Managing a country is never easy. Managing a country in transition is even more challenging as the pace of change varies, sometimes slow, sometimes fast and according to Murphy’s law, anything that can go wrong will go wrong. With change comes policy challenges and communication choices. Which policy options and how best to communicate the choices? How will the messages be received? There are no easy answers. One must simply do the best that can be done in the circumstances.
Last week, there was good news in the positive performance of T&T’s representative at the Miss World competition in India and in the IMF report which projected modest growth even though there is still much to be done. Pastor Brown, a 67-year-old SRP working with the SSA made some troubling revelations which justified the ongoing investigation. A major WASA pipeline failed, piling additional pressure on an already weak water infrastructure. Then there were property tax issues which resulted in an emergency bill. There were the customary high crime dramas led by the “House of Horrors” followed by a shooting rampage at Harpe Place, East Dry River in Port-of-Spain, during which five people including a police sergeant were killed.
Pastor Brown's revelations are troubling and raise several questions about the lack of oversight. Who will guard the guards? This question should have been anticipated and appropriate mechanisms devised and instituted. If they were, what happened to these mechanisms? Until and unless these oversight mechanisms are properly implemented there will be other investigations.
The implementation of the property tax and the proposed amendment to the property tax rate signal another planning failure. Valuing approximately 400,000 properties was always going to create logistical and transparency issues. How many staff are there in the valuation division? And what comparative market data was used to guide the valuation exercise? If none, what rule of thumb principles are employed? None of this information is currently available to householders. Aren’t householders entitled to know? Many individuals have not received Notices of Valuation but have received assessment notices and had no opportunity to object.
It was significant that the minister gave no specifics in his speech. How many notices of valuation have been issued compared to the number of objections? How were the valuations done? And how do the valuations compare between areas? Instead, the minister spoke anecdotally saying “primarily in the middle and upper levels, there have been several cases that the annual rental values were not consistent with expectations of property owners …” an inference with sociopolitical overtones designed to downplay the objections. How did these valuations compare with market rents?
Clearly, there were many objections. The 33 per cent reduction is significant and designed to mollify complainants. Property tax has been around since 2009. This administration has been in office for nine years and has had more than enough time to prepare and plan to implement this tax. A properly planned exercise would have made this data available and subject to empirical testing by reputable valuation practitioners to gain agreement and compliance. The need for planning and organisation applies equally to WASA and the crime situation.
When can we expect an improvement in the methodologies used to address these challenges?