The Dutch St. Maarten Taxi Association and Airport Taxi Association will be in Parliament today (see related story) for a Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT) Committee meeting to discuss their concerns and suggestions.
They had earlier expressed apprehension about government’s Public Transport Improvement Plan including a clean-up of the current inventory of taxi licences and discarding supposedly inactive ones. In particular the notion of lifting the 2014 freeze on permits met with opposition because of a presumed lack of work.
TEATT Minister Arthur “Leo” Lambriex recently clarified that the intention was never to take away anything from anyone. He spoke of possibly “amending” the moratorium by re-evaluating the number of licences actually in use and associated plates collected.
According to him, some had been dormant for more than three years or were only partially utilised with fewer vehicles than allotted, while the holders of others are deceased. The minister argued that issues in the sector remained unresolved and they wanted to ensure fair and equal opportunity for all while meeting the expectations of tourists and locals alike.
He was quoted as saying, “When it comes to our locally-born children of the soil of whom many have been without available options of expanding their transportation business, or for some not able even to start at all as in many cases they are stuck having to rent the plates required from third parties … .”
Lambriex also pointed that several taxi locations – including the airport and cruise terminal – are under the helm of associations that can choose to accept or decline more members.
It should be interesting to hear what representatives of taxi drivers have to say about all this. Perhaps they can also address the proverbial elephant in the room, namely whether permitting “Uber” or similar services in the country is even an option.
If so, the socioeconomic impact certainly needs to be considered. It could allow regular folks to make an extra buck, but most likely jeopardise people’s current livelihood.
When proposals for a centralised bus company came up years ago the argument was made in this column that the existing system of independent operators, although not all areas are covered, functioned fairly well and many – except for those employed by the new company – would simply lose the earnings their families depend on. Especially in such a small community, that’s probably not worth it.
