Dear Editor,
Reporting, in general, is setting a dangerous precedent and can thwart the developmental efforts of Guyana. Considered the fourth arm of government, if reporting is done in the absence of knowledge, astuteness and experience, it can be misleading and create unnecessary angst within society. I do not know what the criterion is for becoming a journalist in Guyana, but when reporting on financial matters, or investment or whatever topic for that matter, reporters must be versed in those topics. Secondly, reporters have to extract their personal philosophies, ideologies or beliefs from the items reported – period. Of course, editorializing is a different matter.
Another worrying development is when attorneys, practitioners of our legal system, give the public the impression that a sealed deal between two entities or persons can be scrapped by the court, outside the wishes to the two entities. My understanding is that if there is an issue between the two parties the court can be used to interpret the deal. In the US a signed deal is given seventy-two hours to accommodate buyers’ remorse. After that there is no turning back, no matter how lopsided the deal is.
There seems to be a belief in Guyana, somewhat generated by reporting, that investors enter Guyana to create jobs. Let us be clear: there is no truth in that. Investors take considerable risks, invest money, already earned or borrowed, to make a return on the investment and make a profit for themselves and their financial backers. However, the truth is that the investment activity creates jobs and tax revenue for the country. ExxonMobil made it clear that they are here for the oil. Only qualified Guyanese will be employed and government gets whatever share the deal permits. On the other hand, government has the luxury of taking tax revenue or IMF loans and investing in projects to create employment. Government can do that to stimulate economic activity, but government alone cannot be tasked with the responsibility. That is why private investment is always needed. In the case of Guyana it is badly needed.
On to this day, I can still hear comments of how terrible the AT&T/GT&T, Omai, and Barama deals, made by the Hoyte administration, were for Guyana. Not only are the deals bashed, our reporting wrongly extends to the bashing of the investors for the deals negotiated. This comes from the lack of understanding of the points of view and concerns of investors. President Hoyte took over the governance of Guyana following a period during which Guyana was blacklisted for investment opportunities. He made a one hundred and eighty degrees turn from the approach of the Burnham administration. At the time of the above mentioned deals Guyana had little bargaining power. Hoyte’s move helped Guyana tap into the Caribbean Basin Initiative and other programmes.
However, in relation to our investment climate today, nothing much has changed. Today, Guyana is riddled with crime, and all the other ills you are aware of, Editor. Our court system is fractured. An investor will be concerned about the speed with which issues can be resolved in our court system. Workers stealing, a contractor not fulfilling a commitment ‒ how efficient is the court system in giving speedy justice to the aggrieved? With court documents disappearing and persons with contacts easily flouting the law, investors will be concerned. Therefore, it stands to reason that if an investor is going to brave all the negatives that Guyana possesses, they will be looking for deals that are lopsided in the investor’s favour. It is about strong protections for the investment dollar – nothing more, nothing less. The fact that attorneys are now suggesting that deals can be quashed will definitely add to investors’ concerns, with serious implications for Guyana.
This brings me to the parking meter fiasco. After many years, local government elections returned. A new city administration was elected. That duly elected administration negotiated a deal with an investor. We the people of the city have to suck it up and live with it. A deal is a deal. If we do not like the way they are managing the city’s affairs, vote them out next time around. However, there is no walking back now, except in the case where the two parties may want to come to an understanding to re-negotiate the deal. However, at this point I do not see the investor giving up much. The investment risk still remains the same and in some cases, given the present turmoil in GT, may have risen.
But let us step back a bit. The previous government deliberately starved the city of cash because, among other reasons, the previous mayor must not be made to look good. The city was barred from taking its own initiative to earn income. It is on record: many attempts and proposals were made.
The answer was always ‘no’. This new government has given the city the opportunity to go out and raise its own capital. That is why we have this deal with the parking meters. In effect, with this deal the city is getting 20% compared to the zero they were previously getting for the roadsides in GT. It seems like a good deal to me.
On the other side is the consumer – those who own vehicles and must pay for the parking. Here is where intelligent reporting and editorials can help consumers accept the changes. Yes, this is another tax. However, development comes from taxes.
Nothing is free in society. More so, if you can own and drive a car in Guyana you can afford to park. My argument is if the cost of gasoline is not stopping someone from purchasing a car that person can afford to pay to park it. How come you ask? The average cost for gasoline in the US is about $2.25. That works out to about $450 Guyana dollars. Guyanese vehicle owners are paying close to double the amount paid by an American, who earns much more, yet there is no protest. By comparison, $50.00 for 15 minutes of parking is equivalent to $US 0.25, which is exactly in line with prices paid in the US.
Another point to note is this. Twenty per cent earnings from parking are not unusual in some municipalities in the US. Georgetown is lying back and collecting 20 % with no investment. Added to that, the roll-out of the parking meters seems to create order and solve traffic problems in downtown Georgetown.
That is a plus. However, the city needs to find a way to accommodate the flat-foot taxi drivers. They were not catered for, and arrangements should be made for a payment system and have a few parking spots allocated for them.
Having said all the above, I have a major problem with Smart City Solutions parking-meter roll-out. I am reminded of a three-card player going out to work on the side of the road – a cardboard box and three cards. Smart City Solutions have not expended funds on actually creating decent parking spots. They began their business demarcating some tiny parking spots on grass edges, mud patches, swamps (when it rains) and in most cases encroached, and indeed narrowed, existing carriageways. This should not be. This company’s major investment was in the cash registers and a multitude of pickets with pointers to indicate where they are located.
The only places with decent parking are existing paved spots, provided by the city and private businesses, outside these business places. This company exposed its interest in the financial returns and not in providing a decent service.
My contention is that paid parking should be put on hold until SCS creates decent paved parking spots, without narrowing existing roads and carriageways. What is mostly considered as parking spots right now do not make the cut. There is where the push back should be. We cannot be in the business of scrapping deals with investors.
It is a terrible precedent, which wrecks our investment climate. The option should be to make the investor deliver on promises within reasonable time frames. SCS should at least create decent parking spots before we are made to pay. What say you?
Yours faithfully,
F Skinner