debosky:

Collecting tolls before the road is completed is criminal - they haven't done enough work on the road to merit toll collection and this is a very welcome decision.

To those scaremongering about how this is driving investment away, it won't - it shows that the investors must have a better business plan than doesn't include attempting to milk Lagosians before carrying out scheduled work.

If the lack of toll collection causes LCC to default on loans, then they had a very poor business/cashflow plan to begin with.

Fashola has taken the right decision by not bulldozing his way on this decision. It is reprehensible that people start paying for a service they have not started receiving.

When the road is completed (or a sizeable portion thereof) people will accept the cost of paying a toll, but not on a road that has been worsened in the short term.

Whether it was aimed at gaining political favour or not, it is the right decision to make.

Are you joking? You change the terms of a contract after you sign it and you expect investors who lose money on the deal to come back and sign another agreement with you? Would you do the same thing sir? Just asking.

montelik:

Thank you my brother. Whenever people point out that good things cost money and the Lagos state government needs money. I always tell them that if they don't pay taxes, I do and I know how much goes into their coffers. Yet they (local and state governments) can't show what the vast amounts many people are paying to them is being used for. Yet like Oliver Twist, they continue to ask for more.

then do something to stop them
(the government)

montelik:

Thank you my brother. Whenever people point out that good things cost money and the Lagos state government needs money. I always tell them that if they don't pay taxes, I do and I know how much goes into their coffers. Yet they (local and state governments) can't show what the vast amounts many people are paying to them is being used for. Yet like Oliver Twist, they continue to ask for more.

So what do you think they are using the money for since you know how much the state collects?


You ever asked yourself who is paying thousands of state agency workers like LASIMRA

LASEPA

Lagos state public works corporation

LAGOS STATE RADIO SERVICE

LAGOS STATE SCHOLARSHIP BOARD

LAGOS STATE SIGNAGE & ADVERTISEMENT AGENCY

LAGOS STATE SPORTS COUNCIL

LAGOS STATE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (LASTMA)

LAGOS STATE TREASURY OFFICE

LAGOS STATE WATER-WAYS AUTHORITY

LAGOS STATE WOMEN DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

LAGOS WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (LAWMA).

Who pays the ministry workers?

Who pays the judiciary?

Who pays the teachers?

Who pays the legislative?

Who pays to keep the light on in government offices?

Who buys official state vehicles and machinery?

Who builds the hospitals?

Who builds the schools

Who builds the low cost housing estates?

Who builds the water works?

Who builds the maternity centers?

Who is building the water jetties?

Who is building the parks and recreational centers?

Who is building the ten lane Badagry freeway?

Who is building metro rail?



And lastly, who is taking care of 18 million Lagosians with a lousy 2 billion dollars yearly budget? All you noise boils down to 2 billion dollars a year and it's peanuts in terms of the state's obligations and population demands.



In many countries or cities with superb infrastructures and less than half of Lagos state's population, their yearly budget is hundreds of billions of dollars and they still have to raise money via bonds and other financial instruments to catch up, fend off or service deficits.  

Even many of these cities are not starting from scratch like Lagos, they are practically building on top of developed and existing infrastructures.


For Lagos to adequately develop, the state have to post at least 100 billion dollars yearly budget, not the lousy 2 billion you are crying about.


Many of you have so much to say, but you don't know anything about public administration, obligation and finance.

kulutempa:


Are you joking? You change the terms of a contract after you sign it and you expect investors who lose money on the deal to come back and sign another agreement with you? Would you do the same thing sir? Just asking.

Many of these folks have no clue. I don't even think they understand the what's going on and the implications of their shortsightedness.

It's nothing but ignorance and they are basically working against their own interests.

This leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Just bloody politics (smart though). All these "patriots" and "experts" complaining about the tolls dont have a clue. Una go come forum dey make emotional and uninformed posts. Only Nigeria people want the good things and are not willing to pay for them. PS: I live in lagos.

jerseyboy:

You do not toll in the middle of urban residencies. No one should pay tolls for simple everyday ordinary task as going to the super-market, dropping kid off in school, going to the bank etc.

Then maybe the government should just leave your roads alone and let you stew in traffic gridlock, spend 10 hours on the road to get to your kids school and your super markets.

kulutempa:


Are you joking? You change the terms of a contract after you sign it and you expect investors who lose money on the deal to come back and sign another agreement with you? Would you do the same thing sir? Just asking.

If there are terms that the owner (LASG) find unsuitable, then they can renegoitate - contracts are renegotiated everywhere so stop acting like this is some unheard of situation.

Tax regimes are changed from time to time and contracts can be renegotiated - Brazil recently changed the ownership terms of oil found in the Santos basin but foreigners are still rushing in to sign.

Besides, why must LCC start collecting tolls with the minimal work they've done? That is criminal in my opinion and trumps any contractual issues you might come up with.

babapupa:


Many of these folks have no clue. I don't even think they understand the what's going on and the implications of their shortsightedness.

It's nothing but ignorance and they are basically working against their own interests.

Come up with a concrete justification instead of these same empty words. Why should LCC collect tolls without the roads being functional? If they have such a long lease of 20 years, why should one year or revenue reduction suddenly destroy everything?

If there is a message here, it is that the people of Nigeria will not be taken for a ride under the cover of keeping to contractual agreements.

In the bigger picture, this is the first time such an agreement has been put in place - it is only natural that slight adjustments will be made over time as more information is available. No one has said they won't collect tolls forever, the take off date for collection has been suspended.

debosky:

If there are terms that the owner (LASG) find unsuitable, then they can renegoitate - contracts are renegotiated everywhere so stop acting like this is some unheard of situation.

Tax regimes are changed from time to time and contracts can be renegotiated - Brazil recently changed the ownership terms of oil found in the Santos basin but foreigners are still rushing in to sign.

Besides, why must LCC start collecting tolls with the minimal work they've done? That is criminal in my opinion and trumps any contractual issues you might come up with.
Come up with a concrete justification instead of these same empty words. Why should LCC collect tolls without the roads being functional? If they have such a long lease of 20 years, why should one year or revenue reduction suddenly destroy everything?

If there is a message here, it is that the people of Nigeria will not be taken for a ride under the cover of keeping to contractual agreements.

In the bigger picture, this is the first time such an agreement has been put in place - it is only natural that slight adjustments will be made over time as more information is available. No one has said they won't collect tolls forever, the take off date for collection has been suspended.

So what are they charging for? For cars to fly in the sky or on some imaginary road? You are not making any sense?


Exactly what adjustment and information are you looking for? Please be specific and quit throwing meaningless words all over the place.

Like I said, maybe the government should have ignored the people in the area and the hardship they go trough driving for endless hours everyday till when ever they have enough taxpayers funds to build the roads.

LCC is a contraption of politicians trying to fleece the peoples money; why don't they construct an entirely new road and charge toll? Useless, wicked LCC and they had the effrontery to send me sms that as from so and so they will start charging.

@debosky,
Correction, it`s for 30yrs and not 20. Also, who are the real owners of LCC.

If i may correct, especially my compatriots in diaspora, nobody wants anything free in Lagos on in Nigeria, what we are saying is `WHY PAY TOLL ON A ROAD YOU ARE PAYING TAX FOR`, The tax regime in lagos is the heaviest in the whole of Nigeria, Lagos has an IGR of abt 15-20billion naira monthly of which Tinubu`s Alpha Consulting collects 2billion naira of monthly. Why do we have to fund tinubu`s political structure with our hard earned money as tax and now toll.

luvinhubby:

 @debosky,
    Correction, it`s for 30yrs and not 20. Also, who are the real owners of LCC.

Thank you sir - this makes the outcry even more ridiculous. Even if a one year suspension is placed on the toll, how can that 1/30th of the income (less than 4%) result in the defaults and everything else? If it is so delicately balanced, then I repeat the financial plans are not sufficiently robust.

babapupa:



So what are they charging for? For cars to fly in the sky or on some imaginary road? You are not making any sense?

Let me break it down for you - the work that has been done so far does not merit toll collection. People are still spending inestimable hours in delays because of construction and should not be expected to pay tolls in addition to that inconvenience. Let them complete a phase of the work with obvious benefits to the road users and there will be less of an outcry on paying tolls.

Exactly what adjustment and information are you looking for? Please be specific and quit throwing meaningless words all over the place.

The adjustment is clear - suspend toll collection till a clear easing of traffic and actual demonstrable benefit to road users. Collecting tolls before benefits can be seen is not going to fly.

Regarding information, can you define with specifics, what impact a suspension (e.g for a year) of the toll will have on the finances of LCC?

- how much income will be lost for that year, the expenditure for that year and profits/losses would be a good start.

If I were LCC, I would go to the government, accept their suspension but ask for an additional year at the tail end of the concession to make up for the current 'loss'.

Like I said, maybe the government should have ignored the people in the area and the hardship they go trough driving for endless hours everyday till when ever they have enough taxpayers funds to build the roads.

The government is not doing LCC a favour - they are a BUSINESS so they intend to make a profit from this so stop making it seem as if it was a benevolent act. LCC is not a charity doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and are intent on making a big profit. However, it is my opinion that they should delay toll collection for a while longer till the benefits of the road construction begin to trickle through.

debosky:

If there are terms that the owner (LASG) find unsuitable, then they can renegoitate - contracts are renegotiated everywhere so stop acting like this is some unheard of situation.

Tax regimes are changed from time to time and contracts can be renegotiated - Brazil recently changed the ownership terms of oil found in the Santos basin but foreigners are still rushing in to sign.

Besides, why must LCC start collecting tolls with the minimal work they've done? That is criminal in my opinion and trumps any contractual issues you might come up with.
Come up with a concrete justification instead of these same empty words. Why should LCC collect tolls without the roads being functional? If they have such a long lease of 20 years, why should one year or revenue reduction suddenly destroy everything?

If there is a message here, it is that the people of Nigeria will not be taken for a ride under the cover of keeping to contractual agreements.

In the bigger picture, this is the first time such an agreement has been put in place - it is only natural that slight adjustments will be made over time as more information is available. No one has said they won't collect tolls forever, the take off date for collection has been suspended.

Have you ever heard of the phrase  "breach of contract"?  That is effectively what the government is doing and I think it may be a good idea for you to google it so that you have a full understanding of what it means .  Now let me put it this way:  would you prefer to make an agreement with someone who keeps changing and renegotiating its terms after the contract has been signed to someone who doesn't?  Again, just asking.

mrjingles:

This leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Just bloody politics (smart though). All these "patriots" and "experts" complaining about the tolls dont have a clue. Una go come forum dey make emotional and uninformed posts. Only Nigeria people want the good things and are not willing to pay for them. PS: I live in lagos.

You live in Lagos but you haven't told us what you do for a living. Living in Lagos doesn't automatically qualify you to understand the pains of the vast majority of Lagosians? The road for God sake is in the middle of the city and that is the only route for the residence can go in and out and then the governenmt will start taxing them for a toll. I will rather prefer the government includes the cost of the road it their income tax, so that you know you have paid directly into the the government. This will restrict people movement. Just imagine how much it will cost an average family in a weak to go in and out.

This is just not fair.

kulutempa:

Have you ever heard of the phrase  "breach of contract"?  That is effectively what the government is doing and I think it may be a good idea for you to google it so that you have a full understanding of what it means .  Now let me put it this way:  would you prefer to make an agreement with someone who keeps changing and renegotiating its terms after the contract has been signed to someone who doesn't?  Again, just asking.

Enough of the condescension - if LCC is so aggrieved, they can go to court and seek damages. It is not necessarily a breach of contract as you do not know if this change has been agreed between LCC and LASG behind closed doors.

In case you missed it and only went off half cocked at the headline, this is what LASG has said.

the government said it would use the intervening period to address the financial implications of the suspension with the concessionaires and their financiers to maintain the integrity and investor-friendly posture of the administration

That shows that LCC will be carried along with the change and any financial impacts will be addressed.

In addition, this was said:

Gbeleyi added that the government would also take advantage of the period to work with the LCC to ensure that the road works advanced considerably and that alternative routes pledged by the state government were completed.

He said, “This will ensure that road users who desire not to pay tolls have the option as well as the benefit of enjoying a significant part of the completed road sections.

With this comment, the government has come to its senses - whether the fault lies with LCC or LASG is immaterial to me - the issue is that Lagosians should not be forced to pay tolls without seeing a benefit upfront.

How many changes have been made for you to make a claim of 'keeps changing and renegotiating'? I believe you are overstating the impact of a temporary delay to toll collection - this is an alarmist tendency and is not based on evidence. Unless of course you can provide evidence of frequent changes.

It is my opinion that benefits of contracts with Nigerian governments far outweigh the difficulties caused by contractual changes - especially on deals of this magnitude.

debosky:

Enough of the condescension - if LCC is so aggrieved, they can go to court and seek damages. It is not necessarily a breach of contract as you do not know if this change has been agreed between LCC and LASG behind closed doors.

In case you missed it and only went off half cocked at the headline, this is what LASG has said.

That shows that LCC will be carried along with the change and any financial impacts will be addressed.

In addition, this was said:

With this comment, the government has come to its senses - whether the fault lies with LCC or LASG is immaterial to me - the issue is that Lagosians should not be forced to pay tolls without seeing a benefit upfront.

How many changes have been made for you to make a claim of 'keeps changing and renegotiating'? I believe you are overstating the impact of a temporary delay to toll collection - this is an alarmist tendency and is not based on evidence. Unless of course you can provide evidence of frequent changes.

It is my opinion that benefits of contracts with Nigerian governments far outweigh the difficulties caused by contractual changes - especially on deals of this magnitude.

Nice try Debosky, but I am not going to fall for your bait of turning things personal, and hurling insults. I asked you a simple question and I am glad that you have now answered it by saying you that you think there is nothing wrong with contractual changes involving big deals. That must sound like sweet music to the investors financiers and improve their cash flow projections, and confidence in the project, doesn't it.

kulutempa:

Nice try Debosky, but I am not going to fall for your bait of turning things personal, and hurling insults.   I asked you a simple question and I am glad that you have now answered it by saying you that you think there is nothing wrong with contractual changes involving big deals.  That must sound like sweet music to the investors financiers and  improve their cash flow projections, and confidence in the project, doesn't it.

I have hurled no insults, I simply said you should quit acting like you're the only one who knows what contracts involve. Now we've cleared that up, let's continue the debate.

Contractual changes occur in big deals - only a naive and idealistic person would expect otherwise. There is no real precedent for this type of contract or concession in the history of Nigeria and as a result, any reasonable observer or businessman should expect that the initial contract will never be perfect and will require adjustments over time.

To act as if ANY change to the initial contract will chase away investors is scaremongering. There are mechanisms for making such changes and registering displeasure with such changes. To act as if they don't occur in other climes is unrealistic.

Unless anyone can provide evidence of the terrible damage this is doing to LCC or investor confidence, I will rely on LASG's statement which states that any impacts will be discussed and resolved.  No need to act as if it's the end of the world.

That aside, I still feel it is the right decision - the citizenry MUST be carried out if this project is to succeed and if subsequent projects are to receive public support.

Fashola shouldn't have postponed the evil day, what he should have done was subsidize it or close other loop holes. Those of you complaining we want good things but don't wanna pay for it, how much do we earn? to pay such! You cant start taking the good areas of the civilized society and then say "You see, Nigerians dont want progress"

* Where are the jobs?
* Where are the living wages??
* Where are the unemployment benefits for those who have no job because govt doesn't know how to create jobs but knows how to tax people.

You dont bring tax bullshit and dump it on the table and say here is change, because u demolished some few houses and built some few roads, especially when these taxes are not properly priced and without input of stake holders!, it doesn't work like that. Govt invest in its people and reap the benefit immediately later in form of taxes when the people stand tall and are able to fend for themselves through govt created jobs, private investment or by self employment, enabled by basic infrastructure and loan available with out god-father-ism.
But!, When a govt who's been asleep for more 45 out of 50yrs of our independence pops up one day and say "we have landed change has come to Nigeria, come and pay taxes so we can keep up the good work" Seriously?? are u kidding me!!! If we wanna copy the successes of the West lets do a complete copy and not a suiting one that benefits the govt and brings pain to the people. Many of these toll gates fees, are in proper considering the mathematical formula used in arriving at it, proper consideration wasn't made to what the bus drivers can afford and even still govt didnt not deem it fit to wipe out touts (agberos) who extort drivers with unimaginative fees! if the touts were wiped the trickle effect of toll fees on the masses and bus drivers won't be felt.
Tho! Fashola is without doubt the most performing governor in Nigeria as of today, he need guidance because I think he can do better, I am angry because I politics in the suspension of the toll fees. what difference does it make today or tomorrow or next yr after the election?
If Fashola was a governor in a state here in America, he will not stand a chance of coming third in next year's election! Its only in a country were leaders wickedly deprive its people with impunity that we fall over heels for leaders who give us 10% of what we actually deserve.

^^
Sensible post.
I think it's only the unaffected that can buy this no-other-way story, in a country where relentless stealing is the order of the day.

The area in question is devoid of any government amenities anyway. No access roads, no drainage, no water, no power, no nothing. All because people who have invested in that piece of real estate are said to be rich enough to afford toll, and all the other vagaries. Horse-shyt.
I will pay toll, only after the government seeks and receives my consent to the arrangement. I'll give government consent after government shows the people of the area their master plan for the development of Ibeju-Lekki. Not just add an existing lane to a road and slap three toll gates on it. I guess that's how it is done elsewhere. We appreciate what Fashola is trying to do, but he's got to do it right.

We just finished a meeting of the "Lekki toll resistance" and the agreement is that there will be a press conference at the Ebunolu Adegoruwa's Chambers at Lekki Phase 1 (just after This Present House). You can come in through Lekki phase 1 admiralty way or the former 2nd roundabout.
The Press conference is for 10 AM prompt. We need as many people as possible who area against this Slavery to come and show their presence.
Those who want the road tolled are welcome to come and explain to us why we don't deserve a free road to go to our houses and take them to the schools we pay heavily for since LASG has abandoned Eti-Osa.

We may look a rag-tag army now and Tinubu may even buy all the media houses (they are refusing to carry our stories and grant us interviews even with Cash payment) but we know we are fighting a good cause and God that delivered our ancestors from SLAVERY will deliver us and destroy our oppressors.

I will offer a few more information for those who think we are fighting a useless fight

Even though the road has been concessioned, the Lagos state government (LASG) has actually committed N5 billion ($42 million) of tax payers to the project and this facts sits pretty on the website of Standard bank and Mr. Fashola said that much in one of his investor road shows in the city of Dubai.

http://corporateandinvestment.standardbank.co.za/sa/news_centre/news_centre.jsp?from=recent&mediaid=313

http://www.lagosstate.gov.ng/index.php?page=speechdetail&spid=324&mnu=governor

When the Lekki toll proposal was brought up in the executive council meeting during Tinubu's era, 90% of those in attendance including Mr. Fashola voted against it but it was vetoed.

In any PPP, there is always a value for the existing asset (even NITEL has) but the Lekki road was given a zero value. We know in actual sense that there was a value collected but used to execute Fashola's election.

They will only expand ~25 Km of road and construct median for the remaining 24 km at a sum of 50 Billion naira.

This will be the fight that will define Fashola's tenure and also the fight that will give LAgosians back their state from one Godfather.

Please vote out the ACN House of Rep Member from Eti-Osa for even allowing this to go on for so long. They need to know that no Godfather can save them!


see link below for more info

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-572178.0.html

Well said.

jacobs123:

I will offer a few more information for those who think we are fighting a useless fight

Even though the road has been concessioned, the Lagos state government (LASG) has actually committed N5 billion ($42 million) of tax payers to the project and this facts sits pretty on the website of Standard bank and Mr. Fashola said that much in one of his investor road shows in the city of Dubai.

http://corporateandinvestment.standardbank.co.za/sa/news_centre/news_centre.jsp?from=recent&mediaid=313

http://www.lagosstate.gov.ng/index.php?page=speechdetail&spid=324&mnu=governor

When the Lekki toll proposal was brought up in the executive council meeting during Tinubu's era, 90% of those in attendance including Mr. Fashola voted against it but it was vetoed.

In any PPP, there is always a value for the existing asset (even NITEL has) but the Lekki road was given a zero value. We know in actual sense that there was a value collected but used to execute Fashola's election.

They will only expand ~25 Km of road and construct median for the remaining 24 km at a sum of 50 Billion naira.

This will be the fight that will define Fashola's tenure and also the fight that will give LAgosians back their state from one Godfather.

Please vote out the ACN House of Rep Member from Eti-Osa for even allowing this to go on for so long. They need to know that no Godfather can save them!


see link below for more info

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-572178.0.html

that was right on point. The road in question is not worth it. The road is only about 25% complete. I mean the stretch from Sandfill to Marwa is nothing compared to what lies ahead. How many lanes is LCC adding to the existing? Where are the alternative routes? Yet they want to collect tolls. Come on, if civilization means anything, this plan must met with stiff resisitance.

123 and Debosky  i support you  and will atend this meeting. pls indicate the date.
what is the purpose of government?  it seems the LASG believes it is doing us favor by carrying out their duties.
adding one lane to an existing lane and tolling it is criminal.
let LCC build another road and then toll it or pack thier bags and leave the road.
lets faCE IT EDUCATION  , we are on our own
power ,health  etc  we are on our own.
tolling a residential road is criminal

@PhysicsQED and babapupa

You have good arguments regarding tolling of thoroughfares in modern metropolises around the world. Even here in the liberal enclave of California (California is not as liberal as people think, but that’s another subject), the state was at the forefront of the private toll-road program since 1986. And it was by legislation. However, quite a few of the PPP toll roads that were built at the time have since gone bankrupt or have been taken over by public agencies. The toll-road model has worked quite well in other US states, as PhysicsQED correctly noted.

But the BIG difference here – and I believe this is the argument of objectors to tolling the Lekki expressway – is that private toll roads and public structures of similar genre around the world were built from scratch by their private investors. They acquired the land and paid compensation to land owners in the right of way, built the toll road and supporting infrastructures, operated and maintained it.

The Lekki expressway, objectors to tolling contend, was built with taxpayers’ money. The concessionaire simply improved the road (admittedly) and then set about fencing the tolled section such that you are compelled to use their tolled section, even for making short trips within the neighborhood in which you reside or run a business. They further contend that the government has failed to provide an alternate route for motorists who do not wish to use the toll road. The second argument, in a court of law, is a winner, if indeed the government has failed to provide an alternate route to the toll road. It would amount to what lawyers call forced patronage (as opposed to voluntary patronage). Without providing an alternate to the toll roads, the state government is essentially holding them hostage to the commercial interest of the toll road concessionaire, objectors to tolling say. It is an abrogation of the state's municipal duties and a winning argument in court.



Diversion:  Private toll-way operators and their collaborating governments have three patronage models they follow:

a) Forced patronage, which I described earlier. In some form of “forced patronage” the private entity constructing the road may ask its partnering government for a no-compete clause in the PPP agreement. The clause may prevent the partnering government from constructing relief roads that may compete with the private toll road and thereby starving it of traffic and revenue. The inclusion of such a clause in the PPP agreement lead to the demise of one of the pioneering private toll roads in California in 2002, after political outcry threatened to undo the whole PPP scheme in the state.

b) Patronage based on convenience or relief to a congested corridor. Here, a private entity builds an adjunct road in a congested traffic corridor to provide relief to motorists who are willing to pay for the convenience of lighter traffic en route to their destination.

c) A third model is patronage based on restrictive geography. This is a case where the geography compels you to use the toll ways. Good examples are the toll bridges that connect the northern and eastern parts of the San Francisco Bay to the city and to the technology enclave of Silicon Valley. One may bypass the tolled bridges going into San Francisco (there are four of them), but it will cost an extra hour or so in traffic. There is convenience attached to this model, also.

debosky:

I have hurled no insults, I simply said you should quit acting like you're the only one who knows what contracts involve. Now we've cleared that up, let's continue the debate.

Contractual changes occur in big deals - only a naive and idealistic person would expect otherwise. There is no real precedent for this type of contract or concession in the history of Nigeria and as a result, any reasonable observer or businessman should expect that the initial contract will never be perfect and will require adjustments over time.

To act as if ANY change to the initial contract will chase away investors is scaremongering. There are mechanisms for making such changes and registering displeasure with such changes. To act as if they don't occur in other climes is unrealistic.

Unless anyone can provide evidence of the terrible damage this is doing to LCC or investor confidence, I will rely on LASG's statement which states that any impacts will be discussed and resolved.  No need to act as if it's the end of the world.

That aside, I still feel it is the right decision - the citizenry MUST be carried out if this project is to succeed and if subsequent projects are to receive public support.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious but since you have requested for evidence, please find below a letter written to the Spanish Government   by investors following the proposed reduction in Solar energy tariffs by the  government in  May 2010.  You may think solar energy generation is different from  toll roads but the fact is that they are both concessions granted to investors by governments.  The full link is at

http://finance.blogs.ie.edu/archives/2010/06/proposed-spanish-retroactive-reduction-of-solar-pv-feed-in-tariffs.php

D. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, President of the Spanish Government
Copy to: D. José Enrique Serrano, Chief of Staff of the Presidency
Madrid, May 27, 2010

Subject: Proposed Spanish retroactive reduction of solar PV feed-in tariffs

Dear President,
We are a group of international investors and investment managers who invest longterm
capital on behalf of global pension funds and insurance companies whose beneficiaries
are millions of workers – both governmental and private – around the world. Collectively we
hold investments in Spanish solar photovoltaic projects with a value of about €3 billion.

These projects have been financed with nearly €400 million of our clients’ and shareholders
funds and with approximately €2.6 billion of loans from Spanish and European banks. Our
investors seek low-risk, regulated assets, thus we made these investments relying on the
regulatory assurances of the Spanish Government that the Solar PV tariff under Royal Decree
661/2007 would not be changed or reduced during the life of these projects.

In recent weeks, it has been reported that the Spanish Government might be considering to a
reduction in the Royal Decree 661/2007 tariff for legally built and operating projects,
including those owned by us. Having followed previous tariff negotiations for new renewable
energy projects, we are inclined to believe that such an outcome is not likely. However, as
the Spanish Government has not publicly ruled out retroactivity, we have heightened
concerns that Spain may in fact be considering such an unprecedented and potentially
damaging step. We want to register our strongest possible objection to the consideration of
any such retroactive reduction. It would result in the loss of all or nearly all of our
shareholders’ funds and clients’ pension and insurance funds invested in the equity of these
projects. A substantial portion of the debt funds lent by international and Spanish banks
(including some of the more constrained Cajas) would also be lost and it could have very
serious long-term ramifications for Spain’s ability to attract foreign investment
We believe that there are serious implications to Spain of a retroactive tariff change. We are
sure that these have been considered, but in the event that they have not, they could very
well include:

1. Loss of Investor Confidence in Spain.
Our investors include many of the largest pension funds, insurance companies and
sovereign wealth funds in the world. In addition to investments in renewable energy
through us, they make other investments in Spain and Spanish companies – Spanish
government bonds, Spanish corporate bonds and listed and private Spanish equities.
They are aware of the threatened changes and the impact on their investments. They
have made it clear that we should not seek further investments in Spain until the matter
is settled, and make no further investments if retroactive changes are made because it
would lead them to conclude that Spain does not offer a stable regulatory environment
or is respectful of foreign investment. Thus, investment decisions are being delayed
whilst this uncertainty persists and in the absence of decisive action by the Spanish
Government to clarify that such a step will not be taken

$3 billion sounds like  a big deal to me.   I rest my case for loss of investor confidence.

kulutempa:

I would have thought it was pretty obvious but since you have requested for evidence, please find below a letter written to the Spanish Government   by investors following the proposed reduction in Solar energy tariffs by the  government in  May 2010.  You may think solar energy generation is different from  toll roads but the fact is that they are both concessions granted to investors by governments.  The full link is at

http://finance.blogs.ie.edu/archives/2010/06/proposed-spanish-retroactive-reduction-of-solar-pv-feed-in-tariffs.php

D. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, President of the Spanish Government
Copy to: D. José Enrique Serrano, Chief of Staff of the Presidency
Madrid, May 27, 2010

Subject: Proposed Spanish retroactive reduction of solar PV feed-in tariffs

Dear President,
We are a group of international investors and investment managers who invest longterm
capital on behalf of global pension funds and insurance companies whose beneficiaries
are millions of workers – both governmental and private – around the world. Collectively we
hold investments in Spanish solar photovoltaic projects with a value of about €3 billion.

These projects have been financed with nearly €400 million of our clients’ and shareholders
funds and with approximately €2.6 billion of loans from Spanish and European banks. Our
investors seek low-risk, regulated assets, thus we made these investments relying on the
regulatory assurances of the Spanish Government that the Solar PV tariff under Royal Decree
661/2007 would not be changed or reduced during the life of these projects.

In recent weeks, it has been reported that the Spanish Government might be considering to a
reduction in the Royal Decree 661/2007 tariff for legally built and operating projects,
including those owned by us. Having followed previous tariff negotiations for new renewable
energy projects, we are inclined to believe that such an outcome is not likely. However, as
the Spanish Government has not publicly ruled out retroactivity, we have heightened
concerns that Spain may in fact be considering such an unprecedented and potentially
damaging step. We want to register our strongest possible objection to the consideration of
any such retroactive reduction. It would result in the loss of all or nearly all of our
shareholders’ funds and clients’ pension and insurance funds invested in the equity of these
projects. A substantial portion of the debt funds lent by international and Spanish banks
(including some of the more constrained Cajas) would also be lost and it could have very
serious long-term ramifications for Spain’s ability to attract foreign investment
We believe that there are serious implications to Spain of a retroactive tariff change. We are
sure that these have been considered, but in the event that they have not, they could very
well include:

1. Loss of Investor Confidence in Spain.
Our investors include many of the largest pension funds, insurance companies and
sovereign wealth funds in the world. In addition to investments in renewable energy
through us, they make other investments in Spain and Spanish companies – Spanish
government bonds, Spanish corporate bonds and listed and private Spanish equities.
They are aware of the threatened changes and the impact on their investments. They
have made it clear that we should not seek further investments in Spain until the matter
is settled, and make no further investments if retroactive changes are made because it
would lead them to conclude that Spain does not offer a stable regulatory environment
or is respectful of foreign investment. Thus, investment decisions are being delayed
whilst this uncertainty persists and in the absence of decisive action by the Spanish
Government to clarify that such a step will not be taken

$3 billion sounds like  a big deal to me.   I rest my case for loss of investor confidence.

Spains have a King and a President. This your letter looks fishy.

Tsiya:

Spains have a King and a President. This your letter looks fishy.

Oh please. That is why I put on the link so that you can check things out for yourself. All you need to do is click on it.

Its a scam by tinubu, his cronies and companies!

kulutempa:

Oh please.  That is why I put on the link so that you can check things out for yourself.   All you need to do is click on it.

It is a letter written by a Professor of a school that caters for business men, and what should you expect from him other than stuff like this.

You have to understand, profit by private organisation should be not the fundamental priority of government.

Renogotiation of terms and conditions of contracts and loans, is not a new thing. businesses do that on daily basis that is why they have legal departments.

Businesses invest in risk. LCC invested in this project with the hope of political backing, that is the risk they should take. Making foreign investors rich at the detriment of the masses should not be the priority of government.