Dear Sir and fellow citizens of Bermuda,

Perhaps someone would kindly explain to us why the Minister of Finance is choosing to use the unlikely but potential flooding from a Category 4 hurricane as an excuse to build a new airport, which we can ill afford?

It is even more difficult to understand because the Airport Master Plan 2006 states that both the new terminal and LF Wade International Airport will equally require flood barriers to protect them from hurricane flooding. It states the solution for both is building a berm along the shoreline as a flood defence. The only difference being that for LF Wade International, it comes in at nearly half the cost ($1.1 million) as opposed to the new terminal ($2.2 million).

Wade’s berm would be “limited to the shoreline between the waste management facility and the Causeway”. In the case of the new terminal, they would build:

1, The same berm as for LF Wade International

2, An extra berm from the Causeway along Ferry Reach to the east end of the runway

Thus, according to the plan, the berm that protects LF Wade International would be also required to protect the new terminal.

At the Cathedral town hall meeting some six months ago, Bob Richards highlighted ten reasons, per its fact sheet, for going ahead with the new terminal. These ten reasons were not mentioned during the recent One Bermuda Alliance presentation. Now it seems the main argument for the new terminal is potential flooding. This, I suggest, is because the original ten reasons were all irrelevant to the argument for a new airport as opposed to refurbishment of LF Wade International.

It is true to say that in nearly 70 years of being in operation, our airport has suffered only one significant flooding, during Hurricane Fabian. A $1.1 million berm would have stopped that.

Will the OBA ever provide any substantive reasons to justify building a new terminal? Similarly, will it ever list the significant problems that need to be fixed at LF Wade International, together with the costs, so that we can see which option is the most value for money.

After all, the finance minister tells us almost daily that we are nearly bankrupt. When I was practising as a chartered accountant, I always understood that in near-bankruptcy, we must restrain spending/borrowing unless it is essential. If Bermuda defaults, it will be very difficult to borrow further or to refinance our national debt.

Don’t you think it would be safer to delay a $367 million terminal expenditure — $250 million principal, plus $117 million interest over 15 years — until such time that we are not so close to bankruptcy?

Would you borrow to buy another house when the bank was close to calling your loans?

YOU NEED TO KNOW, MBA, CA