Lodwar town is symbolic of only-for-the-rich urbanisation

What devolution has done to promote urban growth is good. However, for emerging towns like Lodwar a new breed of thoughts and actions remain the only way possible to ensure that this devolution-induced urban growth isn't a replica of the same errors that have rendered urban areas a preserve of the moneyed. 

One of these errors revolves around the real meaning of urban growth. For the case of Lodwar, growth (which is actually taken to mean urbanisation) is represented by how parcels of land along roads, rivers or other strategic positions are privately developed. One may be excused to believe that these listed points reflect the potential of the town hence necessitating the current high-powered scramble for land.

Yes, this may be the case. But there is also another scenario that I think will be worth examining. What is important here is not the fact that people are crowding in certain places that are perceived to be the economic mainstays of our towns. It is why authorities do not see it fit to open up all corners of our towns. 

I refuse to believe that revenue shortfall has hampered urban policy implementation. Quite a number of solid reasons exist. One is official laziness. This flows from the very thinking that officials need not “interrupt” what the public believes is good even when studies or other credible evidence prove otherwise. A case in point is when people build haphazardly despite the fact that building standards are well documented. In other cases, officials employ a wait-and-see mentality. They intervene only when a member of the society walks to their offices.

The resultant effect is that town planning is reduced to a product of individual demands with the main objective being to ensure that any official step rhymes with what particular members of the public want to achieve. Not what furthers the interests of the public. Not what is spelt out in law or other government regulations. Of course this is the reason why even footpaths (corridors) are a rarity in Lodwar.

Again, it is becoming difficult to separate town planning from town building. The few encounters I have had with the public and Lodwar officialdom have brought me to the confusion that is Lodwar urbanisation. People, especially the influential, have this thinking that separating themselves from this other mass of inhabitants insulates them from the inefficiencies that have crippled Lodwar town.  

The general public too is of the view that structures popping up around town contribute to that pool of qualifications that Lodwar needs to be graded as a growing urban center.

Now, this is what is happening. Poor people occupying places that are deemed to be “prime” are easily convinced that disposing off their lands and thereafter relocating to the peripheries of the town will cushion them from the “ridicule” of owning a manyatta in a “modern” walled neighbourhood.

Though these transactions may sound voluntary, their repercussions make it important to regulate them. Lodwar town is trying to give life to this theory that slums are not always a result of land scarcity but self-induced greed powered by ignorance and government's stand-and-watch sort of interventions. 

Hence begging the questions: Why is planning of this town not prioritised to save it from being a hub of slums and social inequality? If poor people have voluntarily decided to sell their prime plots in order to move to the peripheries of the town, why not follow them with the basics like water, schools and security? 

Finally, urban growth is not always about tall buildings and beautiful roads. It is also about clean air and presence of public parks. Lodwar has no clean air because its natural environment is under threat from a few land-thirsty people. The Turkana County Government must protect and develop these public spaces for the safety of all.

Lemukol Ng'asike is an architect. Email: lemoseh89@gmail.com. Twitter: @mlemukol.