BMA should liberate our footpath

[Flashermac]

Bangkok Post

7 Mar 2011

 

 

Commentary by Saritdet Marukatat

 

 

 

Pavement: A flat part at the side of a road for people to walk on (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary).

 

Sidewalk: A walk or raised path along the side of a road for pedestrians (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language).

 

It does not matter whether it's British or American lexicon. Both have a consensus on the definition of the footpath. It's definitely and unarguably a place exclusively reserved for people to walk. The real function of the sidewalk is respected in cities like New York, Tokyo, London and Singapore. Once upon a time - but no longer, it seems - it was also respected here in Bangkok.

 

The pavements in the City of Angels used to be heaven for pedestrians. Increasingly, that is something of the past.

 

And if the problem goes unaddressed, Bangkok folk wanting to move about the streets on foot without the presence of vendors annoying them, might have no choice but to use the Super Skywalk.

 

What really happens to this city under the people who run it, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration?

 

[color:red]The BMA missed the point when it said it wanted to use the elevated walkway project to restore the enjoyment of walking for pedestrians. But the BMA has no need to use the public purse of around 15 billion baht to launch a project as ambitious as this if it really wants to encourage more people to walk. It can tackle the problem at the root cause.[/color]

 

The problem with cluttered sidewalks in the capital began when the BMA and government in the old days allowed hawkers to temporarily use the pavements to sell their products. There was nothing wrong with that, as this generosity could help poor vendors make ends meet. One condition was they could not permanently occupy the area as if it was their own property.

 

Of course, what we see today shows that that condition has never been respected, and no legal action taken to enforce it. The pavements are permanently taken by vendors, many of them wealthy ones but pretending to be poor. The pavements in prime areas like Silom have been occupied by these people and the BMA should not underestimate their wealth.

 

Many drive to work; in many cases someone drops them off to work and picks them up for home. Their physical occupation of the pavements forces pedestrians to walk on the road, leaving the area that is actually set aside for them as space for street vendors.

 

Among the ugliest scenes are the areas in Bang Kapi and near Ramkhamhaeng University. People risk their own safety when they are forced to step down from the sidewalk to walk on the streets.

 

Who should be blamed for letting this problem come this far? The BMA is not the only agency responsible, though it is undoubtedly the agency closest to the problem. Another agency directly involved is the police.

 

All pavements across the country are under the direct supervision of police, according to the Land Transport Act. In Bangkok, the Metropolitan Police Bureau is in charge. The BMA has to get permission from city police to allow street vendors to use them. The BMA usually forwards the request to police every two years. In exchange for gaining permission, City Hall has to make sure that its staff keep sidewalks clean and that pedestrians will be not disturbed. That's the promise; the reality is what everybody sees.

 

Under the law, a space of one metre has to be set aside as a walkway for pedestrians, and vendors are allowed to set up stalls only on one side of the pavement. Can anybody find any pavement on Bangkok streets which follow this rule? Obviously, the answer is none.

 

The police should have the courage to withhold permission from the BMA for use of pavement space if city officials cannot regulate the way vendors use this public space. This would ensure that pavements are returned to their rightful owners, the pedestrains.

 

Now, according to most Bangkok pedestrians, a pavement in Bangkok is merely part of the side of a road for vendors to use and people to avoid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

Hear, hear!

 

This really annoys me as well. It is virtually impossible to walk in many areas of Bangkok. Sidewalks 3 meters wide are still down to a small lane just barely wide enough for 1 person to walk. The rest all occupied by streetsellers.

 

Sanuk!

 

[cavanami]

TIT

 

We all have to eat...just some eat better than others!

[Vintage_Kwai]

Won't happen. Those 'spaces' are rented out.

[doxx]

I hate those street vendors and I hate the Thais that stop to buy their Chinese junk and thus blocking the remaining space on that sidewalk...

[waerth]

And this is why it wont work, the vendors just do what the hell they want. Even when the owner of the space says get out:

 

Siam square vendors fight Chula's plant pot project

 

The university has land-title deeds for the footpath, which has long served the public and been overseen by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.

 

This stretch of footpath is a prime location for businesses as a huge number of people walked past the spot each day. Not just a bus stop but also a key Skytrain station are right there.

 

CU tried to ban the roadside stalls along the footpath for nicer landscape by putting flow?erpots there, but hundreds of street vendors loudly protest?ed, blocked some traffic lanes on the Rama I Road, and later removed the flowerpots.

 

They then ran their stalls as usual as of press time yesterday.

 

Before this, up to 150 police?men rushed to the spot because the street vendors spilled on to the road causing serious traffic congestion.

 

Pathumwan Police Station deputy superintendent Lt Col Peerapong Chai-arun negotiat?ed with the protesters in a bid to limit their activity to the foot?path.

 

"I've been selling in this area for more than five years. I set up my shop at 9pm. I don't cause any problems. Why would they still do this to me?" an angry protester said.

 

Wongduan Jaroenporn said she was running a stall on the footpath and paid service fee to officials from BMA Pathumwan District Office without any problem for at least five years already.

 

"Why does the CU have to force us to move deeper into Siam Square? If we go there, we are running our stall at a loss," she said, "Definitely, we won't move. We will stay here. We don't do anything illegal. We don't sell drugs," she said.

 

The CU has provided some area on Siam Square Soi 6 for the relocation of these roadside stalls. Vendors are required to pay Bt200 a day for each stall set up between 8pm and mid?night.

 

Most street vendors are still young in their 20s and 30s. They have mostly sold clothes and accessories.

 

Pongtep Phochan, a leader of the group, said the group would keep on protesting if Chula still wanted them to move.

 

This is their first huge gath?ering after several attempts to submit their complaints to BMA, Democrat Party, and var?ious other organisations.

 

Pathuwam District Office director Pavinee Amarttad believed her agency should have the jurisdiction over the foot?path because it was already given to public benefits.

 

"We are waiting to hear from a committee that will decide which agency should have the right to manage the footpath area," she said. Chutima Atthaworarat, who heads the CU Pathumwan District Office, said the new area provided for street vendors in fact had good potential to become popular.

 

"If they move to the same area together, I believe shoppers will definitely drop in," she said.

 

Chutima urged the vendors to check the area first and would want to hear their decision from today onward.

 

"If they register themselves with us, they can start running stalls in the new area right away," she added.

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Siam-square-vendors-fight-Chulas-plant-pot-project-30150328.html

 

[panadolsandwich]

Whilst this is going on Sydney is considering installing street vendors (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/sydneys-ready-for-street-food-20110302-1beiy.html).

 

In a way I kind of admire the sheer effrontery of setting up a stall that spalls over the entire footpath (US: sidewalk); much in the same way that the ute (US: pickup) with its bullhorn (AUS: megaphone) will announce its arrival at 5am with an ‘...we have tomatoes for sale, only three baht a kilo, jing jing na cap!!!’

 

Sure some are rich, but it would be overly brash to make a point like that, without considering that the bulk of these people are not well off. In our Western world, most of these people would be on the Dole (UK: Gyro) Social Security. It’s admirable how hard they work for what they have when you think about it. It would hardly be fair to these people to oust them without any compensation. Besides to complicate matters further, who will compensate the police that tax the renters? Who will compensate the politicians & officials that are making their hard earned baht then from the police?

 

 

Think of it like this. The whole situation is like a crowded chessboard, in which any move, by any party would be opening themselves up to a checkmate. The BMA are fully aware of this stalemate, and their 15 Billion Baht solution is a capitulation that defies belief. If it came out and just said we’re going to see how far this pork barrel can roll, it wouldn’t have been any plainer. It’s the classic Siam compromise – all parties (that matter) stand to benefit.

 

Now when you look at it from this viewpoint – so you see how infinitesimal the poor pedestrian is.

 

And for that matter one of the saddest things in this world is reading a Farang bemoaning how Bangkok isn’t like old Blighty or Yankdom in the Bangkok Post letters. I can perfectly visualise (US: visualize) the smug smile of satisfaction as they lick the stamp and lovingly put it in the mail box (or these days bore the living shit out of every dull electron as it dutifully races to its destination). Matters not a jot, but we’ll print it anyway – that way everyone will be happy – and most importantly – no one needs to lose face. LOL.

 

[Flashermac]

 

<< "Definitely, we won't move. We will stay here. We don't do anything illegal. We don't sell drugs," she said. >>

 

 

Trespassing is not illegal?

 

 

p.s. God, the morons that post on the Bangkok Post comments section. They are unbelievably ignorant about Thailand (and everything in general) but seem to think they are clever. They make Bevis and Butthead look like intellectuals.

 

 

 

[waerth]

Cool hahehahaheh ..... ermmmmmm

[cavanami]

Not unique to LOS...in Taiwan they shops encroach on to the sidewalk. The police in Taiwan push them back every few months.

IMO. this is just a hand-me-down from the Chinese