The collapse of concrete portions of two buildings in Margao within 24 hours last week has starkly exposed the systemic failure to address the persistent danger posed by ageing and dilapidated structures in the State's commercial capital. While the incidents triggered panic, they also revealed deeper, unresolved issues concerning structural stability, administrative lethargy, and the tragic tendency to be reactive rather than proactive in safeguarding public safety.
The first incident involved a concrete slab of the Old Bank of Baroda building crashing down on parked vehicles — fortunately without casualties. However, the fact that a similar portion of the same building had collapsed two and a half years ago, injuring a pedestrian, highlights the failure of authorities to enforce safety measures. The debris and damage on-site serve as grim reminders of buildings that have long outlived their structural integrity. Despite these visible signs, authorities have been delaying action, including issuing notices for structural assessments or ordering immediate evacuations. This delay forces us to ask yet again on why authorities wait for tragedy to strike before acting. Is there a hesitation rooted in legal complexities, political considerations, or bureaucratic inertia?
The role of government authorities appears to be reactive rather than preventive. Officials have issued notices under Section 190 of the Goa Municipalities Act to owners of unsafe buildings, yet enforcement remains inconsistent. For instance, the 2018 structural stability test report for the Old Bank of Baroda building declared it unsafe, yet the building continued to be occupied by businesses and residents. The question then is how many such buildings are still serving commerce and habitation despite being declared unsafe? The delay in executing demolition or rehabilitation not only jeopardizes lives but also reflects a systemic failure to prioritize safety over administrative red tape.
Political dynamics further complicate this scenario. Margao MLA Digambar Kamat’s assertion that private property rights impede demolition efforts is valid to an extent. The right to own property is fundamental; however, when such properties threaten public safety, ethical and legal imperatives demand decisive action. The argument that demolition of private buildings is cumbersome because of legal rights cannot be an excuse. Not at the cost of public life. Authorities must act within the framework of laws, possibly invoking emergency provisions, to prevent disasters. The argument also sidesteps the responsibility of the state to regulate and ensure safety in private properties, especially when they are already declared unsafe.
The situation is compounded by the long-standing presence of numerous old, weak, and dilapidated buildings in Margao and Panaji, some already declared unsafe but still operational. These structures, many of which are heritage buildings, require a well-planned, holistic policy that balances legal rights with safety concerns. Merely issuing notices and waiting for buildings to collapse is a recipe for disaster. The two Margao incidents should serve as a wake-up call for authorities. Authorities must adopt a multi-pronged approach: conduct regular structural assessments, enforce strict sealing of unsafe premises, and, crucially, ensure that illegal or unsafe business activities in such buildings are shut down immediately. Allowing commercial activity to continue in unsafe structures is a blatant disregard for human life and a dereliction of duty.
Lastly, the delay in clearing debris, issuing notices, and enforcing safety measures reflects systemic complacency. Authorities must have a dedicated task force for routine inspections, legal procedures for demolition have to be streamlined, and local authorities need to be empowered with the authority and resources to act decisively. Margao’s concrete collapses are symptomatic of a broader neglect of structural safety in Goa’s ageing infrastructure.
