and is contrary to at least the expressed policy of the government.

In this respect, let me quote from a document published by the present government in 2005:

"As the country forges forward, this government has made significant investments in the development of the social sector which can be referred to as the People’s Sector. It is therefore an indication that the people of Trinidad and Tobago are at the centre of Government’s Developmental thrust. Government will continue to collaborate with Non-Governmental Organisations and Community-Based Organisations to ensure that the needs of the citizenry are addressed."…it goes on to say "The Government gives the assurance that it will continue in its effort to improve the quality of life for all…"

The words are nice words.

I gather from reports in today’s press that the idea to turn the community playing grounds into a parking lot for the guests at the Prime Minister’s parties was not, in fact, that of the Prime Minister, but that of a Mr Calder Hart of UDeCOTT. This implies that the Prime Minister may not have even been aware of the plan, as he has had little or no interaction with the people of the area in which he lives, as Curtis Bateau, the head of the Grass Roots Organisation of St Ann’s and Cascade has been at pains to point out. It is unlikely therefore, that he, himself, ever gave a thought to the strong feelings the residents of the neighbourhood have about our community.

He doesn’t actually need to pass the playing fields on his way home, and unless he actually looks up as his car enters the official gates to his driveway, which bounds the field, and there is no reason that compels him to do so, he may not even be aware that the grounds are in continuous use by young people. So we must, at least give him the benefit of the doubt, such as it is.

One is concerned, therefore, with the policy guidelines under which state corporations such as UDeCOTT operate. Mr Hart may have been directed to get the Prime Minister off the hook by claiming the responsibility for the decision as being his, but if that is, in fact the case and not simply a hook-reliever, why is it that plans can actually be drawn up to encroach on a community without the courtesy of consulting, much less collaborating with the community? Is that just for Policy Documents as quoted above? Who are we to believe? Mr Calder Hart is quoted as saying that meetings would be held with the residents to "help them understand the vision for this project and to listen to their concerns" at the appropriate time.

We notice that there is no question in this statement of collaborating with residents, nor even of consulting, just a patronising indication that the mighty government organisation would "listen" to our concerns ("there, there, Mammy nice child"…..) and an even more condescending "help us to understand the vision." Does UDeCOTT think we are childish puppets with neither powers of discernment nor intelligence? Do they think we will fall for that patronising condescension with out reacting?? What about our vision for our community? Who is going to be "helped" to understand that?

We read in the press that UDeCOTT has implemented other building and "development" plans without the EMA approval, to say nothing of the feelings of the relevant communities, so what assurance do we have that they will listen to the residents of Cascade and St Ann’s once their plans have been drawn up and approved?

What effect will "listening to concerns" have then? Did they make any difference at Union Park? Will they make any difference in destroying our National Park at Tucker Valley? What does the government mean by "collaboration"? The dictionary is very clear that it means much, much more than "listening to concerns" and then going ahead and doing what Mr Hart has approved that UDECOTT has decided to do anyway.

If the intention of Mr Calder Hart’s statement was to shut up the protests of the residents of St Ann’s and Cascade, it was very much as misguided as the intention to turn the field into a parking lot in the first place was.

Diana Mahabir-Wyatt

Cascade Resident