JAMAICA ENJOYS a special relationship with the United States, which we deeply cherish. The tens of thousands of Jamaicans who make their home in the United States or visit that country annually help to prove the point.

We can only assume that the U.S., too, considers us to be good and worthy neighbours and reliable, if not acquiescent, partners. Indeed, the size and sophistication of the recently completed U.S. Embassy in the Liguanea area of Kingston suggests this to be the case.

But good and strong relations notwithstanding, we wonder whether, in retrospect, Jamaican planning and regulatory authorities were not far too lenient in their allowances to the U.S. for its Kingston mission. Perhaps the same could be said for other missions in the capital.

Recently, Kingston Mayor, Desmond McKenzie, had cause to express concern about the impact of the embassy on traffic in the Liguanea area. As would be expected, the embassy, particularly its consular offices, has drawn more traffic, vehicular and pedestrian, to what is already a very busy area. Scores of people use the facility each day, and we expect the numbers to swell during the summer months.

But the embassy was built without accommodation for parking by its general clients. And according to the Consul General Ed Wehrli, as was reported by this newspaper, none will be made available. Mr. Wehrli claims that there is adequate parking space in the area. So, no problem!

The Americans would clearly have many good reasons, not least the matter of security in the post-9/11 world, to regulate and limit parking on its compound. But Mr. Wehrli obviously has a different perspective on the general availability of parking in the Liguanea area than we, as we believe the vast majority of his clients do. Indeed, there are malls and plazas with substantial parking facilities in relative proximity to the U.S. Embassy. But these were established primarily for the customers of the businesses that operate in these plazas.

Indeed, the provision of parking space is usually a requirement of the construction permits of commercial buildings, as well as apartment and townhouse complexes. There is usually a correlation between occupation densities and parking requirements.

We expect that there would have been similar requirements for the U.S. Embassy, whose parking is behind security walls and not available to the general public who mostly use its services. That, to us, is a shame - on the part of the regulators and on the part of the U.S.

Mr. Wehrli is correct that the embassy is in a location that is accessible to the users of public transportation. But we would also insist that a large number of the people who use the services of his office and the embassy generally do not use public transport. He and his colleagues would want to service them efficiently and in comfort, in which it has gone part of the way. But not in parking, unless it is available on people's lawns and in their driveways.

This absence of parking facilities at foreign missions is not just a problem at the U.S. Embassy. The problem exists, too, at the German Embassy and Canadian High Commission, both buildings of recent vintage.

But then, we can always park in tow-away zones and retrieve our cars from the vehicle pounds - at a fee! There is more than a passing element of contempt in how the public is being treated in this regard.