March 27, 2011Dear Sir,Throughout the TP SDO debate and its endorsement, one singular and pervasive commentary has persisted.RACEWhy?Why didn’t we act on our acknowledgement that we were about to further exhaust green space?Why didn’t we admit that in granting the SDO, we would cause the decrease of native birds like Cardinal, Catbird, Ground Dove, Morning Dove and Vireo, and thus cause further increases in destructive species such as Sparrow, Starling and Kiskadee? We chose to further exacerbate the decline in Eastern North America migratory songbirds - already under siege through relentless loss of wintering habitat in the Caribbean. (The whole area in question is significant to wintering migratory woodland birds).Why aren’t we admitting we were prepared to ignore proven and informed judgment?Why wouldn’t we declare it more conscientious to develop brown field ground?We should have objected to the SDO on the basis of our collective admission that it would be harmful to us in the long term.But instead, ethnicity came extremely close to centre stage over what should have been an easy decision. It was more important to conclude the matter on the basis of personalities and pigmentation. Even some of the spectators who were objecting to the SDO, (were they somehow prompted to admit wrongful deed), must acknowledge culpability.Instead, by our actions, we have shown we remain incapable of consensus, and in so doing we’ve missed an opportunity to stand out as a people more interested in ACTING GLOBALLY.On this premise alone, I DO NOT support the current Government of Bermuda.STEVEN DESILVASomerset