COMMENT: Why stop jobs?

Since they will form no part of the official court record nor of the judgment in the matter, we may never know the true motives of the applicant in deciding to challenge the proposed construction of the Hyatt Hotel in Bridgetown. Of course, he will claim that his motives are to be found in the noblest traditions of preserving good administration and governance in Barbados’ affairs of state and in the right of any citizen, including himself, to ensure these through court action. We understand this.

What we may conjecture upon, however, are the likely effects of a lengthy delay in the project or even of its eventual abandonment, if it should come to that. These include the real probability of the loss of employment opportunities either in the construction of the hotel or subsequently in its operation for currently jobless persons as well as of the chance for new investment in the economy in these stringent economic times.

There are those who have suggested that the applicant should be regarded as an enemy of the state. We do not agree with this characterization. However, given the clear consequences of his current actions, he might very well be considered an enemy of those jobless individuals that might now be deprived of the chance of employment of some sort from the project.

In the circumstances, it is of small comfort to know that the current court action may be ineffective to curtail the project, at least directly. We are advised that an administrative order will deal with the procedural steps that should have been taken and not with an assessment of the wisdom of the decision itself. In such a case, it seems unlikely that the project will be prohibited by the court action, although we remain uncertain of the effect of substantial delay.

We are unable to predict with any degree of certainty the social consequences of persons being denied the current opportunity to gain even temporary honest employment and the opportunity better to provide for their families. Nevertheless, the axiom “a hungry man is an angry man” keeps coming to mind. We ought not to play with people’s needs to the detriment of societal peace.

Within a day or two, the local court will rule on what were the procedural measures that should have been taken prior to the granting of permission for the commencement of the project and whether these had been duly complied with.

As we stated earlier, the failure to comply will not be of necessity fatal; at best the court will now mandate the authorities to carry out the legal requirements. Any victory in this matter is likely to be Pyrrhic in nature rather than determinative of the proposed project. We should think however that if it should founder on the shoals of delay, the nation and those who might have gained remunerative employment would know to whom any blame should be ascribed.

The Hon. Anthony T. Bryan, CHB, GCM
Publisher