|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When bulldozers roll into a popular business hub, you would normally expect urban planners, government officials or politicians to be the ones explaining the master plan. This time, Ghanaian rapper Criss Waddle has entered the conversation with a rather simple question: must every government solution come with a bulldozer?
Reacting to the recent demolition exercise at La Pleasure Beach, the hip-hop artiste took to X to express his frustration with what he considers a heavy-handed approach to dealing with businesses operating along the beachfront.
For Waddle, there was a much easier way to handle the situation. Instead of bringing in excavators to turn established businesses into piles of debris, why not sit down with the business owners, negotiate a deal and let everybody make some money?
His proposed solution is surprisingly straightforward. The government could negotiate a revenue-sharing arrangement with the existing businesses, taking an agreed percentage of their earnings and channeling the funds into drainage projects, flood-control systems and other essential infrastructure.
In Waddle’s view, such an arrangement would create a genuine win-win situation.
The government gets a steady stream of revenue to invest in flood prevention and other infrastructure, while business owners are allowed to continue operating. Employees also keep their jobs and have an opportunity to build some financial security instead of suddenly finding themselves standing outside a demolished workplace wondering what went wrong.
But Waddle did not stop at the economics. He also delivered a political reality check.
According to him, if the government decides to demolish a thriving business district, then it should be prepared to replace it with something bigger, safer and considerably better before the next election rolls around.
Otherwise, there could be a rather uncomfortable problem at the ballot box.
Business owners who lose their investments and workers who lose their jobs are unlikely to forget the sound of bulldozers tearing down their livelihoods. And when election season arrives, those memories could become considerably louder than campaign promises.
Waddle’s argument ultimately boils down to one question: if negotiation can protect livelihoods while generating money for infrastructure, why reach for the bulldozer first?
Sometimes, the smartest demolition strategy is not demolishing anything at all.
