Having problems with message search?
main issues connected with hawkers:
(compiled on basis of feedback received to date)
who loses if no hawkers:
a. hawkers - poverty alleviation - SC has clarified that this is not adequate reason despite National Street Vendors Policy
b. consumers - convenience, price, only availability (goods + services), matching dynamic demand-supply e.g. lunch-time
c. domestic tourists - as attraction for them
d. safety esp. for women at night
e. possibility of vacant spaces being misused if no hawkers e.g. encroachments,
f. bmc - income reduced
g. income opportunities for handicapped and elderly - if recommendations approved
who benefits if no hawkers:
h. pedestrians - easier, faster
i. vehicular traffic - easier, faster
j. traffic police - job easier?
k. shops / restaurants / other legit businesses - better access, lesser competition
l. parking availability is more
m. cleanliness is more
n. noise is less
o. more trees as more space available, hence less pollution
p. residents - nuisance is reduced
q. market value of area increases
r. improved public health - more hygienic food, safer from fire hazards
s. foreign tourist - as less nuisance / pestering
t. carrying capacity of civic infrastructure increases - as created markets otherwise increase flow of cars, train commuters
u. other uses of public space possible esp. on occasions
v. bmc - less strain on certain civic infrastructure; less human resources needed for regulating hawkers, more discipline in city
w. hawkers - legit businesses / private premises will make efforts to integrate; new business ideas will emerge which could incorporate them.
x. city - less scope for rehabilation claimants in future.
Please comment on the above asap.
regards
vinay
Send Email