WHY A FENCE?

Nov 13, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

A few weeks ago I was passing by the corner of Thomas Lands and Vlissengen Road and looked at that plot of land to the west of the road, the very plot of land which is now the centre of controversy between the government of Guyana and the Guyana Public Service Union.
At that time the plot was in a deplorable condition. It was going to waste. The whole place was overgrown with weeds. Cows and horses were grazing on the expansive plot. The former GPSU Sports Club building on the western extremity was also in a poor condition.
It seemed such a waste that the facility had come to such a state when there is such urgent need for recreational facilities.
Knowing that the Guyana Public Service Union was in dire financial straits and thus most likely unable to find the money to weed and level the ground, it dawned on me that I should pen a column calling on the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport to enter into a partnership with the union so that the ground could be cleared of the overgrowth and put to use for the development of sports in Guyana.
While most of the grounds in the Thomas Lands area are too small for cricket fields, this particular plot was large enough for both a cricket field and a football field. The idea therefore of either the government or one of the sporting associations working with the GPSU to rehabilitate the rundown facility, including what used to be the sports club, was something that would have been welcomed since increasingly that could be put to use instead of being allowed to fall into disrepair.
Well the government has seemingly acted, but not in the way that I had anticipated. They have now cordoned off the eastern portion of the lot.
A perimeter fence is being thrown up around that section. The Guyana Public Service Union is protesting this move and is claiming rights to the said property which one newscast said was under the control of the union for over forty years.
It is not possible for the union to have been in possession of the property for over forty years since the said land was originally private property which was compulsorily acquired by the PNC regime in the seventies to build the western carriageway to link the city with the Rupert Craig Highway.
One union official has indicated that Burnham gave the land to the union. Well, Burnham did a lot of things, but giving land to someone and giving them ownership is another thing.
If the union has a transport in its name, then it should have no problems in convincing the Courts to issue an injunction to restrain the government from taking control of the eastern section of the plot. There is no need for a lot of talk and mobilization. If the union has the necessary paperwork to prove ownership, it can be granted an injunction.
If the union has a valid lease, then it should also produce this and have the Courts grant the required injunction.
But please, do not tell the nation about Burnham giving anybody any land unless there is documentation to support legal title or lease.
If on the other hand the government feels that it is still the owner of the land and if it has the necessary paperwork to support this contention, then it has every right to take control of the land and develop it for sports in Guyana.
However, is the government going to keep the land for the development of sports? Then why is it building a fence around the part that it states is its property? Why a fence?
Why not let the land be open, so that the students of St. Joseph High and North Georgetown Secondary School can have somewhere to play.
Why not leave the facility unfenced so that residents of Kitty can use the facility for recreation purposes and sports associations can make use of the facility for their competitions.
Why not purchase the sports club from the Guyana Public Service Union and develop it into a pavilion when there are matches.
We have to keep our fingers crossed that the government does not take that land and give it to one of its friends because the lands in that area should be zoned and developed strictly for recreational activities.
Any other use should be stoutly resisted, whoever turns out to be the rightful owner, prescriptive or transported, of the said plot.