IT IS NOT AN EASY MATTER doing business in Jamaica. But to foreign investors it must be particularly exasperating. By now the French, and especially their construction firm, Bouygues, which has the concession for the construction and operation of Highway 2000, may have adjusted to the Jamaican way. That doesn't, however, mean that we should want to go on this way and continue to be mired in confusion, mismanagement and inefficiency that have characterised the Government's handling of the issue of the toll to be paid for the use of the new bridge over the Kingston Harbour, linking the capital to the Portmore municipality.
This bridge is to be opened in mid-July and there is still much angry haggling between the Government and the residents of Portmore over what they will have to pay to traverse the causeway. The administration has indicated that the outer band for motor cars, using the pricing formula under its agreement with Bouygues, is $79, and substantially higher for larger vehicles.
The actual rate that commuters in cars will be asked to pay will be about $60, unless the Government decides to subsidise the use of this portion of the highway, which would further stress its ability to narrow the budget deficit ahead of achieving a balanced budget in the next fiscal year. Yet, Portmore residents have insisted that they will pay no more than $30 for the use of the road and bridge, a less tough position from their previous hard-line position of not paying at all.
What is particularly worrisome is that this conversation is taking place now, with the maximum toll rates and the invitation for public comment having just been published, so close to the opening of this segment of the highway. Of course, we agree that there has been intransigence, and a substantial dose of partisan politics, wrapped up in the Portmore toll question. But that not withstanding, a sensible
government with a portfolio minister with a modicum of capacity for managing issues, would not have allowed it to come to this. For the administration always knew that this was going to be a tricky issue.
From the time the tolled bridge was mooted, there were complaints from Portmore. When it was clear that the project would go ahead, they went to court to argue, first, to claim prescriptive right to the existing causeway and that they were being denied the constitutional right to the enjoyment of property. They lost.
Another group of residents followed up with a claim that the alternative route from their community to Kingston was inadequate. They, too, lost, but have said they will now appeal to the Privy Council.
Several months ago, the former Prime Minister, Mr. P. J. Patterson, promised to meet the Portmore residents and ordered dialogue with the community. Not much happened.
It seems to us that, given the position of the community, or at least its vocal members, the Government should have long ago published the indicative rates, ensuring the debate that is only now beginning. By now the issues would have been well aired and we perhaps would have had a consensus, no matter the perceived intransigence of the Portmore residents.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
