MY TURN: THE CRIES IN THE CITY

Feb 26, 2017 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

By Prime Minister Moses V. Nagamootoo

For weeks now we have been hearing the cries of our citizens protesting the implementation of

metered parking in Georgetown. From any vantage point, the fees for parking are unconscionably high. Our Citizens have boycotted the parking zones.  For many days there were only somber streets instead of what we’re accustomed to – a lively, even boisterous town.  The machines that were meant to assist with the restoration of order, cleanliness and pride of our Garden City, have instead been cynically dubbed “the green monsters”.

The Georgetown Metered Parking By-laws which came into effect on January 17, 2017 include “excessive immobilization” or clamping fees, towing fees, impoundment fees and storage fees. It would cost $34,000 plus VAT to recover one vehicle that is subjected to all four stages of the enforcement process.

A further imposition of up to $100,000 would attend legal proceedings in a case where the vehicle owner is fined for a parking violation. The final bit of salt in the wound is the requirement for the impounded vehicle to be sold at auction after six (6) months if the owner fails to repossess same after notice of the intended auction is published.

A TORRENT OF PROTEST

I am disappointed that in spite of the torrent of protests, the Mayor of Georgetown announced the resumption of the Parking Meter system from January 20.  What had started as a public protest against high fees and the clumsy clamping of wheels at a time when citizens understood little about how the metered parking system was supposed to work, developed into a full-blown objection to the agreement between City Hall and the metering company, SCS. The subsequent reduction of fees by half, turned out to be just a palliative instead of a remedy for the distress of our citizens who voted the City Elders into office less than a year ago.

I have reviewed all that has been said about the metered parking project and have been paying keen attention to the protests against the measures and the methods used to ram this project down our unwilling throats. City Hall may have lost the opportunity to address what are very legitimate concerns.

AN OLD IDEA

Metered parking is not a new idea.  In the 1990’s while I was Minister of Local Government, similar proposals were canvassed by Mayor Ranwell Jordan and later by Mayor Hamilton Green. There was also talk of introducing a Container Tax and a toll on vehicles entering the city. The PPP Government at the time had decided that these proposals would not help their political fortunes so I gave them a “stiff back”.

However, over the years, the revenue base of the City contracted as the area expanded; their earnings were totally inadequate for the growing needs of the Council. Today, the Council’s sources of revenue are general property rates and municipal market fees. Even these reduced over the years resulting in a depletion of municipal services that manifested in periodic flooding, waste pile-ups and general insanitary conditions that gave Georgetown the title “Garbage City”. We even had to endure the shame from the equally putrid comment by a PPP Minister which suggested that he didn’t care if the citizens were afflicted by an epidemic.

So, when push came to shove and elections were looming a few years ago, and while the city was starving from inadequate subventions, billions $$ were misdirected to the Ministry of Works to undertake clean up operations that should have been done by City Council. Even so, the Jagdeo-ites did not really want the burden of running the city. They were only interested in the benefits from hefty state allocations and dirty procurement services.

REVIEW AND RECONCILE

Metered parking has to be seen within the historic context of the neglect of the City and the callousness of now opposition politicians. Whilst I cannot support the manner in which it was introduced, I still believe that there probably is a body of opinion that favours a well-structured, parking system.

I believe that the Agreement between City Hall and Smart City Solutions was intended as a private-public partnership. I also believe that the MAPM should be brought into the arrangement as an equity partner representing civil society. Consideration ought to be given to transparent negotiations for better terms which could be achieved if the Agreement, last amended on 18th September 2016, is reviewed.

The review ought to re-examine the terms of reference of the contract including:

• The 20-year contract term that can be renewed for another 20 years
• The 20% of gross metered parking fees to the City for 2,500 parking spaces in the first 9 years, and 25% for the remaining contract period
• Special arrangements for construction of parking garages
• The revenue accrued from clamping, towing, impounding, enforcement services, etc.

CITIZEN BUY-IN

Citizens are entitled to full explanations of the by-laws. Whatever format the Parking Meter project takes, citizens must be told and shown the locations of properly marked out zones, lanes and parking spaces for mini-buses, taxis and motorcycles in residential areas, schools, hospitals, bus stops, etc.  The executors of the project should also consider issuing parking permits for regular users of such public places as the courts, hospitals and police stations, and exempt all emergency service vehicles including ambulances, fire engines, and vehicles used by the armed forces, the judiciary, the state and parliament.

The emphasis should be on commercial parking. If properly planned, designated parking spaces could bring order to our current chaotic free-style parking, anywhere and anyhow.

It did not go unnoticed that after the meters were erected, many citizens voluntarily started to use parking spaces in business compounds and in driveways. Even when the fees were suspended, citizens were parking in an orderly manner, in single file.

The parking meter system was supposed to achieve exactly this, but on the basis of affordability. None of us expected that it would have been dragged into our city like a Trojan horse with a horde of what President Granger described as “burdensome measures” concealed in it.
What we have seen so far are protests against the high charges.  If the citizens’ reasonable request to review and reconcile is refused, no one could complain when they up the demand to revoke the Agreement.

---

---