Shame on Samuels for misguiding shoemaker
Published:Friday | August 16, 2019 | 12:23 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I must confess to mild annoyance when a newspaper gives headline prominence to a story (‘Tight squeeze’) such as the one that led the front page on Wednesday, August 14, 2019.
It speaks of some poor heartbroken shoemaker who was displaced when the Constant Spring Market and contiguous buildings were demolished to make way for road expansion and and a water-supply and sewerage overhaul.
Market tenants and other business owners were served with lengthy notices to vacate the premises and were offered compensation. But some persons, egged on by parties with ulterior motives, objected.
This shoemaker admitted that he refused $250,000 and chose instead to join with a few other persons to seek the services of a lawyer.
When I heard of their decision - and the lawyer who was retained, Bert Samuels - I was relieved. But not for long. I had expected the lawyer to sit them down and explain the unwisdom of their claims - gently pointing out the deficiencies in logic and reasonableness. But I was wrong.
His grandmother was a higgler, he claims, so he could not “leave them”. These persons whom he acknowledged had received financial assistance were “thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment”. And he wondered aloud which “prince”, “which favoured child of this Government”, the land was being saved for.
Shame on you, Bert Samuels. One does not have to be a lawyer to know that in this case, you have not covered yourself in glory.
How about assisting your obviously misguided client to take the money offered and spend the time left to explore alternatives as the much-needed US$20m roadwork that would benefit thousands could not be aborted to save his little shop.
GLENN TUCKER