The six political groupings vying for the 15 proportional representation (PR) seats on the Georgetown City Council last evening presented their plans for the management of the capital at the first ever Georgetown Debate.
Over 90 minutes, Mark Benschop, of Team Benschop for Mayor, James Cole, of the PPP, Sherod Duncan of APNU+AFC, Clayon Halley of Youth for Local Government, Michael Leonard, of Team Legacy, and Dr. Phillip Thomas, of A Guyana Nation Builders Corps, faced off during questioning by a panel of 14 members of various civil society groups at the Theatre Guild.
The debate, organised by Nigel Hughes through the community organisation “Under the Tamarind Tree Inc” ahead of the March 18th polls, provided an opportunity for each group to explain to the public how they intend to govern the capital city.
Questions ranged from parking to personal security for members of the LGBTI community to the security of the wider populace, youth development and respect for the human rights of the homeless.
Although some of the issues lie outside the remit of the municipality, in many cases, the candidates reiterated that the municipality would implement the laws of the country. While some skirted around the core of the issues raised, others, especially Dr Thomas, attempted to present copious details about some issues.
Each Benschop answer was delivered with a stinging barb at the way the city is presently being managed. Local government polls have not been held since 1994 and the intervening period has seen the deterioration in the city and its management.
Asked how they would ensure security at the community level, Benschop declared that his team would reform the city constabulary into a force that does much more than “shake down vendors.”
Addressing traffic congestion in the city, he said Team Benschop would certainly not do so by creating parking lots in residential communities, such as the recently constructed East Street parking lot. Instead, he said, they will install parking meters in the commercial sections of the city.
Each barb Benschop threw seemed to serve as a prompting for Duncan, who demonstrated his keen knowledge of the municipality’s bylaws and its’ financing. At one point, he declared that contrary to Benschop’s claims, $2 billion was not nearly enough to run the city.
“That is the same amount given to the University of Guyana. An institution with 5,000 students. It is impossible to run a city on so small a budget. There must be other sources of revenue for the city,” Duncan declared.
It was the question on securing the financial autonomy of the city that finally allowed the candidates to display both their similarities and differences in their approach to local governance.
When the question originated from the panel, it was directed to Halley, who misinterpreted its intent and spoke of a council will can autonomously allocate and spend funds without directive from central government.
At this point, moderator Timothy Jonas intervened and asked that the question be directed to another candidate.
The lot fell to Benschop, who also spoke of the need to “properly manage and not waste monies in the city.”
Visibly frustrated, Jonas once again asked that the question be sent elsewhere.
Leonard also failed to provide the required answer as he said financial autonomy would be achieved once unauthorised spending is stopped.
At this point, Jonas saw the need to rephrase the question in simpler form. “How is the city council to get its own money?” he asked.
Up to bat was Duncan, who proclaimed that the Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL) should be charged rental for each lantern post erected in the city.
“GPL is on our parapets. They don’t pay rental for the lantern posts yet the city pays for electricity. The issue of parking meters has been raised….just put in the parking meters, rent billboards, upgrade the health and day care facilities and charge for the service,” he said.
As the allotted time slipped away, a decision was taken to afford the other candidates an opportunity to present their ideas about sourcing independent revenue for the city.
Displaying the disconnect which had characterised his contributions the debate, Cole, who was clad in a bright red suit, proclaimed that his party will implement an amnesty to encourage defaulting rate payers to bring their accounts up to date. City Hall has recently concluded such an amnesty.
Halley proposed more stringent implementation of fines. Dr. Thomas waxed philosophically about encouraging citizens to invest in the city through municipal bonds so that as stakeholders they may be more invested. Benschop touted the idea of city radio and television stations and bus stops to yield revenues through advertising; Leonard called for proper zoning and regularisation of rates while Duncan called for the lottery, which was originally conceived by the city council, to be returned to the municipality.
With the sheer number of panelists, no significant headway could be made on many of the issues before the candidates had to move on to the next question. The rules of engagement while devised to ensure a “civilised” debate, also served to stifle the exchanges that usually characterise debates.
