HOT TOPICS

SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES

Vending zones soon in city

181

Written By murali772 - 4 January, 2012

Civic amenities Bangalore Media Reports footpaths hawking hawker

In future, the streets and pavements should be in order, with vendors taking places allotted to them. The Karnataka Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, approved by the cabinet on Tuesday, aims to streamline hawking by having specified vending zones and ensure convenience to pedestrians and motorists.

The city will have vending zones, vending restriction zones and vending-free zones. Pedestrian movement, cleanliness, sanitation and public hygiene would be considered while identifying them. The new policy will lead to the creation of a town vending committee, where street vendors have to register. The committee has been empowered to seize material and goods, if the vendors are found guilty of violating rules. According to the new policy, a penalty of Rs 500 to Rs 5,000 can be imposed.

For the full report in the ToI, click here

This, I expect, should be seen as a welcome development. A lot of discussions on the subject has already taken place on PRAJA, which may be accessed here. Strangely again, on a subject like this, where the civil society would have had much to say, there doesn't appear to have taken place much of public consultations.

Muralidhar Rao

COMMENTS

perhaps time the local community took charge

murali772 - 28 January, 2015 - 08:03

Recorded below are the relevant part of recent exchanges in SaveKoramangala YahooGroup, following eviction of vendors from the Lakshmi Devi park area by the BBMP. I have highlighted the comments I found significant and note-worthy, addressing of which could perhaps help arrive at solutions to the issues involved.
 
RS: The vendors in front of the lakshmi devi park have been thrown out again.. ..let us see our concern in action  in trying to get them back their livelyhoods.. 
 
NS: I think that 6th Block wanted the hawkers out ? Need to find out.
 
There is always the other side of a problem - the Nimby (Not in my Backyard ) mindset. A public toilet is a good idea except when it's right outside our house ! So I am entirely able to sympathize and empathize with those residents who wanted the hawkers out. 
 
It's not a simple matter of Vendors-  good - those who want to throw them out - bad. 
 
And it is not for us to take leadership here. 6th block must decide. If they want them out let's help the vendors relocate. Or a win win solution may be possible where the concerns of all are addressed. 
 
VM: Yes. The vendor issue has been made too simplified, that vacating vendors is bad and those wanting to vacate them are elitist.
 
However it must be also said that vacating vendors, ie street vendors, is against law and supreme court judgment. The supreme court ruling is simple enough, no vacation till street vendors commission/commitee in place, survey is done,alternative area found for them and then street vending act implemented.
 
But here are the ponderables.
 
  • Those fighting for street vendors rights are not really putting pressure to implement supreme court rulings, only using the "don't vacate till" clause. it helps street vendors to carry on during this twilight period.
  • The same  for " for vendors rights groups" are not doing anything internally within the street vendors community, to educate new vendors to abide by the street vending bill. This prohibits vending in some areas,residential streets being one of them. So in this twilight period the problem multiplies with every day new vendors coming into what would be against the spirit of the bill.
 
And yes,these are issues best handled at the third tier of government..the municipality, the ward commitees, local citizenry, etc. But we know that is missing. Therein lies the crux
 
RS: the reason I brought it up is below . the park frontage is not  what is the description.” This prohibits vending in some areas, residential streets being one of them.”
 
VM: Yes agree. if the 6 th block eviction has been from areas which is envisaged by the street vendors bill as OK for street vending, then there is a double issue.
 
However, the point we want to make is that it still should be a local decision of where in the geography street. Ending should be permitted. The bill envisages deciding areas earmarked for vending. it does not mean that vending can happen everywhere else than what is prohibited.
 
NS: The presence of vendors with street food there certainly adds to the vibrancy of the area. In recent times though there has been an over crowding there and I wonder whether there should be some minimum separation distance between 2 food carts. Also would like to see what are the waste disposal arrangements. I see many customers throw cups on the road side. If arrangements are well designed the community can work out a win win arrangement with vendors.
 
VM: Exactly. It is a local community which has to work this out. It's not for self styled spokespersons of vendors at large or some central/state authority. The days of local management of civic issues is not that far away, especially if we keep pegging at it.
 
Meanwhile, the following are the record notes of the proceedings in PIL - WP 13731 (for the full text, click here):
 
The BBMP chief starts the by now familiar tactic of pointing to obstructions created by street vendors and how his hands are now tied because of the new Street Vendors Act 2014 passed by the supreme court. The BENCH then goes through a 10-minute tutorial on this for his benefit (Have you read the act? What provisions have you made for hawkers? Have you declared any norms for the city to accommodate street vendors?  etc.)  Once again the Chief of BBMP tries to disown any responsibility by saying that the state government needs to act. After telling the chief that he should, like a literate person he is, read the act in its entirety and start acting on it. And then this nugget from BENCH – “The law (Street Vendor Act) is NOT coming in the way of maintaining footpaths”!
 
Essentially, BBMP is too lazy to formulate the rules based on the overall guidelines given in the Act, and, the "saviours" of the Street Vendors are happy with the status quo, and not in finding solutions to the issues involved.
 
Quite as stated, the onus lies largely on the local community, and it's perhaps time they took charge. 
 
 

road-side cooking banned by Delhi AAP govt

murali772 - 19 October, 2015 - 13:31

There is bad news for all street food lovers in the capital as Delhi government's notification for vendors has banned cooking on the roadside. Vendors' associations are planning to meet chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on Saturday to register their protest against the scheme for implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014.

The policy decision not only imposes a blanket ban on cooking but also has many stringent measures, which vendors claim could lead to more harassment for them.

The new scheme was notified on October 13 and civic agencies will have to implement it at the earliest, say government sources. - - - Ban on roadside cooking or in the open will have to be imposed as it is according to a Supreme Court order. We thoroughly studied the law before notifying the scheme," said a senior government official.

- - - - The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, mandates that state governments frame a scheme for its implementation by municipal corporations under the direction of town vending committees.

- - - - As per the new scheme, vendors can't cook, can work only from sunrise to sunset, can't leave their goods at the vending site, no electricity and water connection will be provided, they can't make noise to grab customers' attention, they have to ensure that customers don't park their vehicles in front of their stalls, etc.

To ensure that there is no traffic problem due to vendors, the government has laid down stringent measures with fines ranging from Rs 250 to Rs 2,000 per day.

For the full text of the report (emphasis added by me) in the ToI, click here

One would have thought the vendors form a major vote bank of the AAP, and as such, the government (formed of the party) making such a move, can certainly be viewed as bold. One can say that they had no option considering the directive by the Supreme court. But, aren't we seeing enough cases of governments just not bothering with court directives? In that respect, this is certainly a refreshing approach, and the AAP government needs to be commended for it. Of course, one needs to see if they will carry it through, or succumb to all kinds of pressures that are invariably going to come on.

The report doesn't talk of forming of vendors zones, etc, as required under the Act. One hopes they have been provided - after all, there's the question of livelihoods too.

http://www.deccanherald.com/c

MaheshK - 5 January, 2012 - 01:05

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/216567/panel-scrutinise-draft-law-street.html

 

Deccan Herald has a different version on this issue. I dont think its a law yet. It has been referred to a sub-committee. I dont believe what TOI says. T sometimes stands for Tabloid. Assuming the law passes, who will monitor the vendors? Police or the BBM? Will the vendors stay in the specific place? Only time will tell.

apparently, ToI has erred

murali772 - 5 January, 2012 - 10:51

Ok - so, it's only a draft law after all, and the cabinet was appoiniting a sub-committee to look into it, unlike what's stated in the ToI report. Obviously, the ToI reporter has erred. Thanks Mahesh for pointing that out.

And yes, it's a contentious issue - to begin with, the definition of "legitimate street vendors" itself - and, will call for deep deliberations with all the stakeholders involved to arrive at some kind of a consensus. All the same, it needs to be pursued, and quite urgently too.

not sure much has been achieved

murali772 - 24 September, 2013 - 07:00

The Lok Sabha recently cleared the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, a piece of legislation with the aim of securing the rights and livelihood of small vendors in the country. With the count of small vendors estimated in tens of millions, the potential significance of such a law is clearly immense from the perspective of the huge, unorganized labour sector. But with the additional layers that it adds to the country’s already overburdened bureaucracy, there is little reason to be optimistic about the impact of the legislation.

- - - Serving the immediate consumption needs of middle and lower income class Indians, street vendors undoubtedly add a tremendous amount of value to the domestic economy. But to complicate matters, the issue of street vending has also brought forth the question of management of public space, with vendors often being perceived by governments as well as the common citizenry as free-riding on cramped public space. Thus, economically speaking, the task in the hands of local authorities is the management of a vital public good by balancing out economic efficiency against other pressing ends of public welfare.

Towards this end, the best idea coming from the minds of the architects of the current Bill is the building of an overarching bureaucratic apparatus. But as with bureaucratic restrictions of many kinds, the perverse incentives driving public authorities is likely to lead them to exploit citizens, poor vendors in this case, by erecting insurmountable rent-seeking barriers. The current legislation, thus, could further undermine the rights of small vendors instead of uplifting their status—which remains the Bill’s stated goal.

Also, the unintended consequences of the current legislation could be substantial as restrictions imposed by vending committees could stall the functioning of vibrant local markets that mainly serve the needs of poor households cut off from more expensive outlets in the supply chain. The way forward is to dedicate efforts towards minimizing the level of bureaucracy strangling activity at the local levels of the economy, while allowing local communities to deal with the constraints of space that accompany commerce by balancing the interests of various stakeholders.

For the full report in Livemint, click here.

I am not sure much has been achieved through the bill other than adding to the already long list of the government's vote claiming propaganda material, led by The Food Security Bill (check here for more on that). But, of course, a progressive government can use the law in positive ways too - will have to see how it evolves in future

PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!