The Elliot’s beach saga – 12 Response to Corporation’s plan

The meeting took place at the Boys’ Club today. the Commissioner was an hour late, but he did come. So did the local officials. They had cleaned up the humble place and had sprayed insecticide to preserve the Commissioner’s health.
The Director and teachers of Vidya Sagar, an NGO that works for childen with autism and CP were there too. They had brought with them twin boys in wheelchairs. Kaushik, another wheelchair user joined the meeting. There were walkers, joggers, fishermen, senior citizens – a fair representation of stakeholders of the beach.
Sumitra of CSG did a PPT presentation explaining the results of the survey (read post below). The group had also incorporated suggestions for each problem. One surprising result was what the senior citizens said about the spine that would lead to the waterfront. Not one of them wanted it! The corporation had said that it was meant for the senior citizens and disabled persons – an indication of how much off the mark Corporation’s thinking is. Remember, a majority of the senior citizens are regulars and are also residents of the area.
Some of the suggestions of the CSG that found total favour among the respondents were:
[1] Make the beach a plastic-free zone.
[2] Regulate taffic and parking (residents are the worst affected in this).
[3] Get all the hawkers to stay in one place.
[4] Consider making the beach a traffic-free zone at least for a few hours daily, as has been done in Puducherry.
[5] Don’t commercialise the area across. That means more garbage. Give licenses to hawkers.
[6] Remove billboards on the beachfront, so there are no bright lights facing the beach (this is to help the sea turtle hatchlings to get back to the sea).
Tara Murali, a renowned architect and local resident, made a presentation. Her ideas were innovative, keeping in mind the ecology and sustainability of beautification. “Sun, sand, sea and sustainability” she said. The main points in her PPT.
[1] Reclaim the beach by removing the food court and the demolishing the dilapidated structure known as Governor’s bungalow (“It’s a shame to call it Governor’s bungalow!”).
[2] Use this area to improve amenities for the skating rink, gym or any beachy game.
[3] Leave the consructed promenade as it is and take off the joggers’ track. Leave the police kiosk as it is.
[4] Make the beach one way. A 100 ft road is unnecessary here. Use the entire half of the road a parking and hawker zone. Which means both hawkers and vehicles are out of the beach.
[5] Demarcate a strip on the road (close to the parking area) for the hawkers. This area should be 1 metre below street level and the hawkers arrange themselves in two rows, back to back. This would make garbage collection easier and disallow them from occupying the beach permanently.
[6] For wheelchair users, a wooden, pier-like structure could be built from the road to the sea, if sand buggies could not be provided.
[7] Improving basic amenities for the fishing communities on either side of the beach was essential to keep the beach pristine. At this point, a fisherman said it was not their folk, but the well-heeled visitors who bought foodstuff at shops across the beach road who littered it.
Commissioner Lakhoni had a few things to say.
[a] Keeping the kuppams (fishing villages) clean was mandatory for the corporation. He would do it.
[b] The wooden pier was a no-go. It would break, the pillars would be stolen, and how could anyone build a pier with wood alone? Wouldn’t it need civil work? So buggies would be the answer. (Mr. L clearly is not an architect.)
[c] Instead of the depression on the road, hawkers could be put in a row near the rink and could be given the same-sized carts. Tara Murali said he had to make sure they didn’t occupy the area permanently. Each one pushes the cart in, sells and leaves after a few hours.
[d] He understood that there should be no construction within the beach. (Is it too early to say “Hurray”!)
[e] Cleaning would have to be outsourced. Sumitra said it was the corporation’s duty to maintain public places. Shouldn’t it improve its own services and clean up the beach? Mr. L did not answer.
[f] His new plan would be prepared on the basis of access, impact of settlements on the beach, parking, no construction and facilities for hawkers.
It was time for the audience to react. Vidya Sagar representatives said making public places accessible was legislated and so non-negotiable. The pier idea was the best one since the NGO wanted to bring about 25 students at a time. A couple of early morning walkers said toilets should charge a fee and squatters should be disciplined. One elderly lady said she wanted access to the promenade. Another pleaded for total visibility to the water from the road.
The wheelchair user said at least one toilet should be disabled-friendly. To everyone’s horror, Mr. L replied, “All are expected to walk to the toilet!” Were it not so cruel, it would have made us all laugh.
Then came the threat. Mr. L warned, “What we bring the next time would be the final plan. We cannot delay the project any further.” CSG’s Nity said that they had done the survey in record time and would need at least three weeks to process the final plan.
Interesting sidelights:
[1] In his opening speech, Nity informed told the audience, “When I went to the Commissioner with our objection to the original plan, he asked, “Who are you?” It’s good that he is here today to talk to us.”
[2] Why is the Commissioner in a tearing hurry to start construction? Isn’t the local people’s approval necessary for such projects? Aren’t civic plans meant for the stakeholders, as opposed to the members of the Corporation?
Mmm.. wait and watch.