Junior Environment Minister David Burt told the Senate of Government’s sympathy for descendants of families who were forcibly removed from Tucker’s Town in the 1920s.However Senator Burt argued it’s now Government’s job to look after the people of today meaning it needs to try to revitalise tourism with the Rosewood Tucker’s Point development.Anti-racism group CURB had objected to the Special Development Order for the hotel’s expansion, pointing to the history of the site, where dozens of mainly black families were evicted more than 80 years ago in the interests of tourism development backed by Parliament.Opening yesterday’s debate in the Senate, Sen Burt said Government “hears and understands the cries” of those campaigners.But he added: “We are unable to undo the past but we can certainly take steps to ensure the future wellbeing of our people.”United Bermuda Party Senator Michael Dunkley then spoke about the historical significance of the site triggering an angry response from Government Senate Leader David Burch later in the evening. “We need to do a better job at learning our history and preserving our history,” said Sen Dunkley.If the UBP had proposed such a move, he said, the Progressive Labour Party would have objected with “laser-like precision” based on its recent track record.Sen Dunkley then said race consultant Rolfe Commissiong, who has previously helped organise public tours spelling out the history of Tucker’s Point, had “all of a sudden lost his tongue”.“I find that very interesting,” said Sen Dunkley.Sen Dunkley said areas including St David’s had experienced similar incidents in their history, adding: “It’s well known in years gone by black people didn’t get the fair shake they deserved. Women were perhaps in this same category.“We need to make sure we learn. We need to remember the sacrifices of many who have paved the way to where we are today. History is poorly reported and poorly respected. We can do better and we must do better.”Sen Burch later criticised the UBP for making such comments “after almost 13 years of telling us we are too racial, or play the race card at every chance”.He said the PLP is now trying to put right the wrongs of the past and called for people to remember “how we got where we are”.The SDO sets up a proposed expansion of 78 homes and 70 hotel rooms, but has met with strong opposition from groups including Bermuda Environmental Sustainabililty Taskforce (BEST) and Citizens Uprooting Racism in Bermuda.During his contribution, Sen Burt had spoken of his pride that Government was allowing a public debate on an SDO for the first time. “There’s been extreme public scrutiny because of this Government’s actions in making it transparent. It’s been debated at length,” he said.“All Senators have probably had to contact their service providers to ask for more storage space. Whatever decision we reach today, we had a vigorous debate on the subject.”He reiterated Government’s stance that if Tucker’s Point failed it would be a “disaster” for the Island’s tourism product; the development, he said, offers proof that Bermuda is still being sought after.Sen Burt then turned to each of a number of concerns raised by opponents to the SDO in recent weeks, stating:l there will be environmental impact, but conditions will be in place to mitigate it;l the deed of covenant between Mid Ocean Club and Tucker’s Point owners Bermuda Properties Limited which the Mid Ocean Club says prevents development on part of the earmarked land “has no impact on the ability to issue an SDO;l critics were “most unfortunate” to accuse Environment Minister Walter Roban of withholding information claiming the Minister has done everything he can to make the debate open.Sen Dunkley, the president of Mid Ocean Club, had stated the golf club will not allow Tucker’s Point to build on an area of Catchment Hill because of the deed of covenant signed 11 years ago, regardless of the SDO result. He applauded Government for opening up debate on the SDO, but said that would only be any use if it listened to people’s complaints.He pointed to environmental concerns raised by BEST, and said many in the community felt the SDO is helping out Tucker’s Point. Sen Dunkley urged members of Senate to “slow down and get this right before we could have a big problem that our children will have to deal with as we go forward”.He said he slept well every night due to working hard, exercising, praying before bed and maintaining a good conscience.He said it was important to find some common ground in the process last night and make sure they were doing the right thing as “we cannot afford to ruin our environment”.Independent Senator Walwyn Hughes said he has certainly felt his fair share of anguish regarding the SDO and said he has woken up on a number of nights thinking about it.Sen Hughes commended the Government and Environment Minister Walter Roban for dreaming this SDO to the legislation phase.In the end it is about listening to “what your conscience tells you and what you feel is best for this time in this country”.According to Sen Hughes, the public see this SDO as a ‘done deal’ or as an ‘all-or-nothing’ deal, which seems to bother the public.He said it was one of the first times the public has had a chance to look at the terms and conditions of the order and express their views.Development is likely to occur on some, if not most, of the land, which contains native and endemic trees and woods, claimed Sen Hughes. He said: “It’s also clear to me that because some development will occur there [could] be substantial damage to highly sensitive areas.”This will have an “irreversible” impact to nature, coastal and inland reserves not just by construction of homes, but also roads and electricity that will have to be put in.“I am unable to support the SDO. It’s my hope that some sort of step back can be taken and we can find some sort of middle ground where both parties can be, if not happy, more happy than they are.“I am hoping that whatever happens in the debate tonight that all parties will step back, take a deep breath and try to come up with something that does remove this conflict between those that want the best for the environment and those that also want tourism to succeed and those at Tucker’s Point trying to continue with their development to keep Bermuda tourism on track.”Government Senator LaVerne Furbert questioned who the public was that have been protesting the SDO. She said some people had criticised the Government claiming it was “dictatorial”, but said civil servants have been able to email stating their concerns over the development order from their personal web accounts.“Had this been prior to 1998 those civil servants would not be sitting at the desks they are today,” she said.She hit back at claims by Lynne Winfield, of anti-racism group CURB, who stated the SDO was a ‘slap in the face’ to the descendants of up-rooted residents of Tucker’s Town.“I find that very strange because in my research I found that many that lived in Tucker’s Town didn’t live in Tucker’s Point property they lived in Mid Ocean Club property.”She said it was important for people to understand that Tucker’s Point consists of different areas. She said the people that were moved out of Tucker’s Town were slapped in the face a long time ago and many had since passed away. “In fact they do not even have a face any more. They have souls, but do not have a face.”Sen Furbert also hit back at claims by the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce that Tucker’s Point has foreign investment.She said most of the Island’s hotels had some kind of foreign investment agreement, including Elbow Beach and 9 Beaches.Independent Senator Joan Dillas-Wright said she has received as many emails and been approached by diverse members of the community.“It has not been all white and foreigners, I have heard from my family and quite an extensive group of people. As a result of all this disquiet it has not been an easy process or decision for any of us,” she said.She said she met with Tucker’s Point president Ed Trippe, who said he originally intended to build a hotel with 300 or 400 beds.The development was impacted by the downturn in the economy, but Sen Dillas-Wright asked what happened with money gained from the properties that were sold.She said the Island was already over-developed in her opinion, and said: “we need to be helping those hotels already in existence”.Sen Dillas-Wright said: “I am not against some of the building I just have a concern about the extent of the development we are talking about 78 mixed residentials and 70 hotel rooms.”She said people told her making a decision on the SDO was like “carrying the weight of the Island on your shoulders”.Based on the zoning laws of Bermuda, designed to protect the coastal and nature reserves and caves, she said Tucker’s Point and the people of Bermuda had made a covenant.She added: “I am not prepared tonight to agree to this SDO.”Opposition Senator Suzann Roberts-Holshouser said this is a “monumental” issue to many people of Bermuda.She said the decision they made would be make them “accountable to those that come before us and those that will follow after us”.“Regardless of the outcome these [environmental and rallying] organisations have grown stronger in number, including all ages and all races, old and young.”She said these groups of protestors are people that have a love and dismissed. She believed they understood that a “delicate balance” had to be struck between the economy and environment.PLP Senator Cromwell Shakir said: “I’m one of those people that don’t want to encourage us to bring in historical events when we are talking about environmental events.“The emotional debate is a dangerous debate.”Sen Shakir made repeated references to comments from former UBP Minister Jim Woolridge in a debate from 1998.Sen Burch praised the PLP’s democracy in bringing the debate and said the SDO should be supported if only because tourism “must be in the national interest”.Sen Burch said: “I will vote for the SDO today, but do so only because the national interest supercedes my personal misgivings.”UBP Senate Leader Jeanne Atherden said Bermuda doesn’t have a national tourism plan.“In the absence of a tourism plan, I just can’t turn around and say that I feel comfortable that’s in the interests of a national importance and a national priority,” she said.Sen Atherden was cut short when Sen Burt said he wanted to “rise and report progress”, adjourning the debate to a date to be fixed.