Jaristotle's Jottings | Landmark ruling: Headache or headway?

Without doubt, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court, where a real estate developer was ordered to demolish a set of already completed and occupied town houses and apartments on Upper Montrose Road in St Andrew, will prove to be a headache for some and a welcome headway for others. Obviously, this is the case for those involved, but my observations go well beyond the immediate litigants to the country as a whole.

Headaches

All too often we have seen where developers and business operators have flouted existing ordinances and covenants governing construction and commercial activities, particularly in residential areas. We would have asked the inevitable questions. Who granted approval for such activities? What remedies are there for the aggrieved complainants? How complicit are our municipal legislators and licensing authorities?

It is particularly interesting to note the reported comments of the developer in question, who suggested that unapproved variations to existing building permits from the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC) was quite commonplace.

If this is to be believed, then it suggests that the municipal authorities have been negligent in their monitoring and control responsibilities. Furthermore, one could conclude that pay-offs may be commonplace for ignoring creative construction practices.

Needless to say, the cage has been severely rattled. Given the magnitude of costs now facing the developer, tongues may be loosened to paint a more revealing picture of the circumstances surrounding the development, all in the hope of lessening the burden of the court’s ruling.

Hopefully, the ruling will cause developers and business operators toying with the idea of pushing the envelope to reconsider. So, too, we would hope that such matters already under litigation will be objectively considered and wrapped up in like manner. Last, we hope to see greater probity in the exercise of licensing and monitoring responsibilities on the part of municipal and licensing authorities.

We should not rest on our laurels, however, as history will show that while such landmark rulings can sometimes end up becoming nine-day wonders, they also force unscrupulous actors to go deeper underground and become more creative in their shenanigans, and not without the inevitable price increases.

Headway

On a more positive note, this ruling has breathed new life into a floundering justice system where the perception has been that justice has less to do with the protection of citizens’ rights and more to do with influence and affordability.

This case will, hopefully, energise more aggrieved citizens to come forward, to join in class action suits and lend strength to their cases, so that we can see a cessation of the all-too-common disregard for the law and the rights of citizens to exist without undue and imposed inconveniences.

Awareness is key

It is not uncommon for John Public to have to ‘block the road’ in order to be seen and heard so as to get justice. In so doing, who ends up on the wrong side of the law?

The ruling has shown that we can achieve justice without having to resort to actions with the potential to land us in trouble and overshadow the real issues. But lawful engagements of this nature invariably involve significant costs, often beyond the means of John Public. Class actions have more weight and spread the costs. In addition, people should understand that it takes perseverance once engaged.

A fundamental factor for energising such engagements is unfettered public awareness of citizens’ rights and the legal options available in circumstances where citizens face being trampled on.

The government has multiple layers of bureaucracy in place to protect their interests, hence ‘fighting city hall’ is often very cumbersome. But there are government agencies where relief can be had. People just need to know where to look.

Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.