Southlands SDO is bad

The following letter was delivered to The Royal Gazette before it emerged that an SDO for Southlands had been approved.

Dear Minister Butterfield,

On this, the eve of the most Bermudian of holidays I am writing to you, deeply concerned about Bermuda's fate should the final approval stamp be given to the Southlands SDO. This development would have implications that Bermuda simply cannot afford. I place great value on open space but this isn't even about that. This is about all the individual Bermudians who have lived within the planning restrictions on their properties. This is about families already straining under the cost of housing, the cost of electricity, and the psychological ramifications of a growing rich/poor divide. This is about future generations and their right to some kind of quality of life, some kind of healthy society, some remnants of Bermuda's natural heritage.

These rights were being explored and championed by the Sustainable Development initiative and this SDO and the atmosphere surrounding it would negate all of that. For blue collar and struggling Bermudians of present and future this is not fair, this is not right.

For those accustomed to even the basic principles of business and accounting and economics, this is also a project that should not be supported. The marginal costs to the Island's infrastructure, housing, environment, visual tourism product, societies, sense of good governance far outweigh the marginal benefits of a resort of this type and scale. These things can be measured and they must be. A new business will not be granted a bank loan if it does not have a thorough and realistic business plan. Why should this SDO be given without this development passing various tests of this nature? Tourism properties in Bermuda have a long track record of coercing Planning Law leniencies. Many of these properties have taken all they could get in terms of these leniencies and still failed. The Marriott Castle Harbour is one upsetting reminder of this.

It was granted the right to subdivide Ship's Hill to bolster their struggling finances. They claimed they needed this to stay in Bermuda. They were given it and they pulled out anyway. The list of other examples is long and the trend is clear. Tourism development is a risky business and Bermuda and it's Government must not keep gambling what we cannot afford without detailed proof of the economic, societal, and environmental costs and benefits.

I'd also like to point out that some of Bermuda's hotels have managed to survive through the years without such planning law variances. Jumeira would hurt their business and could even force them to close. It would not be fair to them and Bermuda would be left with yet another vacant hotel property. There are so many reasons why I am vehemently against the proposed development at Southlands. The public will continue to fight it and I will do all that I can to help them. I respectfully implore you to reconsider and to refuse this SDO for Bermuda and for our future.

TOBY BUTTERFIELD

Sandys

We need unity

August 8, 2007

Dear Sir,

Over these past summer months I have recently become aware of our collective investment in the politics of this country. The hype of an election, along with the ongoing finger pointing of our dual party system, has made it not only relevant, but important for every one to put in their two cents. My main issues are directed toward both parties but for very different reasons. Firstly, I don't think the Premier has dealt properly with the issues addressed to him over the past months. The convoluted manner in which he dodges pressing issues is not how I want my leader behaving. Simply refusing to answer questions is not good enough. Nevertheless, he is a strong leader. He has many of the characteristics that a thriving country needs to continue successfully. He gets things done and that is almost always positive.

It is juxtaposed by a fear that Michael Dunkley does not have the same drive and strength as Dr. Brown and it is therefore difficult to champion for the UBP as our best bet. But I don't want to take bets. I've often heard that democracy is not the best system, but the best of the worst. And it stands truly here, with a political system that repeatedly hinges more on race than the substantive issues we need addressed. What I am calling for, perhaps too extreme for our present day, is a system where we have one combined party. Each voter picks candidates based on the issues at hand, weighing their individual strengths and weaknesses, not basing that decision on a person's skin colour or what party they belong to, but combining the best qualities from the entire community; creating a "party" that is literally of the people, by the people, and for the people.

ANONYMOUS

Pembroke

Don't be suspicious

August 10, 2007

Dear Sir,

I am finding it difficult to follow Mr. Jones' logic in regards to the voter registration lists and the recent increase in objections. According to his statement, he is not accusing them (the Opposition) of anything, but he is suspicious. First, I am not sure what that means, second, suspicious of what? How can the Opposition be accused of trying to exclude people form voting? If the Opposition was trying to be devious, surely they would wait until the day of the election, giving the voter little or no time to update their details. I would hope that all candidates, whether they are UBP, PLP or Independent, would want to play on a level playing field. By going through the process now, a voter on this recent list has two weeks to contact the Parliamentary Registrar and correct their address, that doesn't sound very suspicious to me.

KENT SMITH

St. George's