–– PPP/C Councillors reject PNCR’s push  for reduced rates for political parties
   –– say rates should be the same as it is for ordinary citizens

THE City Councillors of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) expressed their strong disapproval regarding a recent decision made by the Georgetown Town Council to implement institutional rates for political parties.
The councillors, Alfonso De Armas, Patricia Chase-Greene and Steven Jacobs made this clear during a live broadcast programme recently.
According to Chase-Greene, on Monday during the council’s statutory meeting a policy document for institutional rates to be given to political parties was laid, to which she said was immediately rejected by the PPP councillors.
“We totally disagree with it, we think all political parties should pay their rates and taxes because we’re asking ordinary citizens to do so,” she said.
Against this backdrop, the former mayor added that the council constantly complains about not having money to carry out its basic functions but is now asking to have political parties not pay their rates and taxes and noted how unfair such a system would be.
However, that decision was passed by the council, which she said used its political majority to do so.

“We think it best to let the citizens know that while you are suffering, the PNC led council is making a soft bed for its people in the political party because it’s they who will be benefitting from it,” she said.
Further to this, when asked whether there are any bylaws of the council that would permit such a move, she indicated that in the document, cited section 214 of the Municipal and District Councils Act, which she said includes nothing about political parties.
That section of the act speaks to the powers to exempt owners of certain properties and notes that a council shall have the power to exempt from liability to pay taxes either wholly or in part if their properties fall under those listed in the section.
Listed properties include those used for the advancement of religion, education, or social welfare, those used for open-air games, open-air athletic sports and hospitals, among others.
Chase-Greene added, “It goes on but there’s no way for political parties listed in this law and if you are going to introduce a new institutional rate in my knowledge on what is happening, that needs to be gazetted not by a simple policy of the council… they ought to have sought guidance on that maybe from the Attorney General’s office or some legal officer to find out if that can happen because the law was quite clear.”
Meanwhile, Jacobs, when asked why they would oppose the move when it would bring benefits to their party, as well said that while they are members of the PPP, their mandate is representing the people of Georgetown.
“We hear every day that the APNU-led council calling for more help from the council… but we have a very clear case here that they are trying to make it easier on themselves,” he said.
With this, the councillor said one must now ask which parties owe he mayor and city council and why such a policy was done in such a hurried manner.
He expressed that during the meeting, when the document was presented to the council, several inquiries were raised and immediate revisions were made to the document, indicating that it was evidently unprepared.
He expressed, “Citizens need to understand who has their best interest at heart and it’s clearly not those set of councillors. You’re seeing it clearly; political parties should pay their fair share because the council is obligated to move out their garbage and all the other jobs the council should be doing so, they should pay their taxes.”