Over the last few days, the public has been enlightened on details of the secret contract signed between the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) and Smart City Solutions (SCS) for parking meters, which had been withheld from the public eye and had escaped public scrutiny, until now.
This revelation came on the heels of protest action, spearheaded by civil society activists, the Movement Against Parking Meters (MAPM), and supported by concerned citizens and businessmen who collectively called for a revocation of the project. As pressure mounted, President David Granger then changed Government’s position and said that he believed now that the rates were high and that there should have been certain parking exemptions from the inception. However, Government had initially maintained that it was not going to intervene into the matter as it was giving the M&CC its independence to run the city.
The Government had remained silent on the matter until it finally announced that it would undertake a review of the contract. This brings us back to the crux of the matter, the now infamous contract. Since the signing of the contract, the document has been closely guarded with Council members only allowed viewing. After concerns were raised, Cabinet directed that the contract be reviewed by the Finance Ministry and the Attorney General’s Chambers during which it was found that most of the terms are overwhelmingly in favour of Smart City Solutions and contains a ‘terror clause’. The media got wind of the contract and subsequently exposed the deal for what it was: a burden which was foisted upon the citizens and which was agreed to and implemented without proper consultations.
Now there is public outcry as the details of the deal emerge, which justify the previous concerns over division of profits, the exorbitant amount being charged for parking, the development, as well as the terms of the agreement, and the credibility of the company undertaking the initiative. Stakeholders had earlier pleaded with the M&CC to revise the initiative, pointing to the fact that the contract may have violated tender procedures. To add to the mounting muddle over the entire deal, Smart City Solutions has now come out swinging in defence of the contract and through its spokesperson, has challenged the accuracy of the media’s publication and has even questioned the legitimacy of its obtaining the contract. SCS is claiming that the subject of the commercial content of this contract and its publication has been under public scrutiny for many months. The company maintains that the media and the general public were well aware that the original contract itself had been substantially amended to accommodate Government and public concerns, and pointed to advertisements which outlined these amendments. SCS noted too that anyone’s publication of the contract has violated the confidentiality clauses of the contract itself, and which means, in effect, that the possession of the contract by anyone not so authorised represented misappropriation, and certainly that public dissemination of the contract triggered legal implications resulting from any such misappropriation. Is SCS, therefore, attempting to intimidate the local media from highlighting unfavourable clauses of the contract that will affect the lives of citizens?
Despite the ongoing deliberations over the contract, the clauses and the consequences of revealing the details, and the back-and-forth among stakeholders, there is still a collective call for the scrapping of the deal, which has proven to be bad for business. Whether they will heed this collective call in the end is uncertain; however, officials have announced that the parking meter rates are set to be slashed by half. While many are rejecting the implementation outright, the Council is now saying that rates would be reduced to VAT inclusive for 15 minutes or about 0 per hour. In addition, the booting fees and how long after expiration time should vehicle wheels be clamped are still being examined by City Hall and Smart City Solutions. However, they have also announced that the parties would be examining ways of offering complimentary park-and-ride and garage parking. While the battle over the parking meters ensues, MAPM members and other civil society members have vowed that they would not give up their struggle for the contract between the M&CC and SCS to be revoked. It is unlikely, therefore, that these concessions will sway the public resolve.
