IT IS unfortunate that the Prime Minister has had to intervene to bring some clarity and meaningful dialogue in respect of the planned imposition of a toll system for the Portmore leg of Highway 2000. We say unfortunate because the previous belated intervention by his minister with portfolio responsibility, Robert Pickersgill, only made the waters more murky and added to the general discontent which many residents of the area have about the proposed plans.
Simply, the government is faced with the dilemma of managing urban sprawl, its contribution to traffic congestion and finding a transportation system that meets the needs of commuters from a dormitory community.
In the instant case of Portmore, the arguments for and against the imposition of the toll fall in three main categories namely that (1) the construction of the highway should greatly ease traffic flow; that it has to be paid for and a toll system is the best method identified to date; (2) that many residents find this an unreasonable imposition and have rejected suggestions that the Mandela Highway is a suitable alternative; and (3) that the construction of the highway will also better facilitate new infrastructure and commercial developments that should benefit residents of the area.
Amid the smoke swirling around the debates, there has been the emergence of clear partisan agitation at several levels which threatens to further obfuscate the real issues.
Activist supporters of the country's two main political parties have tried to hijack the discussions one set trying to intimidate those who are opposed to the toll as a matter of principle or for economic costs, and the other side adding fuel to the fire of discontent as they see the potential for political gain against the governing party.
Many people in Portmore are not interested in either of these cynical games. What is also clear is that among the most ardent supporters of the toll system are people who do not live in the area and seem unwilling to entertain the thought that opponents of the toll system may have a valid point. Elsewhere in this publication we present reasoned arguments by a few of our letter writers pointing to the good and bad in the proposals that should be considered by all parties concerned.
We urge the government that in attempting to sell this project it should also be wary of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, for it will only undermine goodwill.
The suggestions, for example, that major development in commercial activity is dependent on the highway expansion for which there must be a toll, will not go down well with people who know that many of these commercial plans have been travelling the bureaucratic pipeline at snail's pace and there is little reason to believe there will be acceleration anytime soon.
Discussions about the possibilities and the way forward are best done in an atmosphere devoid of arrogance, partisan one-upmanship and exploitation. Let's hope for reasoned dialogue in this new round of talks.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER
