Life at high risk in city from frail buildings

NEWS report said six years passed since the concerned government authorities have identified risky buildings in the capital, but they are yet to take measures to demolish them leaving public safety at high risk. Besides these buildings, many old dilapidated houses and structures are there vulnerable to disaster any time. There is no doubt city dwellers are passing time in panic from neglect to remove these buildings when vested interest are also resisting decisive action in this regard. Many also blame lack of coordination between RAJUK and the two City Corporations over the issue. From authoritative position, many appear to be playing mindless game with the lives of people and it may prove unpardonable when the calamity may hit the nation.

 As per report, in 2010, the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief and the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha enlisted the risky buildings in two separate lists. One list covers 321 buildings in the capital as ‘highly risky.’ The other category covers at least 72,000 buildings having not enough strength to withstand quakes. These hazardous buildings may also prove havoc. Experts have warned if an earthquake measuring 7 on the Richter Scale strikes Bangladesh, around 1,31,000 people would die while one-fourth of the buildings would collapse. Nevertheless, with increased frequency tremors are becoming more frequent and stronger by the day. It is the matter of great concern that planning and taking preventive measures have never seemed so pressing.

 What is shocking is that the government took the decision to demolish risky buildings several times; but could not execute the decision due to an unending tug of war between the RAJUK and the two City Corporations over the issue. Not to lose more time, these two authorities should come to a consensus to demolish the risky buildings of capital to avoid consequences of disastrous destruction on city dwellers. If corrupt officials at RAJUK are blocking the move the concerned authorities must identify them and remove them from sensitive places. It is really surprising that despite marking those buildings as risky, the authority concerned is still collecting holding tax. Refusing to take taxes could add pressure to demolition. We cannot show neglect to threat on public life.

We know that money power of house-owners who are also politically powerful and corruption and misuse of power of concerned functionaries in government offices are major obstacle to demolition of risky buildings. But a city can’t sit on danger and such opposition must be overcome. We wonder why the government is not using its power to see the disaster looming ahead.