Government must demonstrate commitment to placing citizens’ safety above all else, even if it means reevaluating projects

Anyone who, causally observes the style of governance of this incumbent PPP/C regime would recognise that Guyanese are very low on its priority list; the welfare and well- being of the people of this country come last in the PPP/C’s grand scheme of things. It is a fact that this dictatorial regime value things more than people. Let us now consider one aspect of its development (not sustainable) agenda in the city: massive construction works along the Hero’s Highway.

It is clear, that PPP/C government’s approach to urban development, particularly around the new Hero’s Highway, is raising significant concerns. Within recent times, there has been a surge in the construction of large-scale buildings in residential areas- areas, in the southern section of the city) that, up until now, have been primarily home to high- density populations with families, schools, and small businesses. While development is essential for the country’s growth, the lack of transparency surrounding these projects and their potential consequences for the communities involved cannot be ignored.

The core of the issue is the perplexing and disconcerting nature of the structures that are being erected. These buildings, some of which resemble large warehouses or storage facilities, seem out of place amidst residential neighbourhoods that are teeming with people. While these projects may be justified under the rubric of “economic development” or “industrial expansion,” the reality is that most residents have no idea what these buildings are for- or, more worrying, what will be stored inside them. Local communities have expressed their concerns, but to no avail. The government and its agencies have provided little in terms of public consultation or clear communication.

This opacity has led to widespread speculation: Are these storage units meant to hold goods for businesses? Or are they designated for hazardous materials- such as chemicals or other substances that could pose a significant threat to public health and safety? The mere possibility that the latter could be true is alarming, particularly given that many of these buildings are located close to populated areas.

Without a proper explanation from the authorities, the situation is escalating into a worrying public safety issue. The construction of these facilities in densely populated neighbourhoods creates not only aesthetic and logistical disruptions but also serious questions about environmental risks. The proximity of these buildings to homes and schools means that if anything goes wrong- whether from poor construction, improper storage of dangerous substances, or inadequate safety measures- the fallout could be disastrous.

Consider the case of industrial accidents in other parts of the world, where poorly managed facilities have led to chemical spills, fires, and even explosions. While we may not yet have evidence to suggest that this will happen here, the lack of oversight and accountability means that we are playing a dangerous game with the well- being of our citizens. Communities have the right to know what they are being exposed to, and they deserve to have their voices heard in the decision- making process that affect their lives.

The incumbent regime, by facilitating the construction of these large- scale facilities in residential areas without proper consultation or any publicly known risk assessment, is failing in its duty to protect the health and safety of its citizens. The government’s silence on the matter only serves to deepen public distrust and anxiety.

In a country that has faced its share of environmental disasters, the public should not be left in the dark about the risks they may be unknowingly exposed to. More, there is a broader issue at play here: the disregard for sustainable urban planning and the needs of ordinary people. Rather than building warehouses and facilities in the heart of crowded residential communities, why not consider other more suitable locations that do not endanger the public? Or at the very least, why not prioritise transparency and community engagement in the process?

As well, what about zoning codes? As I understand it, the zoning code is in place to ensure that construction and other developmental works align with the long- term vision for urban growth, public safety, and aesthetic integrity. By permitting commercial and residential buildings along this stretch, the government has not only disregarded these codes but also jeopardised the scenic and symbolic importance of Hero’s Highway.

In essence, this situation also demonstrates the failure of the regulatory bodies tasked with ensuring that these projects meet health, safety, and environmental standards. Are there proper environmental impact assessments being conducted? Are these building being constructed to handle the potential risks associated with storage of hazardous materials, if that is indeed the case? The lack of answers to these questions shows that the government is not acting in the best interest of Guyanese.

The PPP/C government must take immediate steps to address the concerns of the affected communities. There needs to be a full and transparent review of these construction projects, with clear explanations of what is being built, why, and what risks (if any) the structures pose.

Simultaneously, the regime should be actively engaging the general public, ensuring that affected residents have a platform to voice their concerns and receive answers. If these buildings are indeed going to be used to store hazardous materials or serve other purposes that could negatively impact public health, the PPP/C must take responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate safeguards are in place.

This includes making mühlet that facilities are constructed with the highest safeguards standards, conducting thorough environmental impact assessments, and ensuring that emergency response plans are in place. Beyond that, the government must demonstrate a commitment to placing the safety of its citizens above all else, even if it means reevaluating projects that may not be suitable for densely populated areas.

Exit mobile version