Why Bermudians should listen to Sir Ronald's views

March 15, 2005

SIR Ronald Sanders comments about the subject of Independence and the merits of a referendum versus a General Election being held to decide the question are most revealing (Mid-Ocean News, March 11). Every Bermudian should pay particular attention to his views for he speaks with considerable authority with his vast experience in the Caribbean and an authority on small states in the global economy.

There are a number of comments he made that are worth repeating:

"Bermuda is self-governing with a very high degree of control over its own affairs."

"Bermudians are entitled to be both Bermudian and British citizens with the right to live and work in the European Union as a whole."

"Its population enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, equivalent to that of the United States of America."

"The territory derives its income from financial services and tourism. Other contributors to its success are: a stable political climate, successful courtship of foreign investment, good legal machinery, and sound macro-economic policies."

"Of the British Overseas Territories it enjoys more self-government than any other, and it does not have to bear the cost of its external relations and defence."

"Caribbean and Pacific small states can readily attest to the high and increasing costs of maintaining security and participating in international affairs, as well as to the lack of human resources to carry out the tasks."

"If years of experience has taught the Caribbean Community countries that 'going it alone' is not a viable option in today's global community, Bermudians should be given the right of a referendum to choose their path."

"In trying to convince the electorate to go for Independence most politicians, of small states, who are in favour of Independence, will put forward the argument that because they are small they do not have to have all the trappings that a large country has" (this last argument was even put forward by certain members of the United Bermuda Party at the time of their Green Paper).

When the Bahamas became Independent their first ambassador to Washington was a university classmate of mine. He was not only the ambassador for Washington but also ambassador for the United Nations and the High Commissioner in Canada. He told me that he found this arrangement not arduous at all. When he retired from these positions the Prime Minister then appointed separate ambassadors to the three positions.

When researching for the Green Paper it was revealed that the Bahamas had advanced to having representatives throughout the Caribbean and Central America, as well as a High Commissioner in London and representatives in Belgium and Germany. Politicians start off in a minimal way but then seem to have to find "jobs for the boys"! The self-aggrandisement knows no bounds! The taxpayer picks up the cost.

In going Independent Bermudians would give up the advantage of being both Bermudian and citizens of both Britain and the European Union and able to work in both, and travel freely in both. They would give up the protection afforded throughout the world of being able to contact the British representative for assistance if in need.

Do Bermudians want to have the burden of responsibility for External Relations and Defence?

If Bermudians are forced to make a decision on whether or not to go for Independence it is logical and more democratic to have the process of making that decision through a referendum. To quote Sir Ronald Sanders again: "A referendum is not only desirable but prudent", particularly should Bermudians want to continue to enjoy the advantages of the status quo.

DR. C.R. TERCEIRA

Pembroke

Misguided project

March 10, 2005

SELDOM have I been more annoyed reading of the Minister of Tourism's misuse of his Cabinet weight to lend some sort of boost to the tragically misguided Dolphin 'Oasis' project.

He is, however, quite right to point out he is not an environmental expert. He is also clearly not in the least compassionate towards highly developed fellow mammals, which I find very surprising for a human doctor, or should I perhaps rephrase that more correctly to 'doctor of humans'?

One shameful display of captive dolphins is quite enough, and does nothing to enhance the tourism product. Adding another will indeed draw negative attention to a community, which is supposed to be educated and genteel.

No Dr. Brown! This is tourism we neither need nor want. It will cost us far, far too much in terms of the environment and animal welfare. Decent, educated people will not be lured to Bermuda this way, any more than would instituting bear dancing in St. George's Town Square.

Since there are many others across all sections of the Bermudian community, who feel the same about this issue, you may rest assured we shall rally all the support we can get to oppose this sustained physical and emotional cruelty to marine mammals.

We shall go from schoolchildren to senior citizens campaigning against the proposed imprisonment of magnificent, intelligent creatures in a frantic attempt to breathe life into your ailing patient, 'Tourism'.

ANIMAL DOCTOR,

City of Hamilton

@TIMES-18:What is he on about?

March 7, 2005

DON'T get me wrong, I quite like the guy, but what an earth is Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton on about? I think there should be some considerable giggling in the back rooms of the Halls of Power.

Whoever it was that wrote his recent speech on the topic of foreign-owned land in Bermuda must be a definite advocate of both the new 'Social Agenda' and mind-bending propaganda techniques, no matter how foolish the person parroting their subliminal ideas might appear. It is reminiscent of good old Mr. Orwell and other mind-setting tactics used in the last World War . . . well, maybe not quite that severe!

I refer to Mr. Horton's tirade on the unscrupulous Bermudians who are "fronting" for the not-to-be-blamed foreigners . . . after all, they are just getting the best deal they can.

I don't know a lot about the machinations of these schemes. But it appears to me to boil down to this. A Bermudian (or group of Bermudians) decide to purchase some land to develop.The property in question could be a modest plot in an average, overcrowded area or an area large enough for a Bermuda-sized Ponderosa in the middle of one of the Mid Ocean Club's fairways, depending on their pocket, nerve, contacts and 'pull'.

They could decide to build lower-cost, cluster style buildings for the needy, would-be new home owner. But no! Not enough profit per acre. So they decide to build dressed-up versions of that option but call them 'luxury' condominiums and sell them off at probably the most profit per acre for multiple dwellings.

The other option, the Ponderosa one, means that whoever is going to buy the land and the structure thereon is 'gonna have to pay big time' to enjoy that much space and luxury in THAT particular location on our Rock.

This is where the quandaries facing the profit-minded 'unscrupulous' Bermudian kick in.

In order to find the funding, what should our little group or individual do? We've got the land. We've got the builders and craftsmen. We've got the architects and engineers and, well, yeah we've got Planning permission, it's a go! Oh hang on we still need money . . . more money than we've got to buy materials and pay bills in order too attain that Holy Land of profit and stature.

Now, again our little group has to think. We had better go down to see the bank or another private backer and lay out our plans. But apart from us having to pay all this money out to GIVE people employment and actually do some work, WE are going to have to share the Holy Land of our profit with the bank or other backer. Hey! and don't forget those real estate guys. They'll want their chunk too.

The light bulb suddenly comes on. Somebody has been thinking. Hey, we need the money, why don't we find somebody from overseas to get interested like the Government does and the hotels? That way we can get what we want at much lower rates and if that entity wants to rent one of these places or buy or rent the Ponderosa, then we get a much better deal and everybody is happy.

There are a couple of people who have invested in the very expensive (out of the reach of us locals . . . we couldn't afford the electricity bills let alone the land tax) places kicking about the island.

It all seems a bit tawdry and sordid doesn't it? Making blatant profits by selling off pieces of our little Island? It would never occur to us that for the last 20 to 30 years (some may say much longer) a small number of Bermudians have been engaged in 'unethical' (depending where you are sitting), money-grubbing activities.

I remember the days when friends would give up their time to help each other out, maybe helping to building homes or using their physical efforts and skills for church or charity work. It's only in fairly recent years that Joe Blow could engage in some of these profit making enterprises, especially to develop property and land.

Previously these activities, at least those of any consequence, were carried out 'conspiratorially' and quietly by a select few. One only has to look in town at the redevelopment of commercial properties to see where the dollars are . . . past, present and future. Those properties are certainly not for housing, really, not for retail; they are for long-term, prepaid (financing?) leases to foreign entities. That seems to fall outside the equation or terms Mr. Horton used.

Look! I do not purport to know the answers; I am not really blaming anybody but it seems that if you've already got it, that's OK. If you haven't, then we are sorry but tough. Unfortunately this policy shift seems to go directly against the grain of the newly minted Utopian Social Agenda. Thank God the exempt companies and others still have enough faith to stay.

But I have a few questions. Why didn't Mr. Horton castigate the banks and other local money renters (I believe one is supposed to call them 'institutions'? I don't think so. In my simple mind institutions are like St. Brendan's and the L.C.C.A). They provide the monies to develop pristine land and renovate buildings and make practically (as near as possible) risk free, very profitable loans.

They are really happy because they make a good profit and don't have to lift a block or lose a night's sleep. Before they'll rent you money, they practically own you, the land, your assets and anything else (including usually a life term insurance policy) that you may possess in case anything should happen to you and, therefore, their profit. They also (I'm sure) garner fees and commissions for directing you to the prescribed agencies and lawyers.

Anyway, why is it such a sin for an individual or a group of individuals to get and use overseas money to finance a project (invariably to develop or renovate or change use) when they have all the same ducks in a row when they go to the banks to do it.

After all, the banks borrow US dollars, lend them to Bermudians and others, charge you their rate plus a hefty 'initial loan commission' and pocket the difference. But don't sell your shares in the bank yet because when the foreign interest rates go up noticeably and it starts to affect their margins, the banks and others will increase your variable rate mortgage . . . for your convenience. Until you don't have a job and nobody can afford to pay their mortgages and then they are going to own a lot of unsaleable property and unpayable mortgages, God forbid!

INSOUCIANT

Smith's Parish