Clash in City Hall over revised parking meter bylaws -voting deferred to April 4

Clash in City Hall over revised parking meter bylaws –voting deferred to April 4

Mar 29, 2018 News

Akeem Peter

The Mayor and City Council of Georgetown (M&CC) has deferred the vote on the revised parking bylaws until April 4. The issue was presented as part of the Council’s agenda at the statutory meeting held on Monday last.
The document was originally presented to the Council for debate, but was met with objections from those seated around the horseshoe table. Councillors noted that they were not given enough time to peruse the new bylaws.
Explaining the basis of his objection, Team Legacy’s Malcolm Ferreira told the Council that he only received the 76-page document a mere 48 hours before the meeting.
Ferreira noted that “given that the last bylaws were found null and void by a court, it is only right that we are given enough time, and in many cases given time to get legal advice and protect the city from a recurrence of what happened before”. The Councillor also alluded to the fact that the implementation of the parking meter project with Smart City Solutions (SCS) saw widespread protests.
“We should be given time to properly examine and vet the document in order to avoid issues encountered in the past as it relates to the by-laws and general metered parking in the city.”
Another councillor, Welton Clarke, expressed similar sentiments. He too said the Council should be given time to consider the new bylaws.

Malcolm Ferreira

“I too received this document on Saturday night – that is my festive night when I care to get drunk. If I get drunk then I can’t read and pay attention to that many pages constructively and honestly to put something in effect that will interfere with the tranquility and functions of all citizens.”
Meanwhile, Chairman of the second renegotiation committee, Akeem Peter, stressed that there should have been no issue with approving the new bylaws, as it contains little change from what was proposed by the first renegotiating committee.
“This is one of the documents that the committee was mandated to look at upon finishing renegotiations…another document was prepared stating the changes that were made in the contract based upon legal advice from the council’s attorney.
Peter opined that that only reason councillors would object to the passage of the document at this point is because of an ulterior motive.
But Councillor Ferreira refuted that notion.
“The only motive is to ensure the city gets what it’s supposed to get and that the residents are protected,” he said in objection.
After listening to the views expressed by the Councillors, Mayor Patricia Chase-Green opted to let the members vote on the issue. As such, fourteen Councillors voted in favour of having the matter deferred so as to allow for time to peruse the documents. The majority vote allowed for the Council to postpone the matter until April 4.
Last year, the High Court ruled that Minister of Communities Ronald Bulkan acted unlawfully in his approval of the Parking Meter bylaws.
Justice Nareshwar Harnanan in his ruling noted that the approval was not done in compliance with provisions of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01. Justice Harnanan had presided over a challenge by the New Building Society Limited (NBS) mounted against the city’s metered parking bylaws, which it contended was illegal.
The Court had previously ordered that a rule nisi certiorari be issued to the Minister of Communities to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be issued to quash his approval of the parking meter by-laws. The order would have resulted in a temporary halt to all activities related to the project.
NBS had argued that the decision of the Minister of Communities to approve the bylaws was unlawful, since notice of the M&CC’s intention to apply for approval of the bylaws was not published prior to the Minister’s approval in accordance with the Municipal and District Councils Act.
Justice Harnanan later ruled in favour of NBS, granting the company costs in the sum of $150,000.