RAD­HI­CA DE SIL­VA

Se­nior Mul­ti­me­dia Re­porter

rad­hi­ca.sookraj@guardian.co.tt

More than 40 ven­dors op­er­at­ing at the Cross Cross­ing Vend­ing Zone in San Fer­nan­do have sought le­gal ad­vice, af­ter re­ceiv­ing no­tice that they would be barred from sell­ing for two weeks to fa­cil­i­tate main­te­nance works in the area.

The ven­dors, who say they de­pend on dai­ly sales to sup­port their fam­i­lies and em­ploy­ees, met with an at­tor­ney yes­ter­day and are ex­plor­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of ob­tain­ing a cease-and-de­sist in­junc­tion to pre­vent the San Fer­nan­do City Cor­po­ra­tion from re­mov­ing their carts and tem­po­rary struc­tures.

Their move comes af­ter they were in­vit­ed to a meet­ing with cor­po­ra­tion of­fi­cials to dis­cuss the mat­ter but were lat­er in­formed that the of­fi­cials were un­avail­able.

The cor­po­ra­tion re­cent­ly is­sued a no­tice ad­vis­ing ven­dors that the en­tire Cross Cross­ing Vend­ing Zone would be closed from June 10-24 to fa­cil­i­tate clean­ing, line mark­ing and drainage works near the pop­u­lar food strip. Ven­dors were in­struct­ed to re­move all carts and tem­po­rary struc­tures and re­frain from con­duct­ing busi­ness dur­ing the pe­ri­od.

One ven­dor, who re­quest­ed anonymi­ty, said the clo­sure would place sig­nif­i­cant fi­nan­cial strain on dozens of fam­i­lies.

“How are we go­ing to sur­vive, pay bills and pay our work­ers?” the ven­dor asked.

The ven­dor said op­er­a­tors were not con­sult­ed be­fore the de­ci­sion was made and are con­cerned about the im­pact the clo­sure will have on their liveli­hoods.

“For years, the ven­dors of the Cross Cross­ing Vend­ing Zone have faith­ful­ly served the peo­ple of San Fer­nan­do, paid our fees, main­tained our busi­ness­es, em­ployed staff and con­tributed to the lo­cal econ­o­my. To­day, we are fac­ing a de­ci­sion that threat­ens the liveli­hood of more than 40 reg­is­tered ven­dors and their fam­i­lies,” the ven­dor said.

While ac­knowl­edg­ing the need for main­te­nance and im­prove­ment works, the ven­dors ques­tioned why no con­sul­ta­tions were held be­fore the de­ci­sion was tak­en.

They al­so want to know whether any pro­vi­sions will be made to off­set the loss of in­come dur­ing the clo­sure, why no al­ter­na­tive lo­ca­tion was of­fered and whether vend­ing fees will be waived or re­duced.

“For many peo­ple, a two-week clo­sure may seem mi­nor. For small busi­ness own­ers and ven­dors, two weeks with­out in­come can mean the dif­fer­ence be­tween pay­ing bills and falling in­to fi­nan­cial hard­ship,” the ven­dor said.

De­scrib­ing the vend­ing zone as “a com­mu­ni­ty of en­tre­pre­neurs, sin­gle par­ents, fam­i­lies and hard­work­ing cit­i­zens who de­pend on dai­ly sales to sur­vive,” the ven­dors are call­ing on com­mu­ni­ty lead­ers, busi­ness or­gan­i­sa­tions and the pub­lic to sup­port their con­cerns.

“We are not op­posed to de­vel­op­ment. We are ask­ing for fair­ness, con­sul­ta­tion, trans­paren­cy and con­sid­er­a­tion for the peo­ple whose liveli­hoods are be­ing af­fect­ed. The voic­es of small busi­ness own­ers mat­ter,” the ven­dor added.

Con­tact­ed for com­ment, San Fer­nan­do May­or Robert Par­ris said the is­sue ap­peared to stem from a com­mu­ni­ca­tion break­down be­tween ven­dors and the ad­min­is­tra­tive arm of the cor­po­ra­tion.

Par­ris said the cor­po­ra­tion re­ceived coun­cil ap­proval to un­der­take re­me­di­al works at the vend­ing site, in­clud­ing re­paint­ing lines, wash­ing down the area, clear­ing and re­pair­ing drains and ad­dress­ing pub­lic health and safe­ty con­cerns.

He said an ad­min­is­tra­tive as­sis­tant vis­it­ed the Cross Cross­ing site on Sat­ur­day, ac­com­pa­nied by po­lice of­fi­cers, to dis­trib­ute no­tices in­form­ing ven­dors that a 14-day clo­sure would be re­quired to com­plete the works.

“The ad­min­is­tra­tive as­sis­tant told me the ven­dors agreed and there were no prob­lems,” Par­ris said.

He said the sit­u­a­tion ap­peared to have es­ca­lat­ed af­ter some ven­dors vis­it­ed City Hall yes­ter­day seek­ing clar­i­fi­ca­tion but were un­able to meet with the ad­min­is­tra­tive as­sis­tant be­cause she was at­tend­ing a de­part­men­tal meet­ing.

“That isn’t on me. The may­or is not the head of the ad­min­is­tra­tion and does not at­tend heads of de­part­ment meet­ings,” Par­ris said.

He said af­ter the is­sue was brought to his at­ten­tion by the me­dia, he con­tact­ed the cor­po­ra­tion’s pub­lic re­la­tions de­part­ment and re­quest­ed that the no­tice be re­moved from so­cial me­dia un­til he and the chief ex­ec­u­tive of­fi­cer could dis­cuss the mat­ter and en­sure clear com­mu­ni­ca­tion with ven­dors.

Par­ris al­so said the ad­min­is­tra­tion agreed that ven­dors would not be re­quired to pay vend­ing fees dur­ing the 14-day pe­ri­od.

The may­or said dis­cus­sions would con­tin­ue be­tween the cor­po­ra­tion’s ad­min­is­tra­tion and ven­dors to es­tab­lish a clear time­line and de­ter­mine how the works would pro­ceed.

“Hope­ful­ly, all par­ties, which in­clude the ad­min­is­tra­tive arm and the ven­dors, would have some type of agree­ment and arrange­ment as we move for­ward,” Par­ris said.

Ac­knowl­edg­ing the ven­dors’ de­ci­sion to seek le­gal ad­vice, Par­ris main­tained every­one has a right to pur­sue le­gal av­enues if they feel their con­cerns are not be­ing ad­dressed.