Dear Editor,
I write in response to Mayor Mentore’s latest attempt at obfuscating the facts around this most reprehensible policy aimed at exempting the PNC+AFC from paying their fair share of rates and taxes. In his latest risible contortion, the mayor finally admits that he was not truthful when he wrote that the policy “…establishes a 25% institutional rate for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and political parties.” He now claims that “… a well-crafted policy to provide a framework to apply the institutional rate of 25% to one category of organisations – political parties – was discussed and approved. The policy does not mention non-governmental organisations because it was not necessary.” Thank you, Mayor Mentore. Though revealed in bits and pieces, the truth has finally come to light. Furthermore, the meeting minutes will reveal that the policy presented to the council was so vague and poorly written that it had to undergo several revisions before being passed, with approval coming solely from PNC councillors.
Contorting himself further, Mayor Mentore attempts to deliver a misguided lecture on the distinction between a policy and a decision. However, his attempt at obfuscation does not change the facts of the matter: on August 26, the PNC councillors voted to exempt political parties from their tax obligations. This is particularly outrageous given the mayor’s own admission of the city’s ongoing budget struggles, which have led to diminished services such as solid waste management, drainage, public health, and security. Editor, I wish to make clear that political parties are not social welfare organisations. A social welfare organisation exists to improve societal well-being through services like charity, advocacy, and community development, remaining largely apolitical and non-partisan. Its focus is on addressing social issues without seeking political power. A political party, however, is explicitly designed to gain political control, shape government policies, and compete in elections. While social welfare organisations assist communities, political parties aim to govern them, making their pursuit of influence and authority central to their mission.
Finally, if the policy is as well-crafted as His Worship claims, then he ought to have no problems answering the following questions:
1) What is the potential impact of the proposed rate reduction on the City coffers?
(2) What is the potential impact of the proposed rate reduction on current real estate assets held by political parties and the classification of such assets in the future?
(3) Who sent the letter requesting rate reductions?
(4) What is the AFC’s role in this matter?
(5) What is the value of the benefits the AFC would receive from this relief?
In conclusion, Mayor Mentore must be held accountable for his continued obfuscations and misleading statements. The fact remains that on August 26, the PNC councillors voted to exempt political parties from paying their fair share of taxes, a decision that directly contradicts the city’s urgent need for revenue. No amount of evasive language or shifting narratives can change this truth. It is time for Mayor Mentore to stop dodging the facts and answer for his role in pushing through this indefensible policy.
Sincerely,
Alfonso De Armas
PPP/C Councillor
