IT'S FAR FROM OVER!

“You will, I know appreciate that as this bridge is being constructed free of cost to the Government, there is a limit to the economic burden that we can place on the new residents of the (Portmore) area, who in effect are amortizing (i.e., paying for) the cost of the structure (i.e., bridge) on the (housing) lands they are acquiring in the area.”

Source: http://www.portmore.org/articles/hiway2000-3.html   (10/09/05)

“It appears that the authorities will have to employ the most creative techniques of persuasion to convince the residents of Portmore to use a toll road along the Causeway at $65 per way.” (our emphasis)

Source: Stone Team Survey Repot, Oct. 2004

source: www.portmore.org/articles/hiway2000-2.html

 Background

The Portmore Toll Road issue came to public attention when Portmore citizens held public demonstrations in response to information indicating that the Portmore Causeway Bride was to be demolished, and the open access road linking the community to Kingston via the Bridge, closed. In particular, citizens objected to the designation of the Mandela Highway as the alternate route in view of the additional distance and travel time due to congestion. At the same time citizens made it clear that they did not object to the existence of the toll road; indeed they welcomed it as a means of easing chronic congestion during peak hours.  Several community meetings were held where citizens voiced dissent and indicated their willingness to challenge the decision of the authorities to close the open access road without providing a reasonable alternative. Consequent to the public expression of dissatisfaction, the Prime Minister indicated that a special committee would be set up to examine the citizens’ concerns and requested that a report be submitted to him within a month. More than six months have since passed and there has been no public mention of the requested report.

Law suits: In the meantime two lawsuits were filed in the Courts. One on behalf of the Joint Portmore Citizens Associations (JPCA) and the Portmore Citizens (Municipal) Advisory Council (PCAC), and the other initiated by political representatives of the JLP on behalf of their constituents. Both petitions have since been heard by the Supreme Court. That filed by the JPCA/PCAC has been rejected by the Court, while a determination in regard to the petition filed by the JLP’s political representatives is yet to be announced.

Law suit dropped:  Media reports regarding the rejection by the Court of the JPCA/PMAC petition was followed by a community meeting to consider possible reactions to the reported decision. The meeting was advised via a representative from the lead counsel’s office that a recommendation would be made subsequent to a review of the written judgment when received. To signal its willingness to appeal the judgment, it was reported in the media that citizens donated over $30,000 at the meeting in support of the expected appeal. This community meeting was apparently followed by a closed meeting with lead counsel at which advice was allegedly given that there was no valid legal basis for an appeal. A press release was subsequently provided to the media which confirmed that no further action would be pursued by the JPCA/PCAC regarding the matter. To date no public meeting has been held with the community to indicate the specific content of the judgment and reasons supporting discontinuance of the matter. These developments have created a public perception that the Portmore citizens’ challenge to the closure of the Causeway bride has fizzled.

Jamaica for Justice. In reaction to the absence of information and a public briefing by their representatives, some citizens held a number of informal meetings to discuss how the challenge might be revived and an appeal was made for suggestions. One was that Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ), a citizens’ rights action group, be approached for assistance. A meeting was subsequently held with JFJ’s executive director on August 26^th and the matter discussed. The executive director indicated that JFJ would be willing to explore how assistance could be provided, but made it clear that any new initiative must be led by the Portmore citizens themselves, and that this required organized community support. The discussion identified two critical issues presented by from the Portmore Causeway matter: 1) inadequate representation and ineffective governance; and 2) social injustice arising from citizens’ right of access to their community.

What is at stake?

The Highway 2000 project can be judged as likely to be a marginally viable project for at least three reasons: (1) the absence of low cost international funding;(2) the existing toll charges; and (3) recent media reports concerning the possibility of a loan from Venezuela to fund the project.

It is standard for infrastructure projects of this size to be partly funded by low interest loans provided either by foreign governments or multilateral agencies. The North coast Highway Project, for example, is partly funded by a loan from Japan. Two mobile telecommunications providers sourced international funds to finance their network construction costs –one from the International Finance Corporation. According to a document (posted at: www.portmore.org/articles/hiway2000-1.html) the foreign contractor is to source 72.5% of the estimated US$283 million of Phase 1 of the project through a combination of equity and commercial debt. Equity is more expensive than commercial debt, and commercial debt is more expensive than bilateral/multilateral debt. The apparent absence of low cost funds alongside the social desirability of the project, suggest that the financial viability of the project is highly suspect, in spite of the assurance of no government guarantee to the foreign investor. Media reports of an appeal to Venezuela for low cost loan funds support our speculation about project viability.

Secondly, the toll highway is a monopoly transport facility since there are no competing providers. It is standard that the regulated prices of essential monopolized public utility facilities reflect ‘cost based pricing’ principles. Otherwise the consumer is exposed to the risk of price gouging due to the absence of competition. In this case, cost would include construction and maintenance costs and the toll charge should allow the operator to recover costs plus a reasonable rate of return on investment. Maintenance costs should account for the ‘wear and tear’ from individual vehicles. In turn, ‘wear & tear’ depends on vehicle weight and the number of tyres ‘gnawing’ at the road surface. A reliable measure of the number of tyres per vehicle is the number of axles. But in this case, toll charges also account for vehicle height, which has nothing to do with ‘wear and tear’. What this clearly points to is a need for revenue to help shore up the financial viability of the project.

This is where the closure of the Portmore Causeway comes in. It is most unlikely that toll charges which exclude the expected revenue contribution from Portmore residents, can justify extending the highway beyond May Pen due to the sharp decline in traffic volumes. If the project is marginally viable, then the revenue to be extracted from Portmore via toll charges becomes critical to the build out of the project beyond May Pen. Indeed, it is likely that Portmore’s revenue contribution is critical to the entire project. Apparently, very little revenue leakage can be allowed from Portmore, hence the need to literally force (i.e., ‘creatively persuade’ –see Stone Team Report) residents to use the toll road by closing the open access road and providing an unreasonable alternative. To put it simply, no Portmore, no project!

The Highway 2000 project is a very important political project and the cost to the public will be enormous if it proves unviable –there are reports of buyback provisions in the contract if the contractor fails to realize the expected minimum rate of return from toll charges. Therefore, any citizen’s initiative that might threaten its financial viability should expect strong resistance since powerful interests ride on this project. Add to this the interests that benefit (i.e., eat a food) from the construction of the project and what you have is a powerful, highly motivated coalition ready to confront the Portmore community.

Issues

1.      Representation

The determination of a toll and the decision to close the Causeway seem not to account for the concerns of the citizens of Portmore, and their elected political representatives appear not to have advocated on their behalf. The failure of local citizen leaders to report back to citizens has raised speculation about betrayal and collaboration with the political directorate which has a vested political interest in the project. The adequacy of representation needs to be strongly questioned and political consequences considered by the Portmore community.

2.      Social Justice & Right of Access

To issue a Ministerial directive without consulting with the affected community is anti-democratic, not to mention authoritarian. To deny a community the right of open access to an existing road facility, apparently paid for via home mortgages (see quote above), without making adequate provision for a reasonable alternative is unjust -even if the law allows it. The stipulated alternative is burdensome and unreasonable both in terms of cost and travel time. Peak hour travel time considerations alone indicate that the Mandela Highway option is unreasonable.

3.      Risks & Long Term Commitment

Given the political significance of the project and the strength of the political interests tied to it, plus control of the state machinery, and the ease of politicization of criticism of public policy, there are significant risks to any citizen who volunteers to lead any challenge to the Ministerial directive. Leadership can expect to be targeted, to weaken and break resolve, and these include risk to livelihood and person, and extend from low-level, to high-level threats. For the Portmore community to ignore these risks is not only idealistic but foolish. History provides a classic example in the case of the Wellington Glades Citizens Association when the receipt of a bullet in an envelope was sufficient to silence complaints from the head of the association about construction nuisance. The community can expect that its resolve will be tested, and should be prepared to stick unflinchingly to the cause even where bribes are offered –possibly in the form of a promise of a lower toll. It also goes without saying that a long-term commitment by the community is required –perhaps as much as 10 years.

4.      Organisation & Support

The need for organization to sustain leadership support and facilitate coordination of action does not require argument. Communications to persons involved in pursuing the challenge suggest the likelihood of strong national support. It is also possible that international support may be forthcoming since a host of government affiliated and non-governmental organizations in developed countries exist that are concerned with the deepening of democracy in developing countries. Indeed this is a position that is supported by the World Bank via its Social Capital – Civil Society Initiatives. However, support is only likely to be forthcoming if the initiative is driven by the citizens of Portmore themselves.

Finally, the Portmore Toll Road issue raises many other questions that relate to the adequacy of the Toll Act, in particular, whether a Minister should be given the power to make a declaration affecting citizens without being mandated to conduct a public proceeding where affected parties can register objections in writing, and a written response provided. If such a procedure was followed in this case, there would be a clear paper trail to follow. If citizens failed to register objections there would be no legitimate basis for complaint, however if they did and the response was inadequate, or the matter avoided, then, asking a Court to review the matter should not be problematic.

While not all questions need be pursued, Portmore can set an example to the rest of Jamaica about how to go about improving the quality of governmental decision making through citizen activism. If the largely middle-class, and reported relatively high concentration of persons with tertiary education residing in the community cannot set an example, what should be expected of the frustrated, unorganized mass of our fellow citizens who lack education, organizational skills, contacts and have difficulty articulating their views? While a few individuals can start an initiative it is unlikely to gather momentum and be successful if it is not ultimately supported by the community. It is therefore critical that the community provide some signal regarding its willingness to make the next move. Portmore it is now time to consider what then that move should be                         TOP