THERE can be no honest denial that parking in Georgetown is a logistical nightmare and begs urgent attention to bring about some semblance of order. Those who don’t park on the roadways, double park, park in “no parking zones,” or would park anywhere, including on the pavement. In all instances, such acts are illegal, point to insensitivity toward others who have to use public thoroughfares, putting lives at risk, and an overall disregard for law and order.

The pavement was not meant or constructed for parking but for pedestrians safe use of the roads and the descent to see this as appropriate parking space not only damages the infrastructure, but must not be condoned. Another problem is that businesses and home-owners commandeer the parapets in front of their premises and put up no-parking signs or barriers to prevent others from parking. Those parapets are the property of the City Council and are public thoroughfares.

Though it is wrong to park in front of a gate or entrance which hinders smooth ingress and egress, the parapets cannot be blocked.
A few months ago, citizens were in uproar about a parking meter system being installed in the heart of the city. None could fault the denizens who felt the decision was taken without their involvement, the ticket fees too high, business losing sales, and the ratio of revenue payment in a joint venture between the Mayor and City Council and Smart City Solutions (SCS) disproportionately tilted to the latter.

There is no argument being made here for SCS, but recognition that there is a congestion crisis and unruly road behaviour in the city which are deserving of attention. None can effectively argue that the traffic and parking do not need regulating. The volume of vehicles has outgrown parking areas, leading to congestion, nightmare in finding parking, and the increasing of poor road ethics. Businesses too do not have personal parking facilities for their staff and customers. Then they are others who would park their vehicles, not because of doing business in the vicinity, but that of selfishness.

Parking meters do not only serve as revenue sources, they also help to bring about order to traffic and prevent congestion. Recognising that people woud have to pay to park, they are likely to be more mindful of their time and where they park, lending to order, less congestion and earning revenue for infrastructural maintenance and development. The weeks of protest against the Council’s decision to enter into a contract without the public’s knowledge and input, the contract legality questioned, along with the percentage of revenue going to the SCS vis- a-vis the Council, are not without due consideration. There’s a concern the project could have attracted local public/ private partnership, given that only meters are required and where the council is cash-strapped, they are legitimate local businesses from which funding could have been sourced.

The tepid public response to the hearings being held by the Council is disappointing. It was weeks of protest that led to central Government’s intervention to halt the parking meter project, pending engagement in public consultation, which saw a special council committee established to follow through on this task, and it should have been overwhelmed with responses, including recommendations.

Where the committee noted its failure to attract audience it is reasonable to wonder if other approaches were looked at such as hosting broadcasting (radio and television) programmes, allowing for public call-in and/or submission of opinion via write-in (electronic and snail mail). This recognition does not ignore commendable efforts at outreaches, though it is hoped that such was through a scientific method which would allow for broad-based, representative samples. Conversely, citizens too have to be aware that having protested for the opportunity to be involved, when such presents itself, failure to make the most of it can also be interpreted as disinterest and may set the standard for exclusion on other future matters. Persons also should want to avoid having to say later, based on any decision the council would likely make, that they regret not seizing the opportunity to offer their inputs.

At the same time, responses by some council members to the public’s protests against the parking meter may have turned citizens away. Where this may be the case, it is important to recognise interest requires not being immobilised by the past. The Council will shortly meet to deliberate on the report of its special committee, which is expected to include the public’s feedback and recommendations and will help in advising any further re-negotiation on the parking meters. This report will only be able to provide information from the public’s standpoint, based on the interaction it had with the committee.