Dear Editor,
The concept of planning is important for any city; it becomes that much more critical for a national capital city like Georgetown. All should be involved; the process thorough.
A recent article, ‘Five ways to plan the cities of the future’ by the UK’s Guardian newspaper makes the point. It states that in 2009, “UN Habitat estimated that 3m people were moving to cities every week.” The publication goes on to state, “we continue to see certain groups and individuals living in our cities that are not able to participate in negotiations. Slum dwellers are one such group. We need to speak to the most marginalised in ways that articulate their everyday realities. Whenever we have taken the time to do this, we find they are the experts of their own condition – they do not make unreasonable demands and they are prepared to make the trade-offs needed to make the city work.”
An entity such as the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) then has an important function. Even where the Constitution gives the local authority the jurisdiction under the Municipal and District Council Act, Chapter 28:01, Section 274, power to construct council roads and control traffic; and, under Section 176, (a) “establish, maintain and control parking lots, (b) erect and maintain parking meters”, the legislation states it is all subject to the Town and Country Planning Act, the Roads Act and Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act.
Planning therefore has a rationalization. This takes me back to the issues of parking meters. The more I think about the issue, the more I am convinced that we who oppose the methodology of implementation are on the right side of history. What was the planning involved before such a fundamental change in the mobility of citizens is realized?
When our President, David Granger, made his historic visit to City Hall, June 27, 2016, he underscored the “need to plan”. He put it cogently when he said to City Hall, “Any urban plan that you produce of course, will not exist in a vacuum. The plan must not only be based on knowledge of what is required in the city, but it must also aim at collaboration…with the Central Government, [CH&PA] and certainly with the Ministry of Communities, so that we work together because this is a national capital”.
I keep hearing of a study that was done by the contractors, but like the substantive contract it remains a municipal secret. To be fair a proposal for “on street parking” submitted to City Hall in the ʼ90s makes reference to an “IDB funded study” and outlines briefly “the main causes of traffic congestion”. This study seems to have been used as the basis for Georgetown’s parking meters.
The current parking meter contractor keeps alluding to a study that was done but I have never seen it nor have I heard a single sentence quoted from it in defence of the need for the implementation of parking meters. I am going to hazard a guess that no study was done.
Further, as a typology of putting the cart before the horse, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure (MPI) is currently in the process of consultations as part of its Sustainable Urban Transport Study (SUTS) for Georgetown. To my pleasant surprise one of the four major actions of that study is the ‘Development of a comprehensive Parking Management plan for Central Georgetown’. “This project component will require the development of a Parking Policy and Management Plan for Central Georgetown – The Plan will include zoning, charges, regulations etc.”
On November 24, 2016 when I met with the MPI’s team at City Hall which included its consultants and M&CC senior staff several requests were made of our organization for details as to the current metered parking system for Georgetown and again I was surprised by the shortage of critical information. Even the Guyana Police Force’s Traffic Department seemed out of the loop recently.
Additionally, I note the Ministry of Finance’s review of the parking meter contract suggested, “A history of the contractor should be provided to City Hall in order to assess the experience and qualification of the contractor”, and it noted also, “The contract cedes to [parking meter company] a portion of urban planning, permitting it to shape the direction of transportation management within Georgetown since it says nothing about [City Hall’s] ability to plan.”
In the concluding comments it states, “subject to legal implications, there are grounds for (1) the contract to be withdrawn, and (2) the related pecuniary damages assessed and paid subject to [City Hall] producing a feasibility study that gives the national government a clear picture of, inter alia, demand analysis, financial analysis, socio-economic cost benefit analysis, risk analysis, technology alternatives, and production plan, human resources, location plan, implementation.”
Notwithstanding the lack of proper planning, the metered parking project moves apace.
Yours faithfully,
Sherod Avery Duncan
Deputy Mayor
Municipality of Georgetown
