THE EDITOR, Sir:
WE NOTE with interest your article, 'Expensive Montego Bay Plan called outdated' published in The Gleaner, Sunday, April 1. We are happy, as usual, that the press is again taking an interest in this historic plan process. It is also timely for the Montego Bay community as there are initiatives under way to launch an implementation agenda. This programme will be announced shortly in the media.
We would admit readily that for a process that has been ongoing for the past 10 years, The Greater Montego Bay Plan, like any other plan will, requires reviews and revisions. However, we cannot accept an omnibus pronouncement that the plan is outdated as it represents the chosen strategic direction of the Montego Bay community. Second, many of the outcomes alluded to by way of changes in Montego Bay were directly influenced by the plan process.
We note in particular the infrastructure development programme and the recently promulgated downtown tax incentive programme and indeed Barnett South and other private developments. We could not be contradicted, if we said that during the plan process all major local initiatives were directly impacted and supported by the open and participatory nature of the plan.
While plans become outdated with the passage of time, we must underline the fact that the absence of a proper and expeditious institutional process to guide plan development and implementation also contributes to a plan's obsolescence. Since 1997 when this plan was submitted to the Town Planning Department for a provisional development order, no institutional process has been outlined that would allow us to work in partnership to take the plan to its logical conclusion - APPROVAL.
Our understanding is that plans once delivered should be critically reviewed and the requisite feed-back conveyed to the local planning authority within reasonable time. Refinements to the documents would then allow the necessary regulatory and other instruments to be put in place to support the proposed development and investment framework.
Rather than outline an institutional process for plan approval, all we have received to date is opprobrium of one sort or the other without reference to the technical and social value of the process. For Montego Bay the plan is about investment, economic regeneration, a cleaner environment, community participation and a better system for managing the city and its environs. We are surprised that in an era when social capital is being given so much attention, i.e. the equity, labour time and social memory of a community, that the Montego Bay Plan is being placed again under so much fire.
For those unfamiliar with the process, the Montego Bay Plan was a major tool for community consensus building, the data gathered was used for many public and private sector planning and development initiatives. Most recently it was used to generate data for the United Nations Habitat Indicators programme. Montego Bay is one of few cities in the Caribbean that is being considered under this programme and it is again because of our plan process and how it was executed.
We expect to use this plan further to market Montego Bay and to seek local and international support for extended development and investment. We are confident that once government provides the necessary support and facilitation, especially in facilitating its adoption that this will significantly advance our development agenda.
Any attempt to dismiss the significance of the Montego Bay Plan and the purpose for which it was intended will remove the equity of the Montego Bay community in local and national development. Further it will erode the contribution and the partnership needed to bring ordered growth and investment to Montego Bay.
I am, etc.,
ARTHUR GILCHRIST
Vice Chairman
The Greater Montego Bay Redevelopment Company
