Outstaying his welcome

October 5, 2005

Dear Sir,

Surely the Premier can do better than this. Is he really trying to squirm around his blatantly racist comments by saying that he was really referring to ?divisive agents? and that ?those who look and sound like Mr. Brannon? is not a reference to race but to his countenance?

He even quotes Shakespeare ? an authority on current word usage ? as a way of showing that his use of ?look? has ?never been used to connote race?!? So when Renee Webb said she would like to see more people who ?look like [her? was she referring to their attitude? He is being disingenuous.

The Premier has outstayed his welcome. I had high hopes for him when elected and chose not to believe what others said about his duplicitous and deceptive nature. Now I am simply saddened that I was taken in by it. Maybe we can find a leader in one of the parties who wants us ALL to unite and face the future together instead of dividing us himself for political and electoral capital. The question becomes ?who will lead us??

Bursting the bubble

October 4, 2005

Dear Sir,

I read with interest my friend John Zuill?s take on the Premier?s email. John?s comments, while food for thought, missed the point: as leader of the community the Premier?s bubble is supposed to encompass the community and not just those who agree with him. If a politician does their job right, they represent the best interest of the community as a whole ? not just their pals.

His attitude is a sad betrayal of his duties to the community. Leaders must be held to a higher standard.

Mega-ship solution

September 4, 2005

Dear Sir,

This is an alternative concept for accommodating the larger cruise ships being considered for Bermuda.

Instead of each of the destinations, St. George?s, Hamilton and Dockyard, having to provide separate access and facilities for one or more vessels, all cruise ships (three or four) would be berthed at Dockyard where new and purpose designed services would be available to cater to the needs of even the largest size. Such grouping is normal in other cruise ship destinations and, with any imagination, could solve most, if not all, of the problems being discussed concerning the need for larger ships.

A substantial amount of the money saved on the St. George?s and Hamilton alterations would need to be allocated to a major make-over of the Dockyard destination to provide entertainment for those passengers on days they prefer to stay near their ships. Land outside the Dockyard perimeter would be acquired or reclaimed to build a state of the art Lido comprising a large pool or lagoon with a beach (man-made if necessary) and paved areas for sunbathing. Shops, cafes and bars, all set in a tastefully designed and furnished sub-tropical landscape would exceed most people?s expectations of a day at the beach. Fun activities such as water slides, putting greens and children?s play areas would be included as would commercial water sports and trips. Taxis and horse and carriages would offer local tours. An outdoor ?Hollywood Bowl? type of entertainment area would provide our local musicians with a good audience and a place for Bermudians concerts out of season. Anyone doubting whether cruise passengers would be attracted to such a Lido should go to see Tobacco Bay and its crowded beach when the ships are in.

In this scheme of a first class ferry service would be essential to transport passengers from Dockyard to two destinations ? Route 1 to St. George?s and Route 2 to Hamilton. It would be a simple choice and the average traveller would probably opt for a day at each of the three destinations.

The advantages to the Dockyard of this scheme are obvious and dramatic. So too are the benefits to St. George?s and Hamilton outlined below and mostly shared by both:

1. If about a third of the cruise ship passengers can be productively entertained in Dockyard at anyone time, overcrowding in St. George?s and Hamilton would be alleviated and there would be up to 4,000 less people travelling anywhere.

2. The large cruise ship population would be travelling between the prime destinations almost exclusively by water thus reducing road traffic. No extra bus stations, buses or taxis would be needed, although at each terminal, taxis and horse drawn carriages would ply for hire as at present.

3. No dredging, blasting or widening of approaches to either town would be needed nor would the present, or proposed future, passenger docks be required. Much upheaval and environmental damage would be avoided.

4. Whereas compliance with severe security requirements which might arise from terrorist activity could be almost impossible for the roadside berths of St. George?s and Hamilton, there can be few destinations with the potential security Dockyard can offer.

5. Without cruise ships, the infrastructures of St. George?s and Hamilton which have been overstretched could revert to their former lighter loading. Corporations can then concentrate on the needs of their residents in planning new, and probably smaller, sewage plants.

6. The quality of life of the Town?s residents would be greatly improved by the removal of late night upper deck entertainment and engine noises and the greasy black smoke which settles everywhere. St. George?s would become a better place to live and tourists to stay.

7. Both towns would be free to design more human scaled and tourist friendly waterfronts. St. George?s could become a calmer, more pedestrianised town closer to its image as the centre of an 18th Century Heritage site. The work of the St. George?s Foundation would become more evident, appreciated and supported without the negative overlay of cruise ship razmatazz.

8. Without the manoeuvring of large ships in our harbours and ensuring safer conditions for small craft, St. George?s in particular, could develop its leisure boating and marina business in a lake like environment.

9. The Panamax vessels proposed for St. George?s and Hamilton are, by current standards, modest in size. In an industry in which ship sizes have doubled every ten years they too could soon be regarded as outdated and uneconomical. What would these towns then do? Dredge and widen again?

10. On the other hand, with all cruise ships at Dockyard, ample provision could be made for still larger vessels and if, in spite of this the cruise business left Bermuda, we would be left with useful docks and a fine Lido we could turn to good use. What we would not be left with is the irreparable damage to the beauty, ecology and environment of our Island by ill-advised channel cutting.

As with other proposals, this plan will have its opponents. However, a decision must be made on the basis of what is best for Bermuda and the quality of life of its people. No amount of extra income can justify the forfeiture of the things which form the basis of our happiness.

If Government accepts this, it must recognise that their decision could involve the Corporations of St. George?s and Hamilton in losses of revenue they desperately need and be scrupulously fair in compensating them from the additional Dockyard receipts.

East Broadway disgrace

October 5, 2005

Dear Sir,

East Broadway is supposed to be the gateway to the City of Hamilton.

For the last three months we have had an apparently homeless gentleman take up residence on the benches of this thoroughfare. Often, bags of his possessions are piled around his bench, in the mornings he is either asleep or reading the morning paper, in the afternoons he is relaxing topless on the bench.

For the last three months, through the peak of our tourist season, this is the sight that has welcomed both locals and tourists to the City of Hamilton. While I have every concern for the homeless, surely in three months of Police cars driving in and out of the city, someone could have taken actions to help relocate this gentlemen to more suitable accommodations. While on the subject of East Broadway.

Now that the RenaissanceRe construction has ended can someone take responsibility to resurface the section of road that got so badly disfigured during the construction. For those of us who ride mopeds, it is somewhere between and obstacle course and a roller coaster, goodness know how our visitors on bikes feel about it.

PLP not listening

September 30, 2005

Dear Sir,

In an article in on Friday last, Sen. Neville Tyrrell was quoted as saying ?while the PLP has retained a clear position on self determination for many years, it is ?more than willing to talk about this issue, listen to our fellow citizens inside and outside the party and join in on the discussion on such an important subject as this?.?

How can this statement be true? Alex Scott has recently told 14,000 voters (34 percent of the electorate) that ?they did not know what they were signing and do not know what they are talking about?. That for me is not ?more than willing to talk about this issue?, it is plain and simply a monstrous insult to the intelligence of the voters.

I commend the members of the BIC for the time and effort that was put into their report. However, the clear bias and flaws in the report, which shows up in the first ten pages (you don?t need to read all 600 pages), markedly degrade the value of it. Seemingly the object of the report is based on the old saying ?I?d like to hear your ideas as long as they agree with mine?, a trait the PLP have expounded for seven years now.

Alex Scott is not listening, 70 percent of us do not want independence. What part of 70 percent does he not understand?

I knew what I was signing

September 21, 2005

Dear Sir,

As a voting Bermudian who signed the Bermudians for Referendum petition, I would like to state for the public record that I knew exactly what I was signing and why I was signing it. Mr. Scott?s condescending comment yesterday that ?folks signed it and didn?t even know what they were signing? is just one of many recent examples that illustrate exactly why Bermudians should separate their decision on independence from their choice of Government.