Caetano Silva (whose constituency includes areas of Colva and Mobor) told Herald:
You cannot blame local MLAs for the current situation. We do support this local business community within the framework of the law. The problem is that there is no clear- cut law. The licence fees have been increased so much, and it is all taken by the Tourism Ministry. Yet the task of having to clear the garbage generated by these businesses and then clear the shacks/huts themselves is dumped on local bodies. Shack/hut owners spend so much money in putting up their structures for just five-six months of the tourism season. Let the village panchayats get the money instead of the Tourism Ministry.
Mickky Pacheco (whose constituency includes areas of Utorda, Majorda, Sernabatim) said:
“It is our duty to help shack operators on private property. I advocate helping this section of the business community within limits of the law. The government should not be too stringent as theproperties on which the temporary structures are constructed are private properties unlike the beach shacks which are on public land. Shack/hut operators should not be harassed.
Laxmikant Parsekar (whose constituency includes areas of Mandrem and Morjim) said:
I am not backing anyone but it is necessary to understand that in the rest of the country temporary structures are allowed in the CRZ (coastal regulatory zone) as long as they are not concrete structures. The shack policy of the state cannot have same parameters for beach shacks and those on private property. I am for non-concrete structures. If they are well-covered, there should be no problem allowing them to remain as it is a very expensive affair for the owners to construct new structures every year for a short period of four to five months of the tourism season. The government must view this matter sympathetically; nobody has given a patient hearing to the issues raised by those affected.
Michael Lobo (whose constituency includes areas in Calangute and Baga) said:
Five-star hotels put up temporary structures and get long-term licenses and operate 365 days of the year. Why then should our locals not be allowed to operate temporary shacks and huts on their own, private property? They spend double the amount they pay for the licence fees to set up the structures. They should not be put to hardships. If someone is violating the rules by putting permanent structures action must be taken.
Ramesh Tawadkar (whose constituency includes areas in Canacona and Agonda) said:
There are about 30 per cent such structures that have still not been removed in Canacona and Agonda. I am not supporting anybody and have issued directions to the local bodies to take necessary action.
Dharmesh Saglani, president of the All Goa Private Properties Shacks and Huts Association, said: It is time that the government did a re-think on its policy for shacks and huts on private property. We suggest that the government give us a long-term licence ~ for a year at least ~ by charging a higher fee or allowing owners of shacks and huts on private property to keep their structures on-site withoutconducting business by charging a reasonable rental fee. There is a
big problem as far as storage of material dismantled after the season is concerned. It is very expensive to construct a shack or a hut and to dismantle it after conducting business for a short period of five months or so even though they are temporary structures. It is also unfair for the Tourism Ministry to blacklist shack operators if they fail to remove the structures. In fact, if the government allows us to conduct business during the monsoon
by charging us a fee, we will help promote Goa 365 days of the year. If five-star hotels have the privilege of having shacks on their property and conducting business through the year we too should be allowed to do so.”
