FACT: Barbados’ network of pipes that supplies the country with potable water has been in need of major replacement for many years.
Fact: The huge loss of water from this compromised network has been costly to the Barbados Water Authority and grossly inconvenient for many households across the island.
Fact: The current mains replacement programme cannot be avoided if the country wants to safeguard its very scarce water supply.
Fact: It is virtually impossible to undertake such a multi-million dollar exercise without causing some inconvenience to households and businesses.
Having stated the facts, with which we are certain most Barbadians would agree, one might be tempted to dismiss the complaints of business operators in Roebuck Street who worry that the closure of that street to vehicles for more than a week so far is doing untold damage to their sales.
After all, one cannot expect the contractor to execute such an extensive project without restricting the access of motorists and pedestrians, and if some store owners lose business as a result it is all in the national interest. In the long run the country wins.
On the other hand, in a depressed economy where just about every retail business is struggling to stay afloat, an operator under pressure from his or her bank, landlord and/or suppliers will find little solace in any suggestion that he or she should “take one for the team”. And when it is considered that many of the businesses affected by this particular project are small one-door shops where the owner operates very close to the edge – where any month’s take can mean the difference between success and failure – the fear becomes amplified.
We believe, therefore, that when necessary projects such as that now taking place in Roebuck Street are planned, all stakeholders must be given early notice. And as far as we are concerned, two weeks or a month cannot constitute reasonable notice.
Our point is that while business operators can’t realistically expect the completion of such projects without some measure of inconvenience, they ought to be given enough forewarning and information that they can plan around it.
We are sure that some of the operators might have preferred to schedule annual holiday, maintenance or stock acquisition or to exercise some other option rather than incurring the cost of being open all day and paying a full staff while recouping only a fraction of the usual revenue.
This is particularly important in an environment where the contributing factors are not some catastrophic accident or some act of nature that would otherwise have allowed the business operator to seek indemnification from his or her insurance carrier.
We cannot just simply brush aside the pains or fears of others simply because the end result is some national good. We have a duty instead to ensure that our planning and the involvement of stakeholders is so much a part of the exercise that they can accept that the sacrifice they are being asked to make is the smallest possible.
We only need to look back at many of the urban road improvement projects in the last two decades to recognise that what is now taking place in Roebuck Street is more the rule than the exception. We should not keep doing this.