Something interesting is happening in Kenya's urban landscape. An urban growth-boom is evident across the country. Many hitherto 'rural' towns are slowly gaining prominence, attracting unprecedented human flow and business activities. Equally, an unusual downward migration is observed.
The simple fact that many folks and business establishments are considering relocating to these areas calls for a quick, deep examination of our urbanism and urban land use strategies.
Rural land uses and agglomeration go, to a large extent, unregulated and unplanned. It is understandable to believe that super-imposition of urban settings in rural areas must be followed by a concrete thinking and implementation of the same.
From a legal-historical perspective, this change is, undoubtedly, attributed to the post-2010 Constitution which introduced a devolved system of governance that put emphasis in resource sharing and development of national peripheries to solidify the center.
The move to codify this clear withdrawal from past paradigms that sidelined the socio-econo-political role of rural communities (the peripheries of the nation) gives a solid reason to re-examine the powers and composition of local planning authorities, their role in planning, and the numerous geo-spatial and socio-economic dynamics that inform urban planning procedures.
The essential point about local planning authorities (municipalities, town councils, city councils, devolved units etc) is that they have no 'positive' powers to ensure that the developments (industrial estates, housing, roads etc) set out in their respective plans will take place. Their powers are 'negative' powers - they have the ability to refuse permission for development which does not conform to the plan.
The aforementioned 'positive' powers are grounded in functions of local authorities as initiators of quasi-planning maps (what is generally referred to as zoning) within their jurisdictions. This, at least in theory, provides a legal and spatial framework vis-à-vis development of urban agglomerations and future needs of the same.
Whenever 'negative' powers are invoked, the resultant effect is generally the curtailment of development even when such development conforms to planning regulations. It is in conditions such as this that corruption creeps in and adherence to planning and legitimate development takes a deep sink.
Such moves create what many would call 'urban anarchy'. A sort of urban jungle where no clear planning direction is followed and where the regulators (planning authorities) play spectator roles.
Past experiences in Kenya's urban planning leave a lot to be rectified. One forgotten factor is the place of cemeteries in urban planning and as a focal point in securing land for future needs. Many a times, we have confronted many Kenyan 'municipalities' grappling with the matter of positioning cemeteries.
In many instances, the location of this vital urban component comes as an after-thought in our planning discourse. A case in point is the well-documented dilemma surrounding the philosophy of cemeteries as an urban-planning aspect.
It is logical anyway to give priority to the living than to the dead. However, it is instructive to point out that land - especially in urban areas - remains an expensive out-of-reach resource. It is for this reason that an all-inclusive urban planning comes in handy.
The Kenyan case is, in many respects, complicated. One glaring observation is the quasi-cultural attachment of Kenyans to the dead. This attachment puts much premium on burying the dead in the so-called family land in complete disregard of the present and/or future standing of the value of that land.
Cemetery burial arrangements are met with much disdain which, in turn, puts much strain on private land, complicating future development and/or change of use.
Even in cases where cemeteries are provided, maintenance of the same by authorities leaves one with no option but to seek alternative places to bury their dead - preferably on private land or privately-maintained burial grounds.
It follows therefore that rethinking our urbanism is a must. The 2010 Constitution offers us some clear guidelines on how to achieve a balanced urbanism. Urbanism that is durable and all-inclusive.
Atop its reformist proposals is the absorption of former local authorities into County Governments which are better resourced and boast of a wide range of expert personnel. The Urban Areas and Cities Act of 2011 vests the powers of managing urban areas in the hands of ‘Management Boards’ under direct supervision of their respective county authorities.
This is a departure from the past experience where municipal decisions were under the tight grip of politicos who were completely disconnected from the technical and expert demands of their areas of jurisdiction.
But what remains unattended to is whether these entities will make use of their new-found powers and influence on matters planning in redefining our urban landscape.
Perhaps it is time to rejoice and be proud of our Constitution for ushering a new paradigm in urban redefinition.
For now, I choose to call it cemetery-oriented urbanism. An urbanism of the living and the dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your thoughts? thanks for dropping them here...