Facts about Prospect plan

March 8, 2004

Dear Sir,

The recent controversy over the proposal to add 34 residential units at Prospect shows that housing is too important an issue to be left in the hands of politicians.

One can understand that the existing residents are concerned, and that they will be guided by their emotions rather than the facts, but we ought to be able to expect more from our elected officials.

The Housing Corporation, who are the promoters of the project, know the facts, but they have, as yet, not been well articulated. The Opposition would seem not to care about the facts, but are happy to take sides with the residents to score some easy political points.

So, what are the facts?

The scheme proposed for the area provides 20 new two-bedroom apartments by extension over existing units which were built with flat concrete roofs capable of taking a second floor, and 14 one-bedroom apartments added on two levels to seven of the existing blocks.

The additional units can therefore be accomplished with very small additional site coverage. The present site coverage is 16.7 percent. The proposed additional site coverage is 1.2 percent, giving a total of 17.9 percent, compared to a maximum permissible site coverage of 35 percent.

The new units, and 20 of the existing units will be connected to new cesspits. This will reduce the load on the existing, piped sewage system, to which improvements are also planned.

Parking for an additional 46 cars is provided off-street, which will ease congestion and improve traffic management in the area.

The zoning of the site is Residential 1.

The maximum density allowed under the Bermuda Plan 1992 is 20 units per acre, which, for this site of 11.7 Acres, equates to a maximum of 234 units.

The additional 34 units would bring the total number of units to 203, which is well below the maximum permitted density.

New, landscaped, communal open space is proposed along the eastern boundary with good view overlooking the South Shore.

In Bermuda, were land is scarce, it makes good sense to make efficient use of the land which is available. In fact, this is one of the primary goals of the 1992 Development Plan.

The proposed development will help to achieve this objective, and will create a perfectly reasonable standard of living for new and existing residents ? unless we believe that the planners made a terrible mistake when they determined the allowable densities in the 1992 Planning Statement.

A meaningful dialogue between the existing residents and Government has started, and it is to be hoped that, once the existing residents are in possession of all the facts, they will feel differently about this much needed development.

Stung over tickets

March 10, 2004

Dear Sir,

Please reserve me at space in your paper about the Magic Mile Telford Electric event last Saturday at the National Sports Stadium.

Both of my children took part in the big event and I was so proud of them.

This was a Government event to also represent the schools and also for our children to gain an interest in sports.

There was one major problem though: Parking. We have a great sports stadium but parking can be a problem.

I?m sure many supporters that day had a great day until they headed back to their cars to find parking tickets on the windows.

I feel the Police were more interested in how many cars they could ticket in one day, including mine.

I did hear an announcement when my daughter was lining up to complete her run. I sure was not going to miss her first run supporting her school.

When she finished I then returned to my car to move it, and about 15 other cars nearby also had tickets.

I was not blocking anyone or driveways.

I did notice the field just down from Police Headquarters was being opened which I thought was bit late since my daughter had just completed the six-year-old race.

All I can say at this point and I think other readers will agree is that the Police could have assisted more with parking than issuing tickets.

This event is only once a year. Let the public park on their field or on the side of the road by Prospect.

I hope next year you will help us with this situation. Thank you.

Patient bares teeth

March 15, 2004

Dear Sir,

In regards to Immigration cancelling, Periodontal Specialist, Dr. Vogan?s work permit.

To: Dr. Richard Cann The Dental Board and The Department of Immigration, I applaud you in your inept wisdom of putting all of Bermudian patients last in your decision of denying Dr. Vogan?s work permit. You have made the decision not to allow the Bermudian public to go to a specialist, to pay more out of our pockets, to tell us to see a regular dentist, Dr. Dyer, for specialist dental work and the man is not a peridontal specialist and not of our choosing.

Meanwhile those of us with cancelled appointments with Dr. Vogan wait in pain and discomfort. Shame on each one of you in your manipulation and greed at the expense of the public. We are the ones who pay your salaries.

My wish to you all ... may all your teeth fall out!

Feeling short-changed

March 10, 2004

Dear Sir,

For the past 20-plus years Bermudians have been travelling to Barbados for the Test Match. We have had as many as 3,000-plus attending at one time. However, it always seems that every time England is there, Barbados compromises our stay.

This year the compromise has extended even further by us not being able to purchase tickets that have been requested and paid for since June 2003. The Barbados Cricket Association has the audacity to dictate to us as to where we are to sit. This is 2004 ? the 21st Century ? and to think we do not even have a choice.

Most of us, if not all who journey to the Test, basically have the same seat every year. We are very disgruntled by how we have been treated and also how the Barbados Cricket Association has disrespected our travel agents who have had difficulty in securing the tickets requested and paid for in advance. Our agents work very hard to make everything as smooth as possible for us. They do a sterling job.

We can remember during the recession when about 3,000 cricket fans journeyed to Barbados and the Tourism Minister expressed how grateful he was to have us there because we were helping out their economy in a very large way. He showed his appreciation by making an announcement over the radios and on the PA. Systems at The Kensington Oval. In addition, he invited us to a reception for our support.

We can also remember when the Barbadians boycotted a Test there. Guess who showed up for the series? You got it, the Bermudians. Why, because we come to enjoy cricket.

Economically, we always contributed handsomely to Barbados. For instance, if you take 700 persons attending at $165 per person for nine nights, that amounts to US$1,039,500. This is just for the stay alone. Please note this does not include food, entertainment, tickets, car rentals, tours, etc.

So Barbados Cricket Association do not take us for granted and do not take our kindness for weakness. If it has to go as far as us boycotting in some way, then we will.

Another thing, what has happened to Caricom? What has happened to the so-called unity? What has happened to our neighbours to the South? Is it their mentality toward England or is it just about the almighty dollar? but most of all what has happened to just respect?

The decision makers of the Barbados Cricket Association are requested to intervene in this matter and come to a solution which is acceptable to all concerned forthwith.

For a referendum

March 8, 2004

Dear Sir,

I believe that I know why the PLP power-players ? and I do not feel that all PLP supporters are power-players ? do not want Independence decided by a Referendum. They only won the last election by 1,180 votes. Can you imagine 1880 or so deciding Independence? That would not make sense. That would be unfair to the Bermudian people and to future generations. My guess is that the power-players would not mind as long as they got their way.

Before we make this big change to Independence, we must have the support of most of our people, not just the support of a narrow majority.

Bermudians must decided ?Yes? or ?No? on independence as a single and clear one-item issue: Are we for it? Then vote ?Yes?. Are we against it? Then vote ?No?.

To make it an Election issue rather than a single-issue alone, is not fair. It is not democratic because as an Election issue, persons wanting to vote against Independence will have to vote against the PLP because the PLP platform will, it seems, be for Independence!

My guess is that a great number of loyal PLP supporters are not in favour of Independence. It would not be fair for the PLP?s election issue approach to place loyal supporters in a position where, in order to vote against independence, their only choice is to vote against their own Progressive Labour Party. I would not want to find myself put in a position where I had to vote for one party or the other party in order to register my vote on independence. I do not believe that any voter would want that! Imagine, having to vote against your Party in order to say ?no? to Independence? That would not be right!

Independence is an item which, in fairness to all, must be decided by us, Bermudians, as a ?single-issue?. In that way, we will know for sure how Bermudians feel because Bermudians will be free to say either ?Yes? or, ?No to independence. There would be no confusion over party loyalties. This is a ?What is the very best for Bermuda and Bermudians? matter! It is unimportant that the PLP have always wanted it to be a party matter. Independence transcends, or should transcend, all parties.

We would, by the ?single-issue? or referendum approach, decide the most important major change that we have ever faced or, perhaps, are even likely to face ? Independence. We would then be absolutely certain of the true wishes of all of our people.

The true wishes of our Bermudian people may not play into the hands of those leaders who claim to have ?our? best interests at heart. But, the root of democracy is that the people rule.

If you are truly for ?open? government, why how can you not be for a Referendum? Since the PLP government claims to support ?open? government, what could be more open than a Referendum?

Let?s face it, the best way ? the truly Democratic way ? to achieve what all of us who love our Bermuda want to achieve: the best for us all now, and in the future is the Referendum approach.

Please vote as you wish on independence but please also speak strongly in favour of a vote for Independence by Referendum.

Govt.?s role in housing

March 1, 2004

Dear Sir,

As has been repeated many times in these pages, the sole fundamental cause of rising housing prices in Bermuda is the fact that demand for housing is outstripping the supply.

Thus, any proposed solution must focus on increasing the supply of housing. There are only two ways that housing can be increased: either by government construction, or private construction. The Government has and will have a plan; undoubtedly this will involve the Government taking more action, intervening more in the economy, and spending more tax dollars.

Yet Bermudians should be asking their political leaders, and themselves, some hard questions:

Why is it assumed that a politician (any politician) with no education, training, or work experience in real estate (and who has never risked his own money on real estate development) ? should be qualified to formulate and enforce a plan affecting Bermuda?s entire real estate market, with large amounts of taxpayer dollars at his disposal?

Particularly given the Berkeley fiasco and various BHC scandals ? why is it assumed that the Government is competent to be involved in any aspect of the real estate market at all?

In fact, Bermudians should be asking about the innumerable ways in which the government actually hampers and discourages the rapid building of new housing. Why is there not a full-scale inquiry into the role in provoking and prolonging the housing crisis?

How much raw land is in Government hands, and thereby off-limits to private construction? (One estimate is 47 percent of Bermuda?s land mass.)

Why isn?t some of this land being quickly privatised (the Baselands?) to allow entrepreneurs and developers to start building?

How much does the bureaucracy and red tape of the Planning Department contribute to the housing crisis? What is the average delay in construction time caused by the Planning Department, and how much extra cost does this add to the average building? How many projects are abandoned or never started because of the uncertainty?

How much do environmental regulations restrict and prevent new construction? How much does this increase the cost of building?

Why does the Government continue to restrict the height of buildings? (While some may not ?like? skyscrapers, the question is: are you willing to pay hundreds of extra dollars in monthly rent, and hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in house prices, for the privilege of not having to see a skyscraper?)

How much is new construction being delayed by labour shortages in the construction industry, exacerbated by government restrictions on importing foreign workers?

How much are building costs, and hence housing costs, artificially increased by all sorts of taxes?

When the price of a good rises in the market, this is a signal to entrepreneurs to start producing more of that good ? because they will be able to make a healthy profit from doing so. If entrepreneurs and developers are not producing enough new housing fast enough to keep prices down, we must scratch our heads and ask ourselves are they not ? given that it is clearly in their economic self-interest? What is holding them back?

It can only be the heavy hand of government Bermuda?s housing crisis is not a market failure, but a Government failure. The ideal Government ?plan? would be one that attacks all the ways in which government hampers, discourages, and increases the cost of new construction.

Clear the way, and set free the developers and entrepreneurs with the expertise and the capital to get the job done.

Help for adult education

March 9, 2004

Dear Sir,

Please allow me the space in your newspaper to thank all who supported our first Adult Education School Tag Day on Friday, March 5, 2004.

The day was a resounding success but the achievement would not have been possible without all the volunteers who tagged on behalf of the school at various locations throughout the Island. Many of the volunteers came from our senior community and we salute them for their commitment to the community.

Thank you to the businesses who allowed us to tag from their locations and thank you to the general public who made it known through donations and comments that the Adult Education School is supported.