EDITORIAL - After Ms Douglas takes her foot from her mouth

Joy Douglas will, in retrospect, agree that her language was intemperate and was bound to incite the negative criticism to which she has been subjected, even though some of it has been over the top.

But her clanking approach notwithstanding, Ms Douglas has opened debate on two important issues in Jamaica: the need for urban renewal, and the right to private property. It is a debate, too, that involves the role and powers of the State and citizens' expectations thereof.

Ms Douglas is the general manager of the Government's Urban Development Corporation (UDC), which is one of the agencies for which Prime Minister Bruce Golding has portfolio responsibility. It is the vehicle the prime minister is using to spearhead his urban-renewal initiatives, especially in the blighted district of downtown Kingston.

In a speech last week to the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, Ms Douglas disclosed that there are plans to amend the UDC Act to make it easier for the agency to acquire land for redevelopment projects and for it to proceed with projects without actual ownership of the property.

That, of itself, would have been off-putting, but Ms Douglas made matters worse with a crude warning to the owners of Nuttall Hospital in the midtown hub of Cross Roads, St Andrew, to "be on the alert because we are targeting those lands, too". The Nuttall lands are nearby Up Park Camp, the army headquarters which the Government wants to relocate so that its nearly 200 acres can be used for the city's development.

Significantly, though, Nuttall is owned by the Anglican Church, which complained that it has not been in negotiations with the UDC, and considered Ms Douglas' remarks a "hostile" prelude to the possible expropriation of private property, which is protected by the Jamaican Constitution. The Opposition has branded Ms Douglas arrogant, reprehensible and offensive.

Time for dialogue

Much of the response is hyperbolic and does not lend to a rational discussion of the core issues. Indeed, Ms Douglas, immediately after her speech, pointed out that the amendments to the UDC Act had not yet been drafted and that whatever emerges will have to be piloted through the legislature by the appropriate minister. "He sits in Parliament, so he would have to campaign it through," she said.

Ms Douglas also said the proposed amendments would demand greater transparency on the part of her agency. "The UDC needs to be more accountable to the public through Parliament," Ms Douglas said.

These are sentiments with which no one would quarrel. But they are not the entire matter.

Indeed, this newspaper insists upon the right to private property and appreciates the tension that sometimes arises between the enjoyment of that right and the larger public good.

Such friction is not always easily resolved. But a democratic state will act with caution before an exercise of eminent domain over private property and will, as far as possible, ensure fair compensation of persons deprived of their property. This, generally, is the result of dialogue rather than high-handed action, which we do not believe is the intent of the UDC boss.

Joy Douglas planted her foot deeply into her mouth. She should be allowed to extricate it and apologise. Hopefully, thereafter, we can begin serious dialogue on the issues she raised. Mr Golding must be a participant.