A tale of two mayors

PORT OF SPAIN Mayor Joel Martinez’s openness to re-evaluating the Christopher Columbus statue is commendable. And few can disagree with his stance against vandalism of public property. After all, such property belongs to us.

Yet his response to the statue’s defacement earlier this week overlooks several crucial factors.

“I have to tell you I think it is wrong,” Mr Martinez said. “I believe we can do things civilly. I thought a mature society would not stoop to doing something like that.” He said he would approach the city council on the matter.

While the mayor has invoked process and procedure, and a petition is due to be delivered to City Hall today, the truth is this has been in the pipeline since 2017. Back then, the same property was vandalised. We’re hardly starting from scratch.

Though the statue has been in place for over a century, there's a sense of urgency now, given the current circumstances. There’s a long, tragic history that, in the wake of repeated failures exemplified by the police killing of George Floyd, has left people tired and fed up.

Little wonder citizens want action. And they want it now.

Junia Regrello clearly understands this. The San Fernando mayor did not wait for a petition to see the writing on the wall. He scrapped a plan for a drive-in cinema in Skinner Park after sporting bodies, an opposition MP and concerned citizens raised voices.

Ever since statues started toppling around the world, Mr Martinez should have applied that old saying: take in front before in front take you. He should have drawn on the determination he showed when he defended the controversial Chinatown arch last year.

Not only was proactive action ideal, but it was also required. The mayor has a responsibility to protect public property under his watch. This statue has now been vandalised twice. This suggests a problem (as if the experience of other city landmarks did not) in securing historic sites in the capital. Columbus this week; who next?

Even if the mayor is being unduly sensitive to the need not to ride roughshod over pro-Columbus lobbyists, other options were open.

Why was the statue not stored temporarily, pending a final decision, to protect it from damage? Or put it under a protective covering, as has been done in cities all over the world and as we do here at Carnival?

Condemning people for uncivil and immature conduct is all well and good, but the mayor risks looking like he’s burying his head in the sand or hiding behind the fig leaf of process. He should take a page from Mr Regrello’s book.

Another saying: When your neighbour’s house is on fire, wet your own.