KARACHI, Feb 10: Piqued by the city government’s decision to levy a huge infrastructure tax, citizens said on Tuesday that they were neither consulted about the need for mega-projects nor were they told that they would be expected to pay for the maintenance of the projects originally constructed with their taxes.

Speaking to Dawn, a couple of irate citizens said that the projects were routinely touted as the achievement of this or that political party.

The city government has not intimated the public about the imposition of the new tax but has started issuing bills to households. “These taxes might backfire on the government dominated by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, as no such charges are levied on citizens in other big cities of the country,” said a resident from Gulberg.

In addition to charging owners of residential and commercial plots, the CDGK’s municipal service department will also charge owners of push-carts, stalls and cabins for what it describes as use of its infrastructure – roads, bridges, flyovers, parks and underpasses -- and also for benefiting from lights along major roads and in parks and other recreational places in the city.People from Gulshan-i-Iqbal, Federal B Area, North Nazimabad, Gulistan-i-Jauhar and different housing and cooperative societies ridiculed the way the government has found an excuse to add to the burden of the already overtaxed people, overburdened by price hikes and an economic downturn, in the name of Public Utility Charges, or infrastructure tax.

They said it reflected the overall approach of the government. “Isn’t the infrastructure in other cities used by the people, and are they also taxed for it?” was a common question posed by irked citizens. “And what are the other taxes, such as income tax, motor vehicle tax, general sales tax, paid for by the citizens? Aren’t most parks charging entry fees? Visit the Safari Park with your children, for instance, and you will know how much you pay to the city government under various heads.”

A citizen from North Nazimabad said: “We are not ready to welcome such taxes and request the CDGK and the provincial government to reverse the decision and rather curtail their own expenditures, most of which have no justification whatsoever.”

It was on June 25, 2008 that the then acting nazim, Nasreen Jalil, had notified the rates approved by the city council about PUC vide its Resolution 364 of June 2, 2008, with a note that for push-carts and cabins the rates would be according to the weight and volume; the upper floor of a residence would be divided into six categories and would be charged only if it was rented out or used for commercial purposes; for the flats with the consultation of the relevant union, 15-20 per cent of maintenance charges being collected by the union would be paid to the department as utilities charges, and no extra burden would be put on the residence.

It was further mentioned in the notification that in addition to the rates prescribed in the case of industrial and commercial lands, divided into eight categories, and amenity plots (industrial areas) divided into three categories, there would be some extra imposition of fee for units generating non-hazardous garbage.

According to insiders, the requirements of the notification and some limited working done by a relevant committee constituted on March 6, 2008 indicated that the government originally wanted to introduce a fee for the collection and disposal of solid waste only and the latest plea that the fee pertained to the use of infrastructure was the result of a ‘brainwave’, particularly in a situation when despite its efforts the city government failed to launch a solid waste management programme with the collaboration of a Chinese firm according to the schedule it had finalised about a year ago.

However, the district coordination officer (DCO) of Karachi, Javed Hanif Khan, told Dawn that the idea of imposing a fee against infrastructure use was not strange, “particularly in a situation when the CDGK was not collecting any fees against its different municipal services”.

He said that charges fixed by the city government were “very nominal” and were not being imposed quietly. “We have been working on the new fee (PUC) system since July last and have now found it viable to go for recovery against utilities and infrastructure,” Mr Khan said, adding that the charges should not be related to ‘solid waste collection’ only.

However, union councils or the KWSB collecting the solid waste lifting charges or conservancy and fire fees from the residents across the city have not stopped doing so or decided any future line of action. Duplication of taxes and fees are being feared due to inaction on the part of the bureaucracy and administrative bosses, said a citizen.

The city government’s EDO for municipal services, Masood Alam, said there was “nothing damaging” in the fee plan. “We have been in the process of meeting the requirements for the introduction of the new levy system and collection of proceeds during the months after the council’s resolution.”

Replying to another question, he said the amount of money being collected as utility charges was much smaller than the quantum of work done in the recent past and facilities provided to the citizens.

The outsourcing of billing against infrastructure and solid waste collection has been done now. The assigned firm will not only be responsible for issuing bills to about 1,000,000 plot holders, but also for reconciling the accounts with the banks and providing the CDGK the list of defaulters every month so that action could be taken against them in line with the Land Revenue Act, Mr Alam said.

However, he failed to give any answer for not floating any official declaration about the collection of the PUC in advance, and said that serving of bills to consumers was itself an intimation of the levy.