For some years, Citizens Rights to the City (CRC) has called on the Government to pursue an urban development path which is lawful, people-centric, sustainable, equitable, and incorporates disaster risk reduction and climate change mitigation and adaptation. CRC has been joined in this call by citizens’ associations and individuals who are all concerned by the ‘chaka-chaka’ development taking place and the apparent lack of interest by the authorities in enforcing requirements of permits as laid out in legislation.

Prime Minister Andrew Holness has made numerous statements on the importance of transparency and accountability to his Government. Unfortunately, these pronouncements ring hollow to citizens trying to access information on developments. Experiences of citizens suggest that the Government’s aim is to ensure that residents do not know what changes will be taking place in their communities. The strategy used is that of frustrating the citizen by delays, obfuscation, and ignoring correspondence. Any group or individual who might wish to access information needs to be aware of the aim, the strategy, and the well-honed tactics used by the Government to prevent citizens getting the information, which is their right.

*Tactic one: Ignore any correspondence. To be fair, this is a cross-government feature, but credit must be given to the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC), which has perfected it. This tactic is simple — e-mail and/or written correspondence are ignored. Follow-up correspondence gets the same treatment.

*Tactic two: Placate the citizen. Also employed by the KSAMC. Here, the group/individual is afforded a meeting at which all the impediments — real or imagined — to supplying the required information are set out. Needless to point out that the Building Act 2018 states that interested parties should have access to information in development applications and that the KSAMC is empowered to get such information from developers. Quoting the Act triggers employment of tactic one.

*Tactic three: Pass the parcel. Another KSAMC speciality. Here, one is advised to get the information from the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA). Futile to point out that the application would have first been made to the KSAMC which then sends it on to NEPA. Stating this triggers employment of tactic one.

*Tactic four: Let’s pretend. The master exponent here is NEPA. NEPA invites questions and expressions of concern on an application from residents in the environs of the proposed development. Submissions are promptly acknowledged; residents are in a state of optimism. Finally, one thinks, an agency which is interested in getting feedback and suggestions. Do not hold your breath. That prompt acknowledgement is usually the end of the ‘consultation’ process. Follow-up queries trigger employment of tactic one. Has the KSAMC been giving tutorials?

The thoughtful reader may, at this juncture, wonder why information is not requested under the Access to Information Act. There is a tactic for frustrating that, too! The request, it is said, must be sent to the corporation’s lawyers for review. This then triggers employment of tactic one.

Why, one might ask, does the Government wish to prevent residents knowing what developments are slated for their communities and the conditions of building permits? Surely, such knowledge would place citizens in a position to assist the authorities in identifying potential or actual breaches? The answer to these questions may lie in that excellent report of the Integrity Commission on the “…Construction of a residential development at 11 Charlemont Drive, Kingston 6…”, which gives such insight on the way in which permit breaches are managed (mismanaged?) by the authorities.

The report documents what, apparently, has been an open secret — breaches may not be identified and if identified may not be acted on by the authorities. Giving citizens information that would allow them to identify and report breaches, particularly prior to construction, would bring breaches to light, with the expectation of action being taken. It seems that ‘development’ must take place at any cost, thus citizens reporting breaches would be too much of an inconvenience, not to say hindrance, to the pursuit of ‘chaka-chaka’ development.

Those of us who are concerned about the state of the Jamaica that will be inherited by future generations must continue to fight for a more equitable and sustainable approach to development. We are fortunate to be able to access the services of entities such as the Office of the Public Defender, the Integrity Commission as well as the courts, to assist in the fight.

Dr Barbara Carby is a disaster risk-reduction advocate and a member of Citizens Rights to the City.