City council does not need a bailout, it needs the monies owed by the gov’t

I have noticed that over the last few days, after the collapse of a section of the Stabroek Market Wharf, the Guyana Chronicle has dedicated a significant percentage of column inches in that newspaper, to criticise the management of the Georgetown City Council. Collapse of section of ‘Stabroek roof’ end result of years of neglect by APNU-led City Council, 17th April, 2024. Mentore should go thy way in peace, 19th April 2024, Editorial: Poor City Governance, 19th April 2024. However, I shall comment on the editorial; I will address the other article in a subsequent letter. I hope that in the spirit of fairness and good media ethics, the management of the Guyana Chronicle would publish my responses to the articles by certain city councillors, and its editorial.

As Mayor, I welcome criticisms. For me, the utility of criticisms is in their potential to assist us, at the council, to improve our responsiveness to the felt needs of our citizens. Nevertheless, I do wish to make a few points about the frame and substance of the editorial.

First, it must be noted that, the role of the media as a watchdog of society is paramount in holding both public and private institutions accountable for their actions. However, when media outlets engage in selective criticism, prioritising certain issues over others clearly based on political bias or agenda, it undermines their credibility and integrity as purveyors of truth. It is clear that, the Guyana Chronicle’s editorial board’s approach to criticising the City Council while ignoring government failures in the wake of recent national negative events and incidents epitomizes this detrimental practice. Here, I am not trying to make excuses but to point out an important truth which is that the editorial appears to be more concerned with negotiating the unfortunate event to highlight the perceived shortcomings of the council and to link those inadequacies to a particular political party. That alone disqualifies this editorial as a serious attempt to keep citizens properly informed about this situation and to report fairly and accurately on the facts.

I understand that the recent collapse of the Stabroek Market Wharf would, undoubtedly, warrant scrutiny, as it reflects upon the management of the city by the municipal authorities. But, the glaring inconsistency arises when the same editorial board fails to adequately report, let alone criticise, the government’s handling of tragic events with massive national significance such as the tragic inferno at Mahdia that claimed the lives of 22 of our youths, the destruction of more than six public school buildings, by fire, the razing of the Brickdam Police Station by fire, the fatal helicopter crash that claimed important lives and the spike in the spate of blackouts experienced by citizens and students preparing for various exams. This selective approach to journalism not only skews public perception but also perpetuates a narrative that prioritises political agendas over objective reporting. I should point out that the impact of such biased reporting on the credibility of the newspaper cannot be overstated. Journalism is founded on principles of truth, objectivity and impartiality. When the Chronicle chooses to ignore or downplay certain events while amplifying others based on political leanings, it erodes public trust in the integrity of its journalistic practice. Readers rightfully expect balanced and comprehensive coverage that holds all institutions accountable, regardless of political affiliation.

Second, the editorial itself is riddled with inaccuracies. For example, the editorial stated that: “… the PNC/APNU-controlled City Council…”. That narrative is patently false and is part of a political conspiracy to link the opposition to the Municipality as a collective.

The truth is that the City Council is the government for the Georgetown District. It is an autonomous statutory body, with full powers to manage the affairs of its local government area- the city. Its decisions are legally binding. Further, the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01 guides the actions of the council. It has conferred certain powers on the City Council. The council is not controlled by any political party; it is managed by an elected council (30 councillors with equal rights, powers, responsibilities and privileges) and an administration composed of statutory and local government officers, whose duties, functions, powers and reporting responsibilities, are clearly set out in Chapter 28:01. No political party or other organization or group can control the council.

Third, at para 2 of the editorial, the assembly of the words: “that area did not deteriorate and became an eyesore overnight” is stating the obvious. Since 2015, the council inspected and observed that that structure was in need of urgent repairs. In 2017, under Town Clerk Royston King, the council did a conditional analysis and determined that the wharf was in a ruinous and calamitous state, and that it should be demolished. As a result, council agreed that, that section of the market should be condemned and cordoned off, and vendors should not be allowed to enter or do business on the wharf. That was done. The council provided space for those affected vendors, at Russel Square, on the western side of the Parliament Building. The plan was to design and install special collapsible/removable stalls for those vendors. However, the council could not muster the requisite resources to move forward in a manner befitting the authorities of the nation’s capital.

Also, the council considered a proposal to redesign and repurpose the space that accommodates the wharf, to facilitate a modern mall with appropriate amenities. That too could not happen because of a lack of funds. Then there was the proposal by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure to construct a modern mall and boardwalk utilizing a portion of a grant from the European Union. There was at least one presentation on this project by representatives of the Ministries of Finance, Public Infrastructure, and I think, Natural Resources. That too encountered certain challenges; it did not materialise. I mentioned those activities, and projects to demonstrate that over the years, the council did not sit on its hands and watch that and other structures deteriorate as this editorial seems to want to suggest. In fact, at that time and now, the council was engaged in restoring and repairing several other municipal assets including Kitty Market, the Engineer’s Building, the Constabulary Head office, the Training School, the Stone Depot, and the Solid Waste Management Building. But, the shallowness of the city treasury made it impossible for us to attend to all the problems, in every section, at the same time. Yes, we were aware of the challenges, including the deterioration of the Wharf, but we did our best in all the circumstances.

Again, the council is painfully aware of its shortcomings to do critical repairs to other assets such as our municipal markets, and other buildings. However plans are afoot with our partners to develop Stabroek market, the vendors mall and Bourda green based on feasibility studies commissioned. This is so, because we have shown the leadership capacity to conceptualise projects; however the council does not have the resources to fulfill this aspect of its responsibility. Therefore, I disagree with the President, as quoted in the editorial when he said that: “…because, from a leadership perspective, there is no capacity to manage some of these key infrastructure and investment in the city.” We simply do not have the money and when we try to implement new revenue earning measures and projects or to monetize them, we are prevented or blocked from doing so by the very government, who would wish citizens to believe that we are incapable. Whilst the government and its actors rush to say that we cannot manage the city, I ask them to consider the glaring deficiencies in many government ministries, and agencies even though they are awash with oil resources. The point I wish to make here is that organizational weaknesses are not unique to the city council; they exist in all public and private organisations and institutions.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the editorial under review did not mention one word about taxes owed to the council by central government, corporations and businesses. Government Ministries and agencies owe the council in excess of 6 Billion dollars. We have been pleading with government to honour its obligations but to no avail. Instead, they choose to infringe on the responsibilities of the council and carry out works to city facilities without consulting with or any reference to us. There are numerous instances where those works have been done in a shabby manner. This approach by central government and its agents is unlawful and wrong. It derecognises separation of powers, and true democratic governance.

Also, some big businesses continue to default on their civic responsibility to the city and we will address this soon with an attempt to remedy based on the law. If the government did the right thing and pay its taxes to the city then we would be in a position to provide better services and stay on schedule with our maintenance plan. This is not the case.

As I said at previous forums, the city council does not need a bailout we need our taxes; monies owed to us by the government. I use this letter as another opportunity to ask the government to pay its taxes to the city soon! Also, I urge all defaulters to come forward and settle their accounts. We need every cent to provide vital municipal services to local communities.