Still awaits return of her tools of trade
BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – SOME three weeks have passed and Ivy Adams’ solicitors are yet to receive a reply to a letter sent to Randolph Edmeade, Secretary of the Development Control and Planning Board (DCPB), requesting a meeting with him on relocating the vendor and the return of her implements of trade.
Adams is a self-employed vendor and was operating her business about 21 feet off the side of the West Basseterre By-Pass Road, to the rear of Project Strong, since March 23, 2010.
The DCPB sent Adams two letters in mid-April 2010, indicating she “poses a serious safety issue to the motoring public using the road” and should “seek an alternative site that is less dangerous”. She was given an April 23, 2010 deadline to vacate the location.
The mother of seven refused to comply, claiming that she was being unduly targeted and was a victim of unfair treatment. She also explained that prior to moving to that area, she was plying her trade in downtown Basseterre and the authorities had asked her to vacate those spots, which she noted have since been occupied by other persons whose operations seem not to be challenged.
On the morning of Friday, May 7, 2010, four employees of the DCPB went to Adams’ vending spot, dismantled her tent, folded her tables, packed up all her stock, placed them into a vehicle and took them away. Since then, she has not been relocated and her implements are still in custody.
In a past exclusive interview with SKNVibes, Chairman of the DCPB Victor Williams said, “It is an illegal operation. According to the Planning Law of 2000, the Board is cognizant of the fact that when you have a new development, especially a highway, it is illegal to establish any sort of operation along the highway. It requires Planning’s permission; so, the very activity is illegal. Let’s take it one step beyond. We have what we now regard as our local highway. On a highway there must be uninterrupted traffic. What normally happens is that wherever you have a pull-off or any verge, it is normally for emergency scenarios.
“So, if you have any sort of operation taking place on a continuous basis, it cannot be regarded as an emergency…Because of the particular area, it is a very flat area, it is very easy for anyone to set up there. So, the Board cannot just look at this present scenario; it has to look at what is considered as precedent. So, when you allow an illegal activity to take place there, it is then very difficult at that point to stop illegal activities on the highway…”
The Chairman had also declared that the Board would take action against all those who are in positions similar to the displaced vendor.
Acting as solicitors for Adams, the law firm of Inniss and Inniss sent a letter to Edmeade on Thursday, June 3, 2010 which states that the vendor was forcibly removed from the side of the road where she was trading by officials of the Planning Unit in the company of police officers.
“The roadside trade in which Mrs. Adams is engaged is a long established feature of our national culture and it pertains specifically to the development of small business entrepreneurship by women in this community. The merit of roadside vending as a business model is that it emphasises the independent spirit of our women. It also shows the willingness of the women of this nation to earn their keep and contribute to the local economy,” the letter reads.
It also states that this form of trading has long been used as an engine for self-employment by enterprising women in the community, and it is clearly time for the issue of Adams selling on the roadside no longer be stigmatised by portraying her as a lawbreaker.
“Mrs. Adams is a woman striving to develop herself. All she needs is a hand up, not a handout! The time has come for us to look at roadside vending as a development issue relevant to the continued quest of the enterprising women in our nation for business expression aimed at achieving upward social mobility for themselves and their families,” it added.
The solicitors wrote that the issue that must be addressed, and the time-honoured tradition and culture of roadside vending ought to be kept alive and improved upon by employing the appropriate organisational expertise.
They also opined that the situation presents the DCPB an opportunity, “and not a threat”, to develop a policy for land development which takes into account the aspirations of the many Ivys who desire the opportunity to help themselves.
“We are respectfully requesting that your Board assist Mrs. Adams in identifying a space where she can earn a living. We would also be grateful if we could meet with you in this regard. We are also instructed that the implements of Mrs. Adams’ trade were confiscated and remain unlawfully detained by officials of the Planning Unit, escorted by police. It is a settled principle of natural justice that a person ought not to be denied the tools of their trade,” the solicitors wrote.
They also indicated in the letter that Adams told them the Board had contacted her by telephone to go and uplift her items, but she has not done so. The solicitors however requested “the immediate return the tools of Mrs. Adams’ trade for inspection, in order that a full assessment of the damage which she has incurred can be made”.
“It must be borne in mind that the immediate return of the items to Mrs. Adams’ premises would go a substantial way in reducing the time period of the unlawful detention, as well as the damage being incurred in this regard,” the solicitors stated.
The solicitors further stated that they are checking the historical records to find out if during the Colonial era any roadside vendor had ever been treated in the manner as Adams was by the local officials.
Meanwhile, the vendor’s brother, Terry Adams, told this media house that he suspected something was amiss when the Board informed his sister to go and collect her items.
“I can see clearly now it was just an entrapment, because they were using word of mouth. Word of mouth is your word against mine. We thought that was not good enough because no record was given to her when they removed her tools of trade, including food and snacks of which some are of a perishable nature.
“It is very clear in my mind that the Chairman of the Board and the government may very well be using high-handed tactics and state power to frustrate a very poor woman, who was just trying to make a honest living to pay her bills and support her children,” Terry said.
He declared that they would not allow the matter to rest, and if the Board does not decide to meet with his sister and her solicitors to have it resolved “we will take the matter further…even as far as the High Court”.
