Features

Inside the Molapo Crossing saga

Molapo Crossing Mall.PIC: KENNEDY RAMOKONE
 
Molapo Crossing Mall.PIC: KENNEDY RAMOKONE

When Molapo Crossing opened in April 2003, its developer and main proprietor, Luc Vandecasteele, had no inkling that a year later, developments less than 100 metres from his shiny new complex, would put its future in jeopardy.

At its establishment, Molapo Crossing entered into a cut-throat retail estate sector, dominated by well-established and aggressive actors who had gradually cornered the pay-day shopping market.

With a total retail area of about 4,000 square metres, Molapo was easily outpunched by its two biggest rivals, who boasted more than 50,000 square metres each.

Entering this mix, the ace up Molapo’s sleeve was its location, being situated at the intersection of Gaborone’s two busiest roads – the Western Bypass and the Molepolole Road. Rather than the payday crowd, Molapo focused on ‘convenience shopping’ in line with the key location used by many of the capital city’s working population on a daily basis. With the convenient location, Vandecasteele was quickly able to build up loyal tenants and customers for these tenants, with Molapo Crossing quickly becoming a small, but thriving retail district.

In 2004, Vandecasteele and his tenants were first informed about the planned expansion of both the Molepolole Road and its intersection with the Western Bypass. At the time, the intersection was a busy traffic circle, which allowed motorists easy access into and out of Molapo Crossing and even during construction of the road and the intersection, a larger temporary circle still allowed flexible access. By 2010, the new, wider Molepolole Road was complete, sporting the city’s largest traffic signalled intersection and a larger bridge for the Segoditshane River.

The design of the new road and intersection meant that potential customers travelling from the north would have to make a 1.5 kilometre detour to enter Molapo Crossing, either by going to Rainbow Circle or to the Bonnington Shopping Centre intersection.

Those daring enough would have to execute an illegal U-turn and, as many later found out, the police were particularly vigilant about punishing this bravado.

Motorists exiting to the West were equally in trouble. They would have to filter dangerously into flowing traffic without the benefit of a dedicated passage, before driving another 1.5 kilometre detour to the Rainbow Circle or taking an even longer detour through Block 6.

The only other option would be to join the daredevils and execute a U-turn towards the Bonnington Shopping Centre intersection.

Vandecasteele saw the troubles coming as early as 2004. According to the Plaintiff’s Summary of Evidence placed before Dambe, the Department of Roads, its consultants and contractors had numerous opportunities to ensure that the new Molepolole Road and intersection did not negatively affect Molapo Crossing’s businesses and customers. The terms of reference given to the tender’s consultant clearly drew attention to the need to preserve access to the shopping complex, while initially it appeared the Environment Impact Assessment would contain mitigation against any negative measures for all stakeholders. Between those initial discussions and this week’s court case lie thick volumes of petitions, appeals, recommendations and eventually court papers from Vandecasteele to various government departments and the successive ministers. Surprisingly, there have been precious few defences or explanations from the government side over the years.  According to the minutes of one telling meeting, Vandecasteele proposed three alternatives to the current set up, which were all rejected by the team representing government.  Other efforts at out of court settlements have equally ended in failure and recourse has also been stymied by the fact that the original government officers involved in the matter in 2004, have moved on or out of public service. While the battle has raged on, the impact on the human side is now only emerging in the documents before Dambe. The battle has jeopardised the fate of the 250 or so workers at Molapo Crossing as businesses there have seen their revenues drop by an estimated 25 – 30 percent, due mainly to lower traffic of customers.

The intersection’s design is also blamed for the high frequency of traffic accidents, many of them causing injury or death. On Tuesday, Dambe asked the two parties to pursue a settlement by March 18 and report back to the High Court. For Vandecasteele, his shareholders and tenants, their demands are clear.

First, restorative action to create easier access to Molapo Crossing and second, compensation for loss of income and the mitigating measures the complex was forced to take in the intervening years. As the solution possibly involves millions of pula more in construction and compensation, the battle seems far from over.