It is true that a single colour could make taxis more recognizable, but that would only apply if the shade chosen were not one which private cars would customarily use. As such, therefore, one imagines the authorities would have to opt for a fairly garish hue, like the unabashed yellow of New York’s ‘medallion’ cabs (ie, those which can be hailed on the street), otherwise hire-cars simply could not be distinguished from ordinary vehicles. What seems to have persuaded New York City to require all ‘medallion’ cabs to be sprayed yellow in 1967, was the need to cut down on unofficial drivers, and one imagines this would be the main benefit in Guyana as well, since an unknown number of privately registered vehicles are used for hire, albeit mostly on a part-time or occasional basis.
However, the paintwork on a cab need not be the only marker for its function. London’s famous taxis are identified not by colour, but by their unique commodious design. In fact, even in the case of New York, there are only certain models of car approved for use as taxis. The two big cities mentioned make a distinction between taxis which can be hailed on the road, and those which can only be hired by phoning or walking into their base. Some of the New York cabs which cannot be hailed are also painted yellow, and as mentioned above, what distinguishes those which can is the ‘medallion’ stamped on them by the Taxi and Limousine Commission of the city.
Taxis in most towns in the western world, even if they do not have to conform to requirements about colour or model of vehicle, can invariably be identified by a sign on the roof indicating either they are for hire or simply stating ‘taxi.’ In the case of the London and New York taxis the sign is switched off when the driver has a fare. (The London minicabs, ie, those vehicles for hire which cannot be hailed, do not carry the sign because they operate only from a base.) One wonders if the sign option was not considered by the government, rather than inflicting on us fleets of what will probably have to be luridly painted vehicles.
In any case, it is difficult to see how uniformity of taxi colour will help the security forces. There is nothing to say that bandits could not hijack a taxi, or use a vehicle of the same colour to commit a crime, and because the car would appear to be a licensed cab, the joint services might be inclined to overlook it. Where tourism is concerned, the case for uniformity of colour is much better, although as said above, the purpose would be equally served if there were a ‘taxi’ or ‘for hire’ sign on the roof of cabs.
While the President was at some pains to explain to the assembled stakeholders in the hire-car industry that Guyana was in “the forefront of climate change… there will be spin-off benefits” and they should prepare themselves, he and his government have traditionally shown little interest in what it is tourists might want to see here. Of course, the idea is to attract eco-tourists of one variety or another, but they of course in current conditions will be shunted into the interior, and the most the capital’s taxi-drivers will see of them is when they go up and down to the airport. In fact, given present circumstances they may bypass the city – and by extension, the coast – altogether.
Developing Georgetown and coastal tourism requires the kind of commitment and investment which the government has shown absolutely no interest in. There is, of course, the garbage crisis, which has never been addressed in a holistic way, and our drainage problems, which have received greater, if sometimes spasmodic attention in certain areas, since 2005. No visitor will waste any time touring areas strewn with refuse. Dealing with this problem will require certain structural changes in the first instance, which will allow the situation to be confronted uncontaminated by politics. In addition, the lower East Coast and East Bank will have to be perceived by outsiders as rather more secure than at present.
But there is something else too. The kind of tourists the government is seeking to attract are likely to be tempted into Georgetown only if there are historical sites to view. And in that department the administration’s record has been abysmal. It is true they are in the process of drafting a new National Trust Act, something which is long overdue and represents a commendable start, but in the meantime their record with buildings under their own control leaves something to be desired. The current contretemps over the privatisation of a house in Duke Street, for example, has centred on the matter of the award following the bidding process, but one wonders if any clauses were written in to the conditions of sale concerning the preservation of what is a historic – and aesthetic – building in a street which boasts other interesting houses.
As for the private sector, demolition proceeds apace with absolutely no respect for our history, let alone the beauty of the city. The latest building to be sacrificed was another colonial structure at the corner of Church and Thomas Streets, which had been up for sale for a while. There are more elegant buildings too on offer, which one fears will be purchased by philistines whose only interest in them is to pull them down and erect some bulbous concrete monstrosity in their place. It is, of course, expensive to maintain these old buildings, but the government has never explored imaginative ways to assist owners with special concessions in the interest of preservation.
In fact, the Ministry of Tourism has also never explored creating an ambitious framework for preserving and promoting historic Georgetown (and the coast) which would bring on board various stakeholders, including the private sector. Addressing the needs of our tourism product does not begin with making the colour of taxis uniform.
