Dear Editor,
As I look at the continuing, somewhat intensifying, parking meter furor some additional thoughts creep forward. They all redound to the discredit of those coalesced in opposition to its presence.
First, the protestors were adamant about the prohibitive nature of the cost. And it was. I think that that concern was both relevant and significant. High level agreement was reached to halve the cost. Yet the protests continue. I must question why emerging concerns are now tabled at the back end of what ought to have been good faith objections, good faith negotiations, and good faith conclusions.
Clearly, the goalposts have shifted and the whole parking meter business now resembles a moving target, and the veil for, as well as charade of, new calculations. Money has been reduced; thus there is little patience with, or understanding for, new calculations powering new objectives. I suggest that the objectives are not entirely new, but were there from the beginning. Therefore, capriciousness was afoot, and the protest can now be dismissed to the realms of the bogus and the misleading. Motives must be impugned and sharply so.
Second, there can no longer be claims of principle, for when some of the involved are observed that characteristic (principle) is not only distant from their makeup, but unknown too. When some not insignificant percentage was squeezed out of the original pricing and was rejected out-of-hand, the protesting parties abandoned the high ground. That was what was initially claimed (and believed) to be a principled stand no longer pertains. It has crumbled.
Third, I agree wholeheartedly that City Hall committed snafu after snafu (somebody should look closely into the words associated with this acronym; they speak loudly), but necessity, reasoning, and commonsense all converge to highlight that parking meters should be here and must be here. As a quick aside, I recall the Sturm und Drang when traffic lights were introduced a while back, and that was free. Now back to City Hall. When government fails, it is removed; and when bureaucrats disappoint, they are terminated. The emphasis should be to remove City Hall elected and not parking meters.
Fourth, I would be surprised if, other than a tiny minority, most of those agitating against the parking meters do not live outside the capital. Hence, they have no vested interest here, besides using it as a naked daylight public convenience, and for even rawer commercial priorities, many times unclean commercial priorities. Georgetown is not their home, their neighbourhood, or their children’s playground. It is fair game to be trampled upon as is fancied.
Fifth, to them (most of the protesting), the capital is a warehouse; warehouses are usually located at the periphery of consciousness and tolerated on a passing basis. This is the way it should stay, as a warehouse. Georgetown is viewed in this whimsical light by the on-the-move objectors (along with their moving objections), who think that they reserve the right to dump themselves and their appurtenances here without inhibition and without charge. The mentality is that warehouses and dumpsites should not carry a price. They do not most of the time.
Sixth, I select some areas at random, starting with the outskirts of the city, and not-too-distant communities on the East Bank Demerara and East Coast Demerara. I must wonder that if chronic congestion, acute disdain for discipline, and spiralling disorder were to become the order of the day in those pristine neighbourhoods, what would be the level of receptivity of residents to such developments. I suppose the immediate and frantic calls would be for regulations and penalties, if not parking meters.
Yet, for the most part, it is these closet NIMBY (not in my back yard) citizens who are in the forefront of what has mutated into a masquerade. Perhaps it was a masquerade all along.
Seventh, clearly those engaged in what was interpreted to be honest constructive protesting believe that they are privileged and entitled. And that free parking, or parking according to their terms, is part of the privilege and entitlement, and must prevail. Well, that was before, this is today. I take this one last step farther: their right to encroach freely collides with the many rights of many others who reside higher on the scale of consideration and priorities. Parking meters have a place in the struggle to improve the overall greater good of a good many. Let it stay. In the meantime, I move on.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
