THE EDITOR, Sir:
THE PIECE carried by The Gleaner on July 27th, 2004 involving the eviction of the causeway fisherfolk confounded my typically serene sensibilities. As I digested the article, nostalgic memories of joyful children by the sea, hardworking fishermen and the familiar, inviting smell of fresh fish swept over me as I thought upon my early morning commute to school in Kingston.
Quite frankly, evicting these people without recourse or adequate notice seems morally inimical. Admittedly, I am not usually one who professes my expertise at social engineering, but this incident demands exception. I have known those people, whom you refer to as fisherfolk, as having inhabited the land upon which they live, play and make their livelihood for over 15 years. My parents suggest that I can safely add an additional 10 years to that number because those fisherfolk have laid claim to the property that they now inhabit for as long as my parents have lived in Portmore.
POSSESSION CLAIM
Under United States law (in a majority of the states), 25 years is typically long enough to make an adverse possession claim upon contested land taken without original title. Furthermore, if we were to play by the rules of Cecile Rhodes, and other colonial conquistadors, including Israel, productive use of otherwise vacant, unused land would suffice as reason enough to lay legal claim to the land. Nonetheless, Jamaica, in exercising its sovereignty, is not subject to such rules (at least we hope so) and all we are left with is a constitution. That said constitution, tedious and ambiguous though it may seem at times, guarantees the protection of property rights and allows no expropriation of lands except for public purposes. Furthermore, where the justification for expropriation lies in the public purpose allowance, the government is required to establish principles regarding compensation for the taking of said land.
ITS OBLIGATION
If that isn't enough reason to compensate the fisherfolk for the taking of what is now arguably their land, the clause in the government's invitational bid for the construction of the highway should trigger action. That is, typically in its notice of tender, the government tends to act as the financier of contingencies (being that most of the funds for the construction of the highway comes from European grants). Hence, the government made an agreement, subject to the contract being financed, to resettle individuals or communities who are disrupted as a result of its land acquisition. The Jamaican government should not shy away from its obligation simply because it thinks that these fisherfolk are incapable of grasping the government's obligation to them. After all, these are the same individuals who the government will depend on for re-election in 2007.
Furthermore, the resettlement and/or compensation to these individuals should seem nominal in the face of the prospects that will ensue as a result of this new highway. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that the building of this highway is the government's investment in the tourism sector in hopes that the new highway will attract tourist mobility and possibly increase the real GDP growth from 2 per cent to 2.6 per cent annually.
Frankly, beyond the crunching of numbers, it all boils down to this: if the government does not serenade the antagonism that now resides in these fisherfolk (and those similarly situated) who will, as a result of this move lose their livelihood, they will only fuel the fire that has produced chronic high unemployment, widespread underemployment, and plaguing crime all of which have managed to undermine Jamaica's economic potential.
I am, etc.,
SACHA WILSON, BSc, J.D. LL.M
shashasta@yahoo.com
Troy, MI, USA
Via Go-Jamaica
