Stop City Demolitions!
This article was published in the Monitor in October 2003.
Please give us a break and stop those crocodile tears Monitor!
This is in regard to an Editorial in your daily of sometime
last week about the Naguru demolitions. In that editorial, after
the cursory pretence at being concerned about the poor tenants’
plight, you went ahead to justify the demolition of the estates.
Just what was your basis for this lofty preaching? That editorial
was testimony to the hollow analysis to which the media is sometimes
wont to succumb.
First of all I should state that I am in general agreement with
the principal of redeveloping high value sites to achieve more
rationalized land use. But having said that, I think the redevelopment
solutions should be creative in such a way that they take into
consideration the multifaceted entity that any urban area is.
For KCC to simply wake up and announce DEMOLISH shows a narrow
focus devoid of creative planning. For the money they get, the
guys at Whitehall could surely have come up with a
better considered solution. The proposal (or at least the part
of it known to us the public) is so simplistic that even I could
have taken a single day to formulate it.
That Naguru is an eyesore in the city is debatable but to blame
this on the poor tenants is preposterous. The poor state of Naguru
is but a reflection of the pervasive poverty and disorganized
institutional framework around us. Simply stated, the poor are
not responsible for the lousy institutional framework that created
and perpetuates their pathetic situation. So don’t blame
them for the low rents they were paying because the system does
not give them a say in determining the rent. And for Whitehall to give the low rents as justification for giving peanuts
as compensation is shameless hypocrisy.
Without pausing to think, the so-called ‘objective’
media jumps into the fray to support Whitehall.
To me such support shows that the media, consciously or unconsciously,
give blind support to the interests of the nouveau riche pseudo-middle-class
to which many scribes belong. And of course this is at the expense
of the poor who, it must not be forgotten, are the majority in
this country.
The solution that KCC is proposing for Naguru is an iron-fisted
one that has much in common with the style of dictators. Because
acting without due regard to needs of the largest income group
in this city is dictatorial.
It is never good to criticize without an alternative and so
I propose one based on the following points:
The first point is that the redevelopment of Naguru should be
piecemeal coming in small manageable bits. This way it won’t
cause so much disruption as the affected people will have ample
time to readjust. Sudden demolition of everything will cause lots
of disruption which could be reduced through phased redevelopment.
And as we rebuild Naguru into an ‘ultra-modern’
precinct, let us not demolish all the houses. It is important
to preserve at least a few because Naguru is a very important
part of this city’s history (if only to remind us of our
colonial past and of the divide between the whites and the natives
as the contrasting splendour of Kololo shows). It is always important
to remember history or else mistakes of the past will be repeated.
It also pays to bear in mind that ultra-modern in not necessary
equal to development and can in fact be shown to be anti-development.
The best development approach is one that mixes the old and modern.
In this way, society can confidently cruise to a new future knowing
that it is well grounded in the past.
The reality in Kampala
is that the poor are the majority (possibly over 70 percent).
Prudent planning should always take their needs into consideration.
And so it is important that even in our cherished ‘ultra-modern’
development they be given space. The new development should have
a mix of income levels so that even the poor have a chance to
rent/buy if they want. Let us not equate poverty with disorganization.
Even the poor want to live organized lives. Mixing income groups
in a redevelopment is a sure way to avoid the current tendency
towards incongruous islands of riches in a sea of poverty. Otherwise
it is not wild imagination to think that the rich will soon start
to commute from barricaded office to fortified home in armoured
vehicles.
And finally, in the redevelopment activities let us ensure that
the dislocated tenants get new skills (e.g. in building), jobs
and some income. And also give them a chance to participate in
the decisions that will so fundamentally affect their lives.
|
