Bermudians are being asked to accept one of the largest development proposals in our modern history: 250 new residential and tourism units, some of which are on protected land, under the proposed Fairmont Southampton SDO.

The developers promise jobs, investment and a revived hotel. But when you look closely at what has been submitted, those promises rely on vague information, unproven assumptions and costs borne by the public. These long-term costs will not be borne by the developers, who will likely sell off the properties and then be gone.

The problems begin with the SDO itself. Its most basic purpose is to define the type and number of units permitted in each phase. Yet, Phase 1A (“Turtle Hill”) contains no defined unit numbers, while Phase 1B (“Golf Units”) allows for 159 tourism units, even though the overall development is capped at 159 tourism units in total. The document assumes Phase 1A will be completed first, imposes conditions that apply to the entire site, and then states that phases need not be completed in sequence. It even misstates the date of the referenced legislation. These are not minor drafting issues; they go to the heart of what is being approved.

Who reviewed this legislation before it was tabled? As far as we can be aware, no objections or even questions have been raised in the House under the negative resolution procedure, meaning there was no scrutiny given. No one stood up to say the document contained errors that should be corrected before becoming law, or to question the long-term costs to the community.

This SDO also includes a major change, which was not presented during public consultation back in 2023. This is the subdivision of the site into nine lots with no special conditions attached. Once subdivided, the developer can sell these parcels at any time, before or after construction, to whomever they choose. Once the land is sold and the capital extracted, what obligation remains to keep the hotel operating?

Despite the scale of what is proposed, the supporting documentation is thin. The Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) admits its conclusions are based on unverified information supplied by the developer and relies on more than 120 assumptions in place of hard data. The EIA assesses only part of the development, not the full build-out. There is no feasibility study, no cash-flow analysis, and no evidence that the hotel can succeed with or without the residential units. Bermuda is being asked to approve the permanent transformation of an iconic site without the financial or environmental information needed to make an informed decision.

The public has been told that selling these luxury residential units is essential because the hotel “loses money”, yet there is no evidence to support this. If the hotel struggled with 593 rooms before, how will it thrive with hundreds more theoretical units? It was also suggested that the units would help ease Bermuda’s housing shortage. But these units are not intended for Bermudians and the Department of Planning has already confirmed that Bermuda has ample appropriately zoned land for residential development. Our open space should not be sacrificed for what really is a private real estate deal.

Job creation claims also deserve scrutiny. When the hotel closed, approximately 500 Bermudians reportedly lost their jobs. However, claims of renewed Bermudian job creation were not substantiated in the economic assessment. One of the stated paths to profitability is actually “shedding jobs”. Reported comments by the president of the Bermuda Chamber of Commerce point out that workers are already “thin on the ground” before the hotel opens. This may be why its major renovation workforce is rumoured to be mainly Cuban (who we hope are being paid at least minimum wages in their own pockets and are free to leave if they wish).

Meanwhile, the analysis ignores wider economic pressures on our hospital, roads, housing market and already overheated construction sector. At the same time, the SDO grants more than $100 million in tax concessions, including for unrelated off-site developments, with no guarantee of lasting national benefit.

Development can bring investment but it also incurs costs. To date, there has been no comprehensive assessment of what net benefits to Bermuda past hotel SDOs have delivered. Even the figures provided by the economic assessment suggest that less than half of the economic input would remain on-island. In exchange, the public gives up land, tax revenue and even road realignment at no charge, so additional units can be built. The result is more concrete and fewer views.

In addition to the financial costs, this development also brings with it significant environmental costs. The site has been home to more than 118 bird species, including Eastern Bluebirds, which rely on the golf course’s habitat and nest boxes to survive. High-rise blocks and two decades of construction will destroy their habitat, disrupt migration corridors and permanently alter the landscape. Installing a few bluebird boxes will not make up for this.

This development will also destroy a large amount of open space and recreational land that helps define Bermuda’s beauty and enhances our health and wellbeing. The value of green and open spaces to the wellbeing of Bermudians cannot be underestimated. As the old saying goes, “You won’t miss the water till the well runs dry”.

Most visitors come to Bermuda for our scenic green and blue spaces, our natural beauty and the peace this affords. Tourists will not want to stay in the shadow of dense development, dust and noise. Residents near Turtle Hill and Hill Top will face increased traffic, light pollution, loss of privacy and falling property values. Archaeologically significant areas, key to understanding early settlement and the African Diaspora, will potentially be disturbed.

We all want to see the Fairmont Southampton hotel reopen but we should not be forced to choose between an operating hotel and the destruction of irreplaceable open space. The developers’ message amounted to, “approve our 261 units or the hotel stays closed”. That is bullying.

Bermuda deserves development that strengthens the economy without sacrificing our environment, heritage or future. This proposal fails that test. The Senate has the power to annul the SDO and force proper review. For the benefit of all Bermudians, they must exercise that responsibility.

Kim Smith is the executive director of the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce (Best)