Afam4eva:
I've always been of the opinion that Fashola ranks one of the worst in terms of people oriented projects. His projects are not meant to change lives but to give impressions that are not a true representation of the residents of Lagos.

Like you said, Amaechi did well in education even though he spent more on the structures and little on the human resource. Our leaders have to start learning how to strike a balance.

very true!

Reference:

So if you were elected a governor today what will you do with a limited purse and massive holes to fill. Do you go out to lift the people, their suroundings or a bit of both.

With a limited purse and limited opportunities for revenue growth, I would do the following, in this order:

- Provide basics at the grassroots level: healthcare, education, security, and shelter (even if it means land appropriation for settlements). Also provide good access roads at all levels. That's what I would try to do with the purse.

- Try to see what kind of incentives I can put in place for the indigenes. Could be in the form of tax incentives, agric or fertilizer subsidies, education bursaries, free healthcare services, depending on whatever the purse can allow for.

- Push for investment into the region to boost the economic potential. If land is the only capital we have in the state, then I have to look for large-scale farmers. If it's mineral resources, I need to look for investors. Large-scale industries will create jobs, and will raise the living standards of the people in the state directly or indirectly.

Afam4eva:
I've always been of the opinion that Fashola ranks one of the worst in terms of people oriented projects. His projects are not meant to change lives but to give impressions that are not a true representation of the residents of Lagos.

Like you said, Amaechi did well in education even though he spent more on the structures and little on the human resource. Our leaders have to start learning how to strike a balance.

I'll have to assume that you don't live in Lagos. And I will give you just one example.
A few months ago, I went to Agiliti, a suburb behind the popular Mile 12 market. This area is in total squalor, and cut off by the Ogun River. They had an old bridge which had fallen into disrepair, rendering the area mostly inaccessible last time I was there some years back.

This time around there was not only a new massive bridge built, but the main road leading into the area was tarred and dualized. In fact, the construction was in stark contrast to the poverty in the area.

That's just one example. Visit any of the general hospitals in Lagos, even in the most remote corner, and you will see evidence of a serious revamp. These are hospitals that had fallen into serious disrepair over time.
I think maybe the Lekki axis and Eko Atlantic gets a lot of unnecessary publicity, which is why people think Fashola is only interested in glamour projects In fact, I can't think of many glamour projects he has actually completed in Lagos. Most of them are WIP in fact. But in terms of healthcare, general infrastructure improvement, and services development, projects that impact the teeming populace of Lagos, the guy has more than tried. He's done a lot.

Gigantic buildings that are not maintained are simply for 'show off' cos it shows you had no agenda when erecting them.
Development in my opinion goes hand-in-hand with structure, dedication and sustainability.

There should be structures whose underlying precepts SHOULD NOT be tampered with, but instead, improved upon. Standards that are adhered to the latter, and a culture of maintenance that would sustain those ideas/programs intended to benefit the populace.

We have a problem in Nigeria, and its not just the greed. Its the mentality that erodes posterity from our minds. Developed nations got to their apexes because they always thought about the future. Making a mark, leaving a legacy, ideas/programs that are instituted for the good of the citizenry and those to come, not just for a select group, sect or class of people.

This is my definition of development;
Structures that are instituted to vigorously purge the educational system in Nigeria and aggressively reform the courses offered in schools to those that are of more beneficial purposes for the average man in Nigeria such as Agriculture, Tourism, Technology etc

Structures that are instituted to revise our stupid constitution that only enriches those in power, thereby encouraging more and more people to seek political offices in order to carry out their turn of thievery. When the constitution allows for a salary of 50k a month, a government designated apartment (which would be vacated immediately after his/her tenure ends), NO overseas medical allowance but an insured health care allowance in LOCAL hospitals and a vigorous quarterly review of every project a senator undertakes for accountability.

Security structures that will relieve the officer whom when a rape case is reported to him/her, asks the stupid question "eh, wetin she wear? wetin e go find for man house by that time"? of his/her badge before locking him/her up [s]and probably designating a firing squad to him/her.[/s]

Structures that not only engages the citizenry in substantial projects aimed at equipping them through training and apprenticeship, but monitors their growth/progress in phases so as to evaluate the success or failure of the scheme and make better informed decisions in future projects.

Structures that create enabling environments in which people can thrive on their own and make something of themselves. Constant electricity, good roads, security (God! security) and a commitment to due processes

A law that will allow and approve of the shooting of any clueless president that gives amnesty to any scumbag group threatening Nigeria or any Nigerian

Development involves a whole lot, and it starts with us as individuals recognizing the truth of who we truly are and joining forces to ensure that the "collective" good of the people are upheld at all times, without bias.

This article in the Guardian UK seems to put this topic into perspective for people living in poor developing nations, like Nigeria. It's about the elections in Pakistan:

Pakistan elections: how Nawaz Sharif beat Imran Khan and what happens next

The results of the Pakistan elections are in – but how did a former exile win the vote? By promising airports to people who can't afford bicycles, says novelist Mohammed Hanif

Here's a little fairytale from Pakistan. Fourteen years ago a wise man ruled the country. He enjoyed the support of his people. But some of his treacherous generals thought he wasn't that smart. One night he was held at gunpoint, handcuffed, put in a dark dungeon, sentenced to life imprisonment. But then a little miracle happened; he, along with his family and servants, was put on a royal plane and exiled to Saudi Arabia, that fancy retirement home for the world's unwanted Muslim leaders.

Two days ago that same man stood on a balcony in Lahore, thanked Allah and said: Nawaz Sharif forgives them all.

But wait, if it was a real fairytale, Imran Khan would have won the election instead, right? Can't Pakistani voters tell between a world-famous, world cup-winning, charismatic leader and a mere politician who refers to himself in the third person?

Why didn't Imran Khan win?

Well he has, sort of. But not in the way he would have liked. Visiting foreign journalists have profiled Imran Khan more than they have profiled any living thing in this part of the world. If all the world's magazine editors were allowed to vote for Imran Khan he would be the prime minister of half the English-speaking world. If Imran Khan had contested in west London he would have won hands-down. But since this is Pakistan, he has won in Peshawar and two other cities. His party is set to form a government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, that north-western frontier province of Pakistan which Khan's profile writers never fail to remind us is the province that borders Afghanistan and the tribal areas that the world is so scared of. Or as some others never fail to remind the world: the land of the fierce pathans.

It's true that Khan ran a fierce, bloody-minded campaign, drawing huge crowds. When his campaign culminated in a televised tumble from a stage, during a public rally, the whole nation held its breath. Khan galvanised not only Pakistan's parasitical upper classes but also found support among the country's young men and women of all ages; basically the kind of people who use the words politics and politician as common insults. He inspired drawing-room revolutionaries to go out and stand in the blistering heat for hours on end to vote for him. For a few months he made politics hip in Pakistan. Partly, he was relying on votes from Pakistan's posh locales. He probably forgot that there was a slight problem there: not enough posh locales in Pakistan. There were kids who flew in from Chicago, from Birmingham to vote for him. Again, there are not enough Pakistani kids living and studying in Chicago and Birmingham. He appealed to the educated middle classes but Pakistan's main problem is that there aren't enough educated urban middle-class citizens in the country.

And the masses, it appears, were not really clamouring for a revolution but for electricity.

From the gossip columns of British tabloids to massive political rallies across Pakistan, Khan has been on a meaningful journey. In his campaign speeches, his blatantly Blairite message of New Pakistan did appeal to people but he really tested his supporters' attention span when he started to lecture them about how the Scandinavian welfare state model is borrowed from the early days of the Islamic empire in Arabia. Amateur historians have never fared well in Pakistani politics. Or anywhere else. Khan promised to turn Pakistan into Sweden, Norway or any one of those countries where everyone is blond and pays tax. His opponents promised Dubai – where everyone is either a bonded labourer or a property speculator and no one pays taxes – and won.

It's a bit of a fairytale that Khan, whose message was directed at educated urban voters, has found supporters in the north-western frontier province that profile writers must remind us is largely tribal and the front line of the world's war on terror. Khan has led a popular campaign against drone attacks. He has promised that he will shoot down drones, look Americans in the eye, sit down with the Taliban over a cup of qahwa and sort this mess out.

So we finally have someone who feels at home in Mayfair as well as Peshawar. He finally has the chance to rule Peshawar. Slight problem: as he speaks no Pashto, the language of the Pathans. But his first fight will be against American drones hovering in the sky. And drones speak no Pashto either. If Khan can win this match, he can challenge Nawaz Sharif in the next elections.

Read more at the source here.

These problems you highlighted are very valid and hold water. However, looking at the source of this revenue is also very important.
Nigeria as a nation is highly dependent on the price of crude oil for it's expenditure (budget). This over dependence we saw during the deliberation between the executive and the legislative over the benchmark price of crude oil to be used for the 2013 budget (finally settled at $79 per barrel).

Now, the Federal Government deducts its spending from the revenue and the rest is shared amongst the states. This is where we have a problem.
As most states know there is a monthly allocation for them, many state governments became solely dependent on this allocation and ignored the internally generated revenue of the state. Lagos state however, partially awoke to this realisation when a former president withheld the state's allocations for years.

Most states are still dependent on the federal allocations which is partly spent on paying salaries, white elephant projects, and the rest embezzled. Any little form of IGR goes unaccounted for as the states executive conspire with their legislatives to allocate these to themselves using schemes and projects that never get past the first phase.

Accountability and freedom of information still has a long way to go for us to see development in Nigeria.

CROWÉ: Nigeria's problem is not corruption, corruption is a symptom. The constitution has more power over us than I you know, the document is impractical and flawed in its very foundation and fails to properly define many things, with the acceptance of the 1999 constitution into law we were guaranteed to be were we are today.

Nigeria has two root problems, both caused by the constitution.

1: Revenue allocation system: The system of putting all our monies in the national account and sharing it completely makes doing bases at the state level impossible, this is state communism and communism doesn't work, if every state is entitled to what they make then they can succeed but not under the current system. let me explain further, if the federal government takes 50% of the money(i know they take even more) and share the other 50 across the rest of the states each states has control over 1/36 x 50% of monies, that is 1.38%. Each state governor on average is in control of 1.4% of his states financial destiny. It cannot be said that the governor is in control and the other people who have over 90% of the control are not interested, developing our states will never happen and the states are 99.23% of the country, that is more or less everything so power over our states is given to people whom are constitutionally guaranteed to not care about them, how can we develop.

2: Poor implementation of federalism, basically the regional governments depend too much on the central government and cannot do their jobs effectively, this in connection with the first is why public infrastructure goes to waste, because the states cannot afford to maintain them. Since the states are heavily dependent on the centre they mostly lose the ability to govern and the entire federal government is undermined.

So you see, the system in itself does not work and things like corruption begin to set in, if we but redo our constitution from the ground up we will in one move eradicate 70-80 % of Nigeria's problems. The nation should be ruled by the states and not the central government.

doctorfox: These problems you highlighted are very valid and hold water. However, looking at the source of this revenue is also very important.
Nigeria as a nation is highly dependent on the price of crude oil for it's expenditure (budget). This over dependence we saw during the deliberation between the executive and the legislative over the benchmark price of crude oil to be used for the 2013 budget (finally settled at $79 per barrel).

Now, the Federal Government deducts its spending from the revenue and the rest is shared amongst the states. This is where we have a problem.
As most states know there is a monthly allocation for them, many state governments became solely dependent on this allocation and ignored the internally generated revenue of the state. Lagos state however, partially awoke to this realisation when a former president withheld the state's allocations for years.

Most states are still dependent on the federal allocations which is partly spent on paying salaries, white elephant projects, and the rest embezzled. Any little form of IGR goes unaccounted for as the states executive conspire with their legislatives to allocate these to themselves using schemes and projects that never get past the first phase.

Accountability and freedom of information still has a long way to go for us to see development in Nigeria.

This is why I said poor implementation of federalism, the state should be an independent body that doesn't get money from the federal government and that means oil will remain in the oil states and those that don't have oil will develop agriculture, industry etc. States are fed by the central government and constrained by it, the state quickly becomes a farce. Nobody working for the state government is actually there to fix the state because under our current system you cannot fix anything at the state level so we have state governments that are for show who are bullying local governments which are even more useless, so really the only tier of government that matters in Nigeria is the central government.

That Afam4eva, is why there is not development in Nigeria.

First and famous, people often use growth in place development. Growth is mere increase in per capita income. Growth is lopsided such that other sectors may be neglected. This increase in per per capita income may not be sustain for a longer period of time. But development on the other hand, is all embracing; DEVELOPMENT is a sustainable growth(improvement) in all spheres of life, with a trickle down effect on the standard of living of the people. We can not be talking of development when larger portion of the population are wallowing in object poverty, the youths can not find a place to work, people go to overseas for medical checkup, most of the major roads in the country are not in good shape, corruption is the order of the day etcetra....

Here's what Mr. Bill Gates thinks about the numbers being circulated about growth and development in Africa: http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Books/Development/Poor-Numbers

Most people are aware of this. However, it is important to look at what Africa (Africans) currently spend the most money on from outside Africa.
Check out what category the largest imports to Nigeria fall into. Also find out what industries have the largest value in Africa in terms of future sales volume forecast.

Those who really want development are being stifled by "the situation we found ourselves in...".

Reference:

See what I mean. This is one big obstacle we have, divergent interpretations. How do you get to where you can't agree to.

Going back to the Cross-river example one thing you'd often hear is that Duke spent so heavily on infrastructure and not much on 'human capacity development' aka pressing cash into hands. I remember even the debate on nairaland where I supported the 'creation of conducive investment environment' through the provision of infrastructure and legislation but Crossriverians replied that they can dance and sing along with the carnival but they can't even 'afford' to get to Tinapa thoughtless of buying stuff there.

Another thing. I once googled 'the single largest employers of labour in the world'. Guess what. Two of the top three organizations were American government parastatals. And this is the bastion of capitalism. Food for thought.

NO HE DID NOT, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN TO CROSS RIVER STATE ,AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE IS DISGUSTING. NOW SHUT UP.

takeprofit:

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IS BETTER THAN INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT. IT IS THE DEVELOPED HUMANS THAT WOULD DEVELOP THE INFRASTRUCTURES.

YOUR 100 PERCENT WRONG,ONE MAN IS IN CHARGE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE COUNTRY AND THAT IS JONATHAN, I'M PRETTY SURE THE CUUUNNT WENT TO SCHOOL.

NOW EVEN IF I CONSIDER YOUR IGNORANT PROPOSAL,WHAT TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT WILL THEY LEARN IN,WHAT MODERN EQUIPMENT WILL THEY USE, HOW WILL THEY STUDY BETTER,WILL BE IT EASY FOR THEM TO REACH THEIR STUDY ENVIRONMENT(TRANSPORT E.G).
UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF,I THINK BEFOR I TALK#

A lot of you guys are talking out of your arses

First of all, anulaxad is right. infrastructure refers to public structures not private, it is done by the government not the people so educating them doesn't give you infrastructure. Infrastructure is roads, airports, hospitals, bridges, electric grid, water supply, sewage, telecommunications and all the other basic things necessary for a modern community to function effectively, there is no country where these things are built by the people, it is government work all of it.

Second

AjanleKoko:

With a limited purse and limited opportunities for revenue growth, I would do the following, in this order:

- Provide basics at the grassroots level: healthcare, education, security, and shelter (even if it means land appropriation for settlements). Also provide good access roads at all levels. That's what I would try to do with the purse.

- Try to see what kind of incentives I can put in place for the indigenes. Could be in the form of tax incentives, agric or fertilizer subsidies, education bursaries, free healthcare services, depending on whatever the purse can allow for.

- Push for investment into the region to boost the economic potential. If land is the only capital we have in the state, then I have to look for large-scale farmers. If it's mineral resources, I need to look for investors. Large-scale industries will create jobs, and will raise the living standards of the people in the state directly or indirectly.

Look at that, you can do all that on a limited budget, I don't see exactly how that was limited, it seems like you think limited means excess, oh dear, you even have free health care, ignorance really is bliss.

CROWÉ: A lot of you guys are talking out of your arses

Look at that, you can do all that on a limited budget, I don't see exactly how that was limited, it seems like you think limited means enough, oh dear, you even have free health care, ignorance really is bliss.

Where did you see the word 'free' in anything I wrote?

So you would build roads, skyscrapers and bridges, and not basic primary health care centers at the very least, where poor indigent people could at least some basic care?

If we go by that logic, Olikoye Ransome-Kuti should have wasted the funds available to him as Minister of health building a few mega-hospitals scattered across Nigeria. Like that could do anything for the grassroots.

AjanleKoko:

Where did you see the word 'free' in anything I wrote?

So you would build roads, skyscrapers and bridges, and not basic primary health care centers at the very least, where poor indigent people could at least some basic care?

If we go by that logic, Olikoye Ransome-Kuti should have wasted the funds available to him as Minister of health building a few mega-hospitals scattered across Nigeria. Like that could do anything for the grassroots.

You said free healthcare, read it again, I just did and it is there, you cannot build the basics, there is not enough money, paying public servants alone is a pain, building all the basics is an ideal situation, it is the governments job to provide the basics and no more so when you talk about building them all across the grass roots you have crossed from limited budget to adequate budget, that states cannot afford to even consider it. There are easily up to 10,000 roads in Lagos for example and it is not our biggest state, have you any idea what fixing and maintaining them alone will cost, then theres paying teachers, you will not be able to do 10% of what you talk about in your wildest dreams on Nigeria's sort of limited budget.

CROWÉ: A lot of you guys are talking out of your arses

First of all, anulaxad is right. infrastructure refers to public structures not private, it is done by the government not the people so educating them doesn't give you infrastructure. Infrastructure is roads, airports, hospitals, bridges, electric grid, water supply, sewage, telecommunications and all the other basic things necessary for a modern community to function effectively, there is no country where these things are built by the people, it is government work all of it.

Second


Look at that, you can do all that on a limited budget, I don't see exactly how that was limited, it seems like you think limited means excess, oh dear, you even have free health care, ignorance really is bliss.

I THANK YOU FOR YOU'RE CONSIDERING COMMENT.