In most countries, waterfront homes depict luxury, which only the super rich can afford. In Nigeria, the waterfront is synonymous with poverty and filth. It is an eyesore unbefitting of human habitation. The Lagos State Government is cleaning up the waterfronts to make them habitable and environment-friendly. OKWY IROEGBU-CHIKEZIE reports
For some, living on the waterfront is a show of class and affluence.
The environment is serene; beautiful and convenient. There’s ample space to connect with nature, and surf, especially for those who love water sports.
For others, it translates to squalor, fifith and deprivation. Most waterfront homes in the United States (US), Britain, Spain, Amsterdam, Paris, Italy, Venice and others have every feature one could possibly “ever want including a clean beach, clean air and nice place to work out.”
It also provides a source of inspiration for artists and writers, especially articles dealing with nature. Proximity to the waterfront also means easy access to water sports, some have linked it to wellness of the body and soul.
But the above is certainly not the case in Nigeria. Here people are exposed to foul odour from debris washed out from the sea. It is often the abode of criminals and layabouts who use the waterfront as launch pads to attack residents and visitors alike.
For those who desire to live by the sea side, realtors have advised them on some facts they should consider.
Mr. Ugo Emechere, and Mrs. Evelyn Osita all realtors in Lagos spoke on the possibility of damage to homes from hurricanes and tropical storms and wash-outs by erosion. This they say may result in loss of lives as was witnessed at the Lagos Bar Beach some weeks back.
In Nigeria, majority of those live on waterfronts not because of their love for nature per se but because they are ply their business on the water. The nation’s waterfront is inhabited by the urban poor who are united in poverty, sharing a kindred spirit of ‘hope for a better future’ that never materializes.
Others live there because they cannot afford accommodation elsewhere in a decent environment; some take up abodes for economic activities like what obtained at the Kuramo Beach in Lagos before the residents were sent packing by the state government.
The state government cited insecurity of lives and the fact that people simply formed colonies illegally without recourse to the laws governing the state waterfronts.
Luck ran out on some of them when an early morning ocean surge sacked them, leaving several persons dead and others missing.
The Commissioner for Waterfront Infrastructure, Mr Segun Oniru, while urging the residents to leave Kuramo Beach for their safety to avoid future disaster, argued that it was in their best interest and that of the government to tarnsform the beach fronts to what it should be as it is in advanced world.
He said the government’s ongoing infrastructure plan for the waterfront has no place for shanties and riotous living that is seen on most of the beaches.
Oniru said the residents didn’t secure government’s permission before settling down with their families to transact their businesses, which has lasted for years. He also ordered the relocation of residents of Badagry and Ojo waterfronts, Goshen Estate, Maiyegun and Alpha Beach to safer places.
But an artiste, Nse Ekpenyong, said rather than criminalising those who live on the waterfronts, the government should be blamed for turning its eyes the other way while the communities grew not only on Lagos coastlines but on other coastlines of Port Harcourt and others, noting that nature abhors vacuum.
She wondered why resorts could not be built along the sea coasts with deliberate plans put in place to develop waterfronts to aid what she called great works of arts against the poor story lines in most movies in Nollywood and novels. She regretted the poor infrastructure provision in Makoko/Iwaya, a waterfront community of about 30,000 urban poor families, who were mainly fishermen recently sacked by the governor after an eviction notice.
She agreed the place was an eyesore that did not befit human habitation. Nse, however, asked the state government to transform the waterfront as: “There are fishermen in developed countries who live decently and not in filth and high grade limitattions, she added.”
An environmentalist, Mr Silas Peters, accused the government of not preserving the waterfronts from natural and human destruction. He noted that aside the vagaries of nature on the coastlines, the inaction of successive government’s had made the waterfronts an eye sore.
He stressed that while the waterfront is the exclusive preserve of the rich and powerful in developed countries, here, it represents the depraved and the very low in the income bracket who live by the day.
He urged the government to muster the necessary political will and improve the façade to encourage tourism, which is a great income earner.
On those who traditionally live around water and have been dislocated by the government, he asked that they be reoriented and encouraged to pursue other economic rewarding ventures and move on.
He decried the negative activities associated with the waterfronts, noting that they are not only economically harmful but environmentally dangerous.
The environmetalist insisted that except there was a positive change from the public and the government, the waterfront would remain in limbo.
He said: “Our waterfronts have no reason not to be as economically rewarding as the city of Florida in the United States and others in major cities of the world because the economic potential of our waterfronts is still untapped.”
