PM CONCERNED ABOUT BAHA MAR BRANDING FOCUS
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said yesterday that he is not satisfied with the hotel brand arrangements that Baha Mar has made to date.
Last month Ingraham expressed concerns about how Baha Mar would be branded and how it will fill so many new rooms, when for a second year it has had to temporarily close one of its hotels because of low demand.
Since then Baha Mar announced partnerships with three hotel brands.
Asked if those announcements appeased his concerns, Ingraham said,"It does not at all."
"If you recall when the Baha Mar deal was announced there was supposed to be a partnership with Harrah's, a major casino hotel company,"Ingraham told reporters yesterday during a tour of the Albany project."Harrah's was going to put in over $200 million in cash as its equity... All that I've read in the newspaper so far talks about who is going to manage the hotels[for Baha Mar]. It is critical for there to be equity partners-owners who are in the hotel business and who are major players, not managers.
"Managers come dime a dozen. You see them all the time. They are the easiest thing to pick up in the world-managers-because they have nothing in it other than collecting their money at the top,"Ingraham continued.
Baha Mar announced yesterday that it signed a letter of intent with Hyatt Hotels Corporation to operate and manage the planned 700-room Grand Hyatt. Baha Mar Ltd. also selected Hyatt as its timeshare partner in the project, which will initially include 50 units as part of the first phase, with plans for expansion in subsequent phases, the company said in a statement.
Earlier it announced that Rosewood Hotels and Resorts will operate and manage the 200-room luxury hotel that Baha Mar will construct and Morgans Hotel Group will operate and manage the planned 300-room luxury lifestyle hotel.
In addition to concerns surrounding the hotels'branding, Ingraham said the government remains concerned about the project's controversial labor component.
Baha Mar has requested 8,150 work permits for the project. The current deal requires that the core of the project be built exclusively by foreign labor.
The government intends to the take the labor issue directly to the source when Ingraham travels to China later this moth.
Ingraham said he is meeting with China State Construction Engineering Corporation and the China Export-Import Bank to discuss the project.
"We told the China State Construction Engineering Corporation from the first time we saw them more than a year ago that it was not possible to have that number of foreign workers on a job site with the Bahamian content being so low. Nothing has changed. We've been telling them that for more than a year.
"It appears that some people either don't take us seriously or they apparently think that we are so desperate that we will do whatever we are asked to do. But our strength is not weakened,"Ingraham said.
Asked what the government would do if the company refuses to amend the deal, Ingraham said the government will"figure that out"if it comes to that.
Notwithstanding the government's concerns, Ingraham said the project would be good for The Bahamas.
"We are obviously very pleased that the bank is willing to invest more than$2 billion in The Bahamas. That will be a tremendous boost for our economy. We are concerned about making sure the maximum benefit could be derived for Bahamians and for the economy of The Bahamas,"he said.
But Ingraham said the project has to be done in"such a way that it can be sustainable in the long run and have occupancy levels that are not going to threaten what we have."
"We wouldn't want(to be)a dog with the bone in his mouth and see a shadow in the water and let[the bone]go in order to pick that shadow up. We want to make sure that the next bone is capable of being developed and operated in a way whereby they can both be successful in th context of The Bahamas. That's our interest in these projects."
In a statement yesterday Baha Mar said It is anticipated that the development will make "The Bahamas one of the premier tourist locations in the world, drawing millions of vacationers and business travelers each year to the resort's six hotels."
"With almost 3,500 rooms and condos, the largest casino in the Caribbean, the largest convention center in The Bahamas, a world-class golf course, retail village and much more, Baha Mar Resort represents the Caribbean's largest single-phase destination resort. Baha Mar will employ approximately 4,000 Bahamians over the life of the construction period, which is expected to last nearly four years. Once the resort is complete, approximately 98 percent of the staff will be Bahamian nationals, representing some 7,000 jobs for Bahamians."
10/19/2010
thenassauguardian
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Philip “Brave” Davis - The Opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Deputy Leader - Questions The Governing Free National Movement (FNM) Road to Nowhere
Hon. Philip “Brave” Davis M.P.
Deputy Leader of The Progressive Liberal Party
HOW MUCH FOR SEVEN MILES OF AIRPORT HIGHWAY?
The Tribune of 4th October 2010 reported “The prime minister formally signed agreements for the $70.8 million highway project with two China State Companies; the China Export Import Bank and the China Construction Company on Thursday at the British Colonial Hilton” referring to the signings on the previous Thursday, 30th September 2010.
Since the government decided to give a contract to a foreign state owned construction company to build some seven miles of highway from the airport to the roundabout at Farrington Road, Thompson Blvd, and JFK Drive at some $71Million after passing a resolution in the House of Assembly the day before to borrow $58Million from the foreign state owned China Export-Import Bank I have tried to understand what Citizens of The Bahamas were getting for our investment of @ $10,000,000 (TEN MILLION DOLLARS) PER MILE OF ROAD!!!!
Minister Zhivargo Laing said during the debate on the government’s resolution for the loan from the Chinese Export-Import Bank, in the House of Assembly that the government HAD to use the Chinese state owned China Construction company to build the road BECAUSE we are borrowing $58,000,000 from the Chinese government owned bank at a very low interest rate.
In the House of Assembly and at the subsequent press conference for the contract signing, a lot of colourful renderings were shown.
I went to the government’s website and the Works & Transport Ministry’s website in search of the airport highway description in the hope that I could begin to fathom WHY seven miles of a four lane highway with utilities being placed underground, government acquired private land (I presume), and, landscaping along the highway, should cost $10,000,000 per mile. The government has not yet put the information online.
In the absence of information to the contrary, I concluded that the same road contractors hired by the government to build the road are the people who designed the road and calculated the cost of the works to be done. There has been no competitive bid on this massive expenditure. How does the Bahamian tax payer know that she or he is getting value for money? If we are overpaying to build the road then the low interest rate has no real value. Maybe Minister Laing would kindly explain this?
Further, even if the work that is to be done really does cost $10,000,000 per mile for a total of $71,000,000, what were the alternatives considered by the government? Do we need to spend $71,000,000 to build seven miles of landscaped road way from the airport to Farrington Road? How is the Bahamian public to receive benefit for their investment?
I call on those Bahamians with the technical and financial backgrounds to guide us on a full appreciation of this matter to weigh in on the issue.
The government is not supposed to be the overlord but, rather, it should be the servant of the People answerable to the People.
14th October, 2010
myplp.com
Deputy Leader of The Progressive Liberal Party
HOW MUCH FOR SEVEN MILES OF AIRPORT HIGHWAY?
The Tribune of 4th October 2010 reported “The prime minister formally signed agreements for the $70.8 million highway project with two China State Companies; the China Export Import Bank and the China Construction Company on Thursday at the British Colonial Hilton” referring to the signings on the previous Thursday, 30th September 2010.
Since the government decided to give a contract to a foreign state owned construction company to build some seven miles of highway from the airport to the roundabout at Farrington Road, Thompson Blvd, and JFK Drive at some $71Million after passing a resolution in the House of Assembly the day before to borrow $58Million from the foreign state owned China Export-Import Bank I have tried to understand what Citizens of The Bahamas were getting for our investment of @ $10,000,000 (TEN MILLION DOLLARS) PER MILE OF ROAD!!!!
Minister Zhivargo Laing said during the debate on the government’s resolution for the loan from the Chinese Export-Import Bank, in the House of Assembly that the government HAD to use the Chinese state owned China Construction company to build the road BECAUSE we are borrowing $58,000,000 from the Chinese government owned bank at a very low interest rate.
In the House of Assembly and at the subsequent press conference for the contract signing, a lot of colourful renderings were shown.
I went to the government’s website and the Works & Transport Ministry’s website in search of the airport highway description in the hope that I could begin to fathom WHY seven miles of a four lane highway with utilities being placed underground, government acquired private land (I presume), and, landscaping along the highway, should cost $10,000,000 per mile. The government has not yet put the information online.
In the absence of information to the contrary, I concluded that the same road contractors hired by the government to build the road are the people who designed the road and calculated the cost of the works to be done. There has been no competitive bid on this massive expenditure. How does the Bahamian tax payer know that she or he is getting value for money? If we are overpaying to build the road then the low interest rate has no real value. Maybe Minister Laing would kindly explain this?
Further, even if the work that is to be done really does cost $10,000,000 per mile for a total of $71,000,000, what were the alternatives considered by the government? Do we need to spend $71,000,000 to build seven miles of landscaped road way from the airport to Farrington Road? How is the Bahamian public to receive benefit for their investment?
I call on those Bahamians with the technical and financial backgrounds to guide us on a full appreciation of this matter to weigh in on the issue.
The government is not supposed to be the overlord but, rather, it should be the servant of the People answerable to the People.
14th October, 2010
myplp.com
Friday, October 15, 2010
Baha Mar Drama – (Part 2)
by Simon
To understand the potentially colossal mistake the PLP made in handing over the redevelopment of Cable Beach to Baha Mar, some historical background is necessary.
Before Baha Mar there was Cable Beach. The area derived its name after a telegraph cable line connecting The Bahamas with the rest of the world came ashore at Goodman’s Bay in 1892. One of the first people to receive a cable was the proprietor of the Royal Victoria Hotel.
Fast-forward some half a century and the area with its miles of pristine beach would surpass downtown Nassau as a major site for the expansion of the hotel sector. There was the Balmoral and the Bahamas Country Club.
In 1954, the Emerald Beach became the first fully air-conditioned hotel. Boasting 300 rooms and New Providence’s first convention centre, the ultramodern hotel came in at a price tag of $3.5 million. With the opening of the Nassau Beach Hotel on the strip in 1959 -- along with a Howard Johnson restaurant -- Cable Beach was helping to set the pace for the tourism industry and hotel sector.
In many ways, Cable Beach became the gold standard, even receiving the moniker, “the Bahamian Riviera”. Then, through the 1970s to the 1990s, the PLP made a series of fateful decisions that would prove disastrous for Cable Beach and end up costing the Pubic Treasury hundreds of millions if not more.
UNAPPEALING
This included construction of the monstrously unappealing, aesthetic nightmare that became the Crystal Palace Hotel, as well as the environmental damage that may have been caused through the erection of one of the hotel’s towers.
Re-elected in 2002, a new PLP Government would make another fateful and potentially disastrous decision about Cable Beach, reinforcing its record of economic incompetence and mismanagement. Much of the same PLP culture which proved disastrous for Cable Beach under Sir Lynden has resurfaced under Perry Christie.
But back to the 1970s. The then PLP Government purchased three major hotels on Cable Beach: the Sonesta Beach Hotel, the Balmoral and the Hyatt Emerald Beach. The Pindling administration also set up the Hotel Corporation, with Sir Lynden predicting that once the Corporation was doing well financially, shares would be offered to Bahamians.
His prediction was way off the mark. Indeed, the Hotel Corporation would come to have a checkered history, with Sir Lynden serving as Chairman at various junctures. In 1991, Carnival Cruise Lines, the owner-operator of the Crystal Palace Resort experienced considerable losses and threatened to either pull out of the development or declare bankruptcy.
In volume two of her major history of The Bahamas, Dr. Gail Saunders details how the Hotel Corporation responded to this threat:
“The Hotel Corporation, already accused of making an initial ‘sweetheart deal’ with Carnival and using the Crystal Palace to ‘featherbed’ PLP supporters, agreed to yet another bailout. Adding to massive debts, incurred through an unbusinesslike combination of takeovers and extravagant new building, the Hotel Corporation took a 40 percent stake in the Crystal Palace for $70 million.
“Though the government cited the drastic decline in tourist stopovers resulting from the worldwide recession as the cause of the Hotel Corporation’s woes, the opposition charged the corporation with gross irresponsibility as well as corruption and accused the government of virtually printing money to disguise its failures.”
UNTENABLE
State ownership of a large chunk of the hotel sector was rife with internal contradictions, with the Government being in the untenable position of having to act as the regulator and the regulated. In “Pindling: The Life and Times of the First Prime Minister of The Bahamas”, Michael Craton captures how irreconcilable were the contradictions:
“The Hotel Corporation had to weigh and juggle the cost to the Treasury against the benefits of import duty concessions, the advantages against the disadvantages of levying a government tax on rooms, the problem of keeping the owners and managers happy with the level of the wages bill while keeping the workers contented with pay and working conditions, the acceptable balance between Bahamian expatriate employment.”
This defied even the political skills and charm of Sir Lynden. It was akin to asking Moses to keep both the Egyptians and the Israelites happy at the same time. Shockingly, despite this failed history, one of their own making, the PLP condemned the Bahamas to repeating some of this history in the deal with the I-Group in Mayaguana.
By taking a 50 per cent stake in the Mayaguana Development Company, the Government once again placed itself in the role of the regulator and the regulated, an inherent conflict of interest.
But this is indicative of a PLP that refuses to learn the lessons of history, including its own massive failures and endless conflicts of interest. The “All for me baby” mentality in the PLP is alive and well, waiting for the next opportunity for nepotism and deal-making in a hidebound culture of self-entitlement.
After coming to office in 1992, the FNM privatized a number of hotels owned by the Hotel Corporation, including Cable Beach properties now owned by the successful Sandals and Breezes chains. This helped to revive an ailing and ageing Cable Beach.
With its return to office, the Christie administration had an opportunity to demonstrate that it was a new PLP with new ideas for tourism in general and for Cable Beach in particular. Sadly, the re-elected PLP was as clueless about market economics as when it was turned out of office a decade earlier.
This included Mr. Christie, a former Minister of Tourism whose understanding of tourism seems not to have evolved since he held that office. It also includes the former Minister of Financial Services and Investments, who was also involved in the Baha Mar deal.
Senator Allyson Gibson Maynard’s breathless defence of the ill-conceived Mayaguana Project -- with its near give-away of many miles of pristine coastal property to a single foreign developer -- is suggestive of a disturbing mindset in the PLP in terms of national development. It is an essentially neo-colonial mindset for a party still pretending to be progressive and liberal.
RHETORIC
Absent any real ideas to realize its rhetoric of empowerment and Bahamianization, the PLP seized upon all manner of schemes proposed by all manner of developers. Many of those developers had more ideas -- not necessarily good ones -- than they had dollars or good sense.
But no matter, a desperate PLP was prepared to essentially give away Bahamian treasure in the form of land, excessive concessions and cash to lure many of these developers. This was a part of an unreconstructed mindset in the PLP which talks Bahamianization while trashing the best interests of Bahamians in the service of narrower interests.
Cable Beach was in need of redevelopment, but not just by any developer at just about any cost. One of the PLP Government’s lead negotiators on this project, a consummate uber-consultant, continues to defend the original Baha Mar deal in both the print and broadcast media.
The uber-consultant is defending The Bahamas alienating some of our more valuable Crown and government land so that the developer could secure a loan. If this level of extraordinary state beneficence was necessary in order for the developer to receive the loan, we chose the wrong developer, especially for one of our premier touristic sites.
That the developer has laboured to pay back and renegotiate the terms of its major loan is suggestive of many things. All of which should have been taken into consideration before the Christie administration handed over the vision and patrimony of Cable Beach to selective interests.
As egregious, the developer was a middleman with no real track record in such a megaproject. And, the original deal that is being defended was rife with concessions the country never should have granted, a number of which have been clawed back by the Ingraham administration.
To see some of the blunders made at Baha Mar - readers may wish to read Baha Mar: Anatomy of a Big Blunder.
While Baha Mar may bring some short- and medium-term gains, its longer term prospects may be problematic on numerous fronts. The country continues to pay for the mistakes an earlier PLP made at Cable Beach. It may now have to endure the problems of a potentially colossal error that the Christie administration made with Baha Mar.
Baha Mar Drama – (Part 1)
bahamapundit
To understand the potentially colossal mistake the PLP made in handing over the redevelopment of Cable Beach to Baha Mar, some historical background is necessary.
Before Baha Mar there was Cable Beach. The area derived its name after a telegraph cable line connecting The Bahamas with the rest of the world came ashore at Goodman’s Bay in 1892. One of the first people to receive a cable was the proprietor of the Royal Victoria Hotel.
Fast-forward some half a century and the area with its miles of pristine beach would surpass downtown Nassau as a major site for the expansion of the hotel sector. There was the Balmoral and the Bahamas Country Club.
In 1954, the Emerald Beach became the first fully air-conditioned hotel. Boasting 300 rooms and New Providence’s first convention centre, the ultramodern hotel came in at a price tag of $3.5 million. With the opening of the Nassau Beach Hotel on the strip in 1959 -- along with a Howard Johnson restaurant -- Cable Beach was helping to set the pace for the tourism industry and hotel sector.
In many ways, Cable Beach became the gold standard, even receiving the moniker, “the Bahamian Riviera”. Then, through the 1970s to the 1990s, the PLP made a series of fateful decisions that would prove disastrous for Cable Beach and end up costing the Pubic Treasury hundreds of millions if not more.
UNAPPEALING
This included construction of the monstrously unappealing, aesthetic nightmare that became the Crystal Palace Hotel, as well as the environmental damage that may have been caused through the erection of one of the hotel’s towers.
Re-elected in 2002, a new PLP Government would make another fateful and potentially disastrous decision about Cable Beach, reinforcing its record of economic incompetence and mismanagement. Much of the same PLP culture which proved disastrous for Cable Beach under Sir Lynden has resurfaced under Perry Christie.
But back to the 1970s. The then PLP Government purchased three major hotels on Cable Beach: the Sonesta Beach Hotel, the Balmoral and the Hyatt Emerald Beach. The Pindling administration also set up the Hotel Corporation, with Sir Lynden predicting that once the Corporation was doing well financially, shares would be offered to Bahamians.
His prediction was way off the mark. Indeed, the Hotel Corporation would come to have a checkered history, with Sir Lynden serving as Chairman at various junctures. In 1991, Carnival Cruise Lines, the owner-operator of the Crystal Palace Resort experienced considerable losses and threatened to either pull out of the development or declare bankruptcy.
In volume two of her major history of The Bahamas, Dr. Gail Saunders details how the Hotel Corporation responded to this threat:
“The Hotel Corporation, already accused of making an initial ‘sweetheart deal’ with Carnival and using the Crystal Palace to ‘featherbed’ PLP supporters, agreed to yet another bailout. Adding to massive debts, incurred through an unbusinesslike combination of takeovers and extravagant new building, the Hotel Corporation took a 40 percent stake in the Crystal Palace for $70 million.
“Though the government cited the drastic decline in tourist stopovers resulting from the worldwide recession as the cause of the Hotel Corporation’s woes, the opposition charged the corporation with gross irresponsibility as well as corruption and accused the government of virtually printing money to disguise its failures.”
UNTENABLE
State ownership of a large chunk of the hotel sector was rife with internal contradictions, with the Government being in the untenable position of having to act as the regulator and the regulated. In “Pindling: The Life and Times of the First Prime Minister of The Bahamas”, Michael Craton captures how irreconcilable were the contradictions:
“The Hotel Corporation had to weigh and juggle the cost to the Treasury against the benefits of import duty concessions, the advantages against the disadvantages of levying a government tax on rooms, the problem of keeping the owners and managers happy with the level of the wages bill while keeping the workers contented with pay and working conditions, the acceptable balance between Bahamian expatriate employment.”
This defied even the political skills and charm of Sir Lynden. It was akin to asking Moses to keep both the Egyptians and the Israelites happy at the same time. Shockingly, despite this failed history, one of their own making, the PLP condemned the Bahamas to repeating some of this history in the deal with the I-Group in Mayaguana.
By taking a 50 per cent stake in the Mayaguana Development Company, the Government once again placed itself in the role of the regulator and the regulated, an inherent conflict of interest.
But this is indicative of a PLP that refuses to learn the lessons of history, including its own massive failures and endless conflicts of interest. The “All for me baby” mentality in the PLP is alive and well, waiting for the next opportunity for nepotism and deal-making in a hidebound culture of self-entitlement.
After coming to office in 1992, the FNM privatized a number of hotels owned by the Hotel Corporation, including Cable Beach properties now owned by the successful Sandals and Breezes chains. This helped to revive an ailing and ageing Cable Beach.
With its return to office, the Christie administration had an opportunity to demonstrate that it was a new PLP with new ideas for tourism in general and for Cable Beach in particular. Sadly, the re-elected PLP was as clueless about market economics as when it was turned out of office a decade earlier.
This included Mr. Christie, a former Minister of Tourism whose understanding of tourism seems not to have evolved since he held that office. It also includes the former Minister of Financial Services and Investments, who was also involved in the Baha Mar deal.
Senator Allyson Gibson Maynard’s breathless defence of the ill-conceived Mayaguana Project -- with its near give-away of many miles of pristine coastal property to a single foreign developer -- is suggestive of a disturbing mindset in the PLP in terms of national development. It is an essentially neo-colonial mindset for a party still pretending to be progressive and liberal.
RHETORIC
Absent any real ideas to realize its rhetoric of empowerment and Bahamianization, the PLP seized upon all manner of schemes proposed by all manner of developers. Many of those developers had more ideas -- not necessarily good ones -- than they had dollars or good sense.
But no matter, a desperate PLP was prepared to essentially give away Bahamian treasure in the form of land, excessive concessions and cash to lure many of these developers. This was a part of an unreconstructed mindset in the PLP which talks Bahamianization while trashing the best interests of Bahamians in the service of narrower interests.
Cable Beach was in need of redevelopment, but not just by any developer at just about any cost. One of the PLP Government’s lead negotiators on this project, a consummate uber-consultant, continues to defend the original Baha Mar deal in both the print and broadcast media.
The uber-consultant is defending The Bahamas alienating some of our more valuable Crown and government land so that the developer could secure a loan. If this level of extraordinary state beneficence was necessary in order for the developer to receive the loan, we chose the wrong developer, especially for one of our premier touristic sites.
That the developer has laboured to pay back and renegotiate the terms of its major loan is suggestive of many things. All of which should have been taken into consideration before the Christie administration handed over the vision and patrimony of Cable Beach to selective interests.
As egregious, the developer was a middleman with no real track record in such a megaproject. And, the original deal that is being defended was rife with concessions the country never should have granted, a number of which have been clawed back by the Ingraham administration.
To see some of the blunders made at Baha Mar - readers may wish to read Baha Mar: Anatomy of a Big Blunder.
While Baha Mar may bring some short- and medium-term gains, its longer term prospects may be problematic on numerous fronts. The country continues to pay for the mistakes an earlier PLP made at Cable Beach. It may now have to endure the problems of a potentially colossal error that the Christie administration made with Baha Mar.
Baha Mar Drama – (Part 1)
bahamapundit
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Baha Mar Drama - (Part 1)
The Drama at Baha Mar – Part 1
by Simon
Lights, camera, action! At least, that was the theory. With giddy fanfare the Christie administration broke into the ZNS evening news to broadcast live from Cable Beach a deal hyping an agreement with Baha Mar. The made-for-television reality show was obviously and deliberately timed to coincide with the beginning of the evening news, commandeering most of that night’s broadcast.
But after the lights and cameras trekked back to Third Terrace Centreville, nothing happened. Well, quite a bit happened. Except, of course, the construction of the promised mega complex. The original deal, the world economy and the Christie administration all collapsed, though not necessarily in that order.
The impressive architectural models and glittering high-tech videos of the touted development glossed over the realities on the ground. The public relations bonanza also obscured the nature and details surrounding the proposed plans to re-develop the historic Cable Beach.
We have seen this reality show before. It involves the same mindset, plot and cast of PLP cabinet ministers and their associated dealmakers that brought us the Great Mayaguana Land Give-away. The initial arrangements for the Baha Mar deal and the I-Group deal in Mayaguana involved more than rank hypocrisy by the party whose progressive and liberal brand name are whispery echoes of a by-gone era.
More fundamentally, the deals betrayed the PLP’s own nationalist rhetoric and chest-thumping patriotism. At the core of the Cable Beach and Mayaguana deals were stunning betrayals of the very idea of Bahamianization. This included making Bahamians subordinate in the deals, while alienating prime Crown Land and Government real estate to foreigners in perpetuity.
GALLING
Equally galling, was the PLP’s attempt to market these schemes to Bahamians as if we were idiots who could not see the big picture or read the fine print. There was also the smugness and arrogance by PLP hucksters. They pretended that these deals were more for the benefit of ordinary Bahamians than for the self-satisfied oligarchs who brokered them with gleeful abandon.
As recently as the 2010/11 budget debate, the Opposition’s Leader in the Senate, Senator Allyson Maynard Gibson, boasted that the Mayaguana Development Company, the group responsible for a proposed development at our most easterly island, was owned 50/50 by the I-Group and the Bahamas Government.
As noted in Front Porch in July: “This 50/50 arrangement would have eventually sold off nearly 100 per cent of Mayaguana’s coastal area and nearly 10,000 acres to non-Bahamians.
“As Mayaguana, by comparison, is somewhat larger than New Providence, the deal the PLP continues to brag about was the equivalent of turning over to a single developer a stretch of coastal land from the eastern end of New Providence to Lyford Cay. Again, the vast majority of this land would have ended up in foreign hands.”
Back to the drama at Baha Mar. Perry Gladstone Christie and his new PLP sold off at bargain basement prices prime beachfront and other public land at Cable Beach that Sir Stafford Sands and the UBP, Sir Lynden Pindling and an earlier version of the PLP, and Hubert Ingraham and the FNM never did over the course of more than half a century. Mr. Christie now has his place in the history books!
The original Baha Mar deal was a disaster on so many levels. Despite the rhetoric, the supposedly new PLP under Mr. Christie never updated their philosophy and policy ideas. The party simply wanted to be back in power. Upon returning to office they scrambled, cobbling together various slogans, clichés and talking points to justify their old habits of wheeling and dealing.
Perhaps realizing the controversial nature of significant elements of the original Baha Mar deal, Mr. Christie -- who purports to be the man of great consultation -- kept details of the deal secret. It was left to the Ingraham administration to table the Heads of Agreements on the initial deal.
INSULT
This was an insult added to the many injuries inflicted on our national interest in the initial deal, including public land sold at discounted prices and the proposed grant of extraordinarily generous concessions and cash payments. There were initial hints that Goodman’s Bay may have been alienated from the Bahamian people, though somebody appeared to backtrack quickly on this affront.
With Baha Mar and various anchor projects, the PLP failed to embrace newer ideas in terms of our tourism product and economic development. The idea of Baha Mar as essentially another Atlantis may have been a critical mistake. Such a vision stoked the egos of the proponents of the deal and Mr. Christie.
Still, a different type of project or variety of projects at Cable Beach, aimed at a different tourism demographic, would have been the wiser course of action. Moreover, rather than alienating invaluable public land, other arrangements could have been made to secure most of this land for generations of Bahamians.
In the Mayaguana deal the PLP at least pretended to be concerned about the national interest. The deal with Baha Mar was a give-away of monumental proportions.
There could have also been arrangements to enable Bahamians to have various levels of ownership and equity in a development which was to be built on mostly public land. Instead, the Christie administration turned its back on the core ideal of Bahamianization which was at the heart of the movement for Majority Rule.
Sadly, with the conclusion of the original deal with Baha Mar, there was no turning back, one of the slogans beloved by the PLP’s marketers. That other favourite PLP slogan, “Forward Ever, Backward Never”, also crashed and burned in light of the initial deal negotiated by Mr. Christie.
Having set in motion and made unavoidable many of the features of the current deal with Baha Mar, Mr. Christie in his typical political style, has left it up to Prime Minister Ingraham to do the heavy lifting on a final deal which he himself failed to conclude.
TONE!
Now Mr. Christie is commenting on the Prime Minister’s tone – tone! -- on a final deal. This is in keeping with his usual course of inaction in which style and tone are more important than substance. After all, who can forget his gushing and ingratiating tone when the Baha Mar deal was announced live on television? For all of Mr. Christie’s sweet melodies and tone, nothing happened.
Moreover, despite his lovely tone about the initial deal, he brokered an agreement which was wrong for The Bahamas on many levels. Mr. Ingraham has replaced Mr. Christie’s amateur tone with that of a seasoned leader. Whereas Mr. Christie was impetuous and cavalier, Mr. Ingraham has been measured and has driven a harder bargain.
Unlike Sir Lynden and the PLP’s unilateral abrogation of elements of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, Mr. Ingraham negotiated the best deal he could for the Bahamas with Baha Mar. He has struck the right tone in negotiating with others who simply rolled over the hapless Mr. Christie, who was panicked about getting a deal at just about any cost to secure his re-election and legacy.
Short-term, the Prime Minister has sometimes been criticized about his manner and timing in negotiating elements of a final deal. In the longer term the wisdom of his negotiating strategy may prove more beneficial for the country.
In addition to tabling all heads of agreements related to Baha Mar, the Prime Minister is correct in bringing a resolution to the House of Assembly so that the Bahamian people’s elected representatives can express their will.
This will be time for Mr. Christie to do something which he has been reluctant to do from the inception of Baha Mar: To go on record clearly and unambiguously about his party’s stance on many of the controversial issues involved in an agreement whose initial seeds he helped to plant and water.
Baha Mar Drama - (Part 2)
bahamapundit
by Simon
Lights, camera, action! At least, that was the theory. With giddy fanfare the Christie administration broke into the ZNS evening news to broadcast live from Cable Beach a deal hyping an agreement with Baha Mar. The made-for-television reality show was obviously and deliberately timed to coincide with the beginning of the evening news, commandeering most of that night’s broadcast.
But after the lights and cameras trekked back to Third Terrace Centreville, nothing happened. Well, quite a bit happened. Except, of course, the construction of the promised mega complex. The original deal, the world economy and the Christie administration all collapsed, though not necessarily in that order.
The impressive architectural models and glittering high-tech videos of the touted development glossed over the realities on the ground. The public relations bonanza also obscured the nature and details surrounding the proposed plans to re-develop the historic Cable Beach.
We have seen this reality show before. It involves the same mindset, plot and cast of PLP cabinet ministers and their associated dealmakers that brought us the Great Mayaguana Land Give-away. The initial arrangements for the Baha Mar deal and the I-Group deal in Mayaguana involved more than rank hypocrisy by the party whose progressive and liberal brand name are whispery echoes of a by-gone era.
More fundamentally, the deals betrayed the PLP’s own nationalist rhetoric and chest-thumping patriotism. At the core of the Cable Beach and Mayaguana deals were stunning betrayals of the very idea of Bahamianization. This included making Bahamians subordinate in the deals, while alienating prime Crown Land and Government real estate to foreigners in perpetuity.
GALLING
Equally galling, was the PLP’s attempt to market these schemes to Bahamians as if we were idiots who could not see the big picture or read the fine print. There was also the smugness and arrogance by PLP hucksters. They pretended that these deals were more for the benefit of ordinary Bahamians than for the self-satisfied oligarchs who brokered them with gleeful abandon.
As recently as the 2010/11 budget debate, the Opposition’s Leader in the Senate, Senator Allyson Maynard Gibson, boasted that the Mayaguana Development Company, the group responsible for a proposed development at our most easterly island, was owned 50/50 by the I-Group and the Bahamas Government.
As noted in Front Porch in July: “This 50/50 arrangement would have eventually sold off nearly 100 per cent of Mayaguana’s coastal area and nearly 10,000 acres to non-Bahamians.
“As Mayaguana, by comparison, is somewhat larger than New Providence, the deal the PLP continues to brag about was the equivalent of turning over to a single developer a stretch of coastal land from the eastern end of New Providence to Lyford Cay. Again, the vast majority of this land would have ended up in foreign hands.”
Back to the drama at Baha Mar. Perry Gladstone Christie and his new PLP sold off at bargain basement prices prime beachfront and other public land at Cable Beach that Sir Stafford Sands and the UBP, Sir Lynden Pindling and an earlier version of the PLP, and Hubert Ingraham and the FNM never did over the course of more than half a century. Mr. Christie now has his place in the history books!
The original Baha Mar deal was a disaster on so many levels. Despite the rhetoric, the supposedly new PLP under Mr. Christie never updated their philosophy and policy ideas. The party simply wanted to be back in power. Upon returning to office they scrambled, cobbling together various slogans, clichés and talking points to justify their old habits of wheeling and dealing.
Perhaps realizing the controversial nature of significant elements of the original Baha Mar deal, Mr. Christie -- who purports to be the man of great consultation -- kept details of the deal secret. It was left to the Ingraham administration to table the Heads of Agreements on the initial deal.
INSULT
This was an insult added to the many injuries inflicted on our national interest in the initial deal, including public land sold at discounted prices and the proposed grant of extraordinarily generous concessions and cash payments. There were initial hints that Goodman’s Bay may have been alienated from the Bahamian people, though somebody appeared to backtrack quickly on this affront.
With Baha Mar and various anchor projects, the PLP failed to embrace newer ideas in terms of our tourism product and economic development. The idea of Baha Mar as essentially another Atlantis may have been a critical mistake. Such a vision stoked the egos of the proponents of the deal and Mr. Christie.
Still, a different type of project or variety of projects at Cable Beach, aimed at a different tourism demographic, would have been the wiser course of action. Moreover, rather than alienating invaluable public land, other arrangements could have been made to secure most of this land for generations of Bahamians.
In the Mayaguana deal the PLP at least pretended to be concerned about the national interest. The deal with Baha Mar was a give-away of monumental proportions.
There could have also been arrangements to enable Bahamians to have various levels of ownership and equity in a development which was to be built on mostly public land. Instead, the Christie administration turned its back on the core ideal of Bahamianization which was at the heart of the movement for Majority Rule.
Sadly, with the conclusion of the original deal with Baha Mar, there was no turning back, one of the slogans beloved by the PLP’s marketers. That other favourite PLP slogan, “Forward Ever, Backward Never”, also crashed and burned in light of the initial deal negotiated by Mr. Christie.
Having set in motion and made unavoidable many of the features of the current deal with Baha Mar, Mr. Christie in his typical political style, has left it up to Prime Minister Ingraham to do the heavy lifting on a final deal which he himself failed to conclude.
TONE!
Now Mr. Christie is commenting on the Prime Minister’s tone – tone! -- on a final deal. This is in keeping with his usual course of inaction in which style and tone are more important than substance. After all, who can forget his gushing and ingratiating tone when the Baha Mar deal was announced live on television? For all of Mr. Christie’s sweet melodies and tone, nothing happened.
Moreover, despite his lovely tone about the initial deal, he brokered an agreement which was wrong for The Bahamas on many levels. Mr. Ingraham has replaced Mr. Christie’s amateur tone with that of a seasoned leader. Whereas Mr. Christie was impetuous and cavalier, Mr. Ingraham has been measured and has driven a harder bargain.
Unlike Sir Lynden and the PLP’s unilateral abrogation of elements of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, Mr. Ingraham negotiated the best deal he could for the Bahamas with Baha Mar. He has struck the right tone in negotiating with others who simply rolled over the hapless Mr. Christie, who was panicked about getting a deal at just about any cost to secure his re-election and legacy.
Short-term, the Prime Minister has sometimes been criticized about his manner and timing in negotiating elements of a final deal. In the longer term the wisdom of his negotiating strategy may prove more beneficial for the country.
In addition to tabling all heads of agreements related to Baha Mar, the Prime Minister is correct in bringing a resolution to the House of Assembly so that the Bahamian people’s elected representatives can express their will.
This will be time for Mr. Christie to do something which he has been reluctant to do from the inception of Baha Mar: To go on record clearly and unambiguously about his party’s stance on many of the controversial issues involved in an agreement whose initial seeds he helped to plant and water.
Baha Mar Drama - (Part 2)
bahamapundit
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham will personally discuss aspects of the proposed Baha Mar project which continue to be of "concern" to his Government - during his upcoming trip to China
Baha Mar on PM's China trip agenda
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net
PRIME Minister Hubert Ingraham, in an interview with The Tribune, said he intends to personally discuss aspects of the proposed Baha Mar project, which continues to be of "concern" to his Government, when he meets with the leaders of the China State Construction Company and the China Export Import Bank during his trip to China next week.
Mr Ingraham gave details of this considerably important visit and the issues he hopes to discuss with several companies and the government of the People's Republic of China.
The Prime Minister will also meet with high level officials from Hutchison Whampoa and the Chinese Government to discuss, among other things, the future of Hutchison's hotel properties in Grand Bahama, the National Stadium and the Gateway Road Corridor.
Mr Ingraham's hectic schedule begins when he leaves the country on October 22. His proposed itinerary reads like a list of some of the most economically vital and controversial issues facing the country today.
It seems almost fitting that it is Mr Ingraham who is sitting at the helm of the nation's business while the government has to deal with the eminent completion of the National Stadium, the construction of the Gateway Road Corridor and the proposed multi-billion dollar Baha Mar project, as it was under his leadership that the Bahamas established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1997.
The prime minister has publicly expressed concern over what he considers some of the more vexatious aspects of the Baha Mar deal.
He proposes to take advantage of his visit to China to meet with the leadership of the China State Construction Company and the China Export Import Bank to discuss "aspects of the proposed Baha Mar project construction terms which continue to be of concern" to his government.
Mr Ingraham will also meet with the leaders of Hutchison Whampoa - Deputy Chairman of Hutchison Whampoa Vincent Li and Raymond Chow, head of Hutchison's Hotel Division. While all of Hutchison's operations in The Bahamas will be discussed, uppermost on his agenda will be the future of Hutchison's hotel properties in Grand Bahama.
Hotels
"As you are aware those hotels continue to operate at a loss and to be supported by direct funding from Hong Kong," the prime minister said.
When Mr Ingraham visits Beijing, he is expected to call on a number of senior officials in the Government of the People's Republic of China to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern.
These will include the National Stadium, the Gateway Road Corridor, the Bahamas' interest in training and transfer of skills connected to the engagement of significant numbers of Chinese construction experts on projects in The Bahamas; cooperation on matters arising from climate change and disaster relief initiatives, agriculture, clean energy (solar and wind) and IT, increased tourism flow and other general bilateral relations, including China-CARICOM relations. The prime minister is travelling to China this year at the invitation of the Government of China. It is an invitation that he has had to delay on at least two occasions due to pressing national matters and other scheduling conflicts.
"Originally I had proposed to visit China during the last Olympiad. Subsequently, I signalled my intention to attend the opening ceremonies of the Shanghai Expo earlier this year. As it turns out, it will be the closing ceremony of the Expo that I will attend," Mr Ingraham said.
He is also expected to meet with Chinese officials, including Chairman Wu Bangguo and Vice-Premier Hui Liangyu both of whom have visited The Bahamas recently.
On his way to China, Mr Ingraham will spend a full day in Hong Kong where he will participate in the official opening of a new Bahamas Maritime Authority office and attend a reception, hosted by the BMA for a cross section of potential investors in The Bahamas - maritime, financial services and tourism in particular.
"I believe that we have excellent relations with the People's Republic of China. The importance that my Government places on this relationship is demonstrated by our appointment of a former non-portfolio Cabinet Minister to head our Diplomatic Mission in Beijing. Ambassador (Elma) Campbell is the first resident Bahamian Ambassador appointed to Beijing.
Diplomatic
"It was under my party's leadership that The Bahamas ended diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) and in recognition of our support for the One China policy, established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1997," Mr Ingraham said.
Mr Ingraham acknowledged that China has been a generous friend to The Bahamas whether in response to hurricanes, in offering technical and language training scholarships to Bahamian nationals, in gifting the National Stadium, or in supporting the Bahamas' recent efforts to overcome the challenges from the OECD regarding the country's financial services sector and the conclusion of TIEAs with OECD and G20 countries.
China has set aside the sum of $1 billion for soft loans to Caricom countries. Of that sum, some 15 per cent, i.e. $150 million, has been earmarked for lending to The Bahamas.
Mr Ingraham said that the extent to which the Bahamas might identify other suitable projects that fall within the quota set for The Bahamas, will be determined at a later date. The House of Assembly recently approved a resolution for the government to borrow nearly $58 million from the China Export-Import Bank to construct a four-lane airport highway. The project will mean the grant of 200 work permits for Chinese labourers, but also a very low interest rate for the loan. "The Bahamas very much appreciates that in an international environment where soft or concessional loans for infrastructure development is increasingly scarce for middle income countries like the Bahamas, the willingness of the Chinese Government to extend such low interest loans to us," the prime minister said.
This will be Mr Ingraham's second visit to the People's Republic of China. Mr Ingraham first visited China in 2000.
October 12, 2010
tribune242
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net
PRIME Minister Hubert Ingraham, in an interview with The Tribune, said he intends to personally discuss aspects of the proposed Baha Mar project, which continues to be of "concern" to his Government, when he meets with the leaders of the China State Construction Company and the China Export Import Bank during his trip to China next week.
Mr Ingraham gave details of this considerably important visit and the issues he hopes to discuss with several companies and the government of the People's Republic of China.
The Prime Minister will also meet with high level officials from Hutchison Whampoa and the Chinese Government to discuss, among other things, the future of Hutchison's hotel properties in Grand Bahama, the National Stadium and the Gateway Road Corridor.
Mr Ingraham's hectic schedule begins when he leaves the country on October 22. His proposed itinerary reads like a list of some of the most economically vital and controversial issues facing the country today.
It seems almost fitting that it is Mr Ingraham who is sitting at the helm of the nation's business while the government has to deal with the eminent completion of the National Stadium, the construction of the Gateway Road Corridor and the proposed multi-billion dollar Baha Mar project, as it was under his leadership that the Bahamas established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1997.
The prime minister has publicly expressed concern over what he considers some of the more vexatious aspects of the Baha Mar deal.
He proposes to take advantage of his visit to China to meet with the leadership of the China State Construction Company and the China Export Import Bank to discuss "aspects of the proposed Baha Mar project construction terms which continue to be of concern" to his government.
Mr Ingraham will also meet with the leaders of Hutchison Whampoa - Deputy Chairman of Hutchison Whampoa Vincent Li and Raymond Chow, head of Hutchison's Hotel Division. While all of Hutchison's operations in The Bahamas will be discussed, uppermost on his agenda will be the future of Hutchison's hotel properties in Grand Bahama.
Hotels
"As you are aware those hotels continue to operate at a loss and to be supported by direct funding from Hong Kong," the prime minister said.
When Mr Ingraham visits Beijing, he is expected to call on a number of senior officials in the Government of the People's Republic of China to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern.
These will include the National Stadium, the Gateway Road Corridor, the Bahamas' interest in training and transfer of skills connected to the engagement of significant numbers of Chinese construction experts on projects in The Bahamas; cooperation on matters arising from climate change and disaster relief initiatives, agriculture, clean energy (solar and wind) and IT, increased tourism flow and other general bilateral relations, including China-CARICOM relations. The prime minister is travelling to China this year at the invitation of the Government of China. It is an invitation that he has had to delay on at least two occasions due to pressing national matters and other scheduling conflicts.
"Originally I had proposed to visit China during the last Olympiad. Subsequently, I signalled my intention to attend the opening ceremonies of the Shanghai Expo earlier this year. As it turns out, it will be the closing ceremony of the Expo that I will attend," Mr Ingraham said.
He is also expected to meet with Chinese officials, including Chairman Wu Bangguo and Vice-Premier Hui Liangyu both of whom have visited The Bahamas recently.
On his way to China, Mr Ingraham will spend a full day in Hong Kong where he will participate in the official opening of a new Bahamas Maritime Authority office and attend a reception, hosted by the BMA for a cross section of potential investors in The Bahamas - maritime, financial services and tourism in particular.
"I believe that we have excellent relations with the People's Republic of China. The importance that my Government places on this relationship is demonstrated by our appointment of a former non-portfolio Cabinet Minister to head our Diplomatic Mission in Beijing. Ambassador (Elma) Campbell is the first resident Bahamian Ambassador appointed to Beijing.
Diplomatic
"It was under my party's leadership that The Bahamas ended diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) and in recognition of our support for the One China policy, established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1997," Mr Ingraham said.
Mr Ingraham acknowledged that China has been a generous friend to The Bahamas whether in response to hurricanes, in offering technical and language training scholarships to Bahamian nationals, in gifting the National Stadium, or in supporting the Bahamas' recent efforts to overcome the challenges from the OECD regarding the country's financial services sector and the conclusion of TIEAs with OECD and G20 countries.
China has set aside the sum of $1 billion for soft loans to Caricom countries. Of that sum, some 15 per cent, i.e. $150 million, has been earmarked for lending to The Bahamas.
Mr Ingraham said that the extent to which the Bahamas might identify other suitable projects that fall within the quota set for The Bahamas, will be determined at a later date. The House of Assembly recently approved a resolution for the government to borrow nearly $58 million from the China Export-Import Bank to construct a four-lane airport highway. The project will mean the grant of 200 work permits for Chinese labourers, but also a very low interest rate for the loan. "The Bahamas very much appreciates that in an international environment where soft or concessional loans for infrastructure development is increasingly scarce for middle income countries like the Bahamas, the willingness of the Chinese Government to extend such low interest loans to us," the prime minister said.
This will be Mr Ingraham's second visit to the People's Republic of China. Mr Ingraham first visited China in 2000.
October 12, 2010
tribune242
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham lashes out at the Progressive Liberal Party's (PLP's) 'absolute nonsense' on the Baha Mar deal
PM lashes out at PLP's 'absolute nonsense' on Baha Mar deal
tribune242
PRIME MINISTER Hubert Ingraham has called the PLP's latest jab over his stance on the Baha Mar deal "absolute nonsense".
The PLP accused Mr Ingraham of making a mockery of the foreign investment process after he declared that the government was still not satisfied with the terms of the deal, particularly with regard to the foreign labour element and the fact that the entire project is to be completed in one phase.
The PLP accused the government and Mr Ingraham of having policies that "come off as shifting sands, sinking ground".
But in a dismissive two line statement issued yesterday, the prime minister said the PLP's problem is they "simply cannot take a stand".
"Having negotiated a deal giving away our land, they shamelessly continue to defend the indefensible," he said.
The debate over the proposed $2.6 billion resort development intensified this week after Baha Mar announced it had concluded an agreement with SoctiaBank over outstanding loan payments, this being considered one of the final hurdles to the project getting off the ground.
Mr Ingraham responded shortly after, saying the government still has concerns about the deal.
This prompted the PLP, on whose watch the Baha Mar heads of agreement were signed, to accuse the government of not sticking to its word. The party issued a statement which read: "What does someone think of a prime minister who comes to parliament asking parliament to approve a project, having negotiated a new agreement with Baha Mar and then unceremoniously abrogates that agreement by changing the rules in the middle of the game?
Warned
"We warned him that there was a problem with the high foreign labour content. He was dismissive saying a deal was a deal.
"We warned him of the consequences of default of the project falling into the hands of a foreign state. He was dismissive and said a deal was a deal.
"Now it turns out that a deal is not a deal and he is prepared to flip and flop at every turn to save his political skin."The opposition said the Baha Mar project is the only major investment game in town and there is no other project on the horizon that offers the same level of capital injection, job creation, economic stimulation, and public revenue generation - all of which "the weakened and challenged economy of the Bahamas so desperately needs."
October 09, 2010
tribune242
tribune242
PRIME MINISTER Hubert Ingraham has called the PLP's latest jab over his stance on the Baha Mar deal "absolute nonsense".
The PLP accused Mr Ingraham of making a mockery of the foreign investment process after he declared that the government was still not satisfied with the terms of the deal, particularly with regard to the foreign labour element and the fact that the entire project is to be completed in one phase.
The PLP accused the government and Mr Ingraham of having policies that "come off as shifting sands, sinking ground".
But in a dismissive two line statement issued yesterday, the prime minister said the PLP's problem is they "simply cannot take a stand".
"Having negotiated a deal giving away our land, they shamelessly continue to defend the indefensible," he said.
The debate over the proposed $2.6 billion resort development intensified this week after Baha Mar announced it had concluded an agreement with SoctiaBank over outstanding loan payments, this being considered one of the final hurdles to the project getting off the ground.
Mr Ingraham responded shortly after, saying the government still has concerns about the deal.
This prompted the PLP, on whose watch the Baha Mar heads of agreement were signed, to accuse the government of not sticking to its word. The party issued a statement which read: "What does someone think of a prime minister who comes to parliament asking parliament to approve a project, having negotiated a new agreement with Baha Mar and then unceremoniously abrogates that agreement by changing the rules in the middle of the game?
Warned
"We warned him that there was a problem with the high foreign labour content. He was dismissive saying a deal was a deal.
"We warned him of the consequences of default of the project falling into the hands of a foreign state. He was dismissive and said a deal was a deal.
"Now it turns out that a deal is not a deal and he is prepared to flip and flop at every turn to save his political skin."The opposition said the Baha Mar project is the only major investment game in town and there is no other project on the horizon that offers the same level of capital injection, job creation, economic stimulation, and public revenue generation - all of which "the weakened and challenged economy of the Bahamas so desperately needs."
October 09, 2010
tribune242
Stephen Wrinkle - Bahamas Contractors Association (BCA) President says: It is time for industry involvement in the Baha Mar negotiations
Call for more industry input in Baha Mar negotiations
NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
IT IS time for industry involvement in the Baha Mar negotiations, according to the Bahamas Contractors Association.
Since the BCA submitted its position paper to the government in August it has received no response. Association president Stephen Wrinkle said "it seems to be the typical way of doing business" that industry stakeholders are not consulted.
Mr Wrinkle's comments came in the wake of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham making his strongest personal statements yet on the Baha Mar issue.
Now that the financial hurdles have been overcome, Mr Wrinkle said he hopes the major stakeholders - Baha Mar, government and industry - will be brought together to iron out the remaining kinks.
"I would have thought more industry consultation would have taken place. They certainly have access to people in the industry through the Ministry of Works, but then again that is a government ministry," said Mr Wrinkle.
"We met with the opposition party and their caucus; we briefed them on our position paper and had discussions. We have met with Baha Mar and had discussions with them, but we have had absolutely no response from the government. I couldn't elaborate any further on what their position is because we don't know," he said.
Last week Mr Ingraham suggested Baha Mar may have to review the labour component of its proposal as well as plans for a "single-phased development" in order to satisfy the government's concerns.
One of the main concerns of industry, according to Mr Wrinkle, is the involvement of Bahamian contractors and the transfer of knowledge.
"These big international contracts are extremely difficult to micro-manage at a small level. It will take additional resources on their part to include more Bahamian contractors. It will take more oversight, more management, more participation from the project management team. We understand that," said Mr Wrinkle.
"I think there are concessions that have been given and others that are available to offset this added expense. The tradeoff is well worth it," he said.
On the matter of transferring knowledge, Mr Wrinkle said foreign contractors are not interested in transferring knowledge at the level of labour.
If the focus is only on supplying labour, he said, there would likely be little transfer of knowledge.
"How do you transfer knowledge on how to drive a shovel? That is nothing. We don't need that type of transfer of knowledge. We need to capitalise on techniques and technologies that are unavailable to us on the local market.
"There is not transfer at knowledge at the labour level. It is the duty of the government, the responsibility of government to put in place measures to ensure participation of the local industry. We cannot do it on our own," he said.
So far, Baha Mar has been responsive to the concerns of industry representatives, according to Mr Wrinkle.
However, there are currently no pledges on the table for money to be allocated for training and no stipulations requiring Baha Mar to integrate Bahamian contractors and their crews into the Baha Mar project.
October 09, 2010
tribune242
NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
IT IS time for industry involvement in the Baha Mar negotiations, according to the Bahamas Contractors Association.
Since the BCA submitted its position paper to the government in August it has received no response. Association president Stephen Wrinkle said "it seems to be the typical way of doing business" that industry stakeholders are not consulted.
Mr Wrinkle's comments came in the wake of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham making his strongest personal statements yet on the Baha Mar issue.
Now that the financial hurdles have been overcome, Mr Wrinkle said he hopes the major stakeholders - Baha Mar, government and industry - will be brought together to iron out the remaining kinks.
"I would have thought more industry consultation would have taken place. They certainly have access to people in the industry through the Ministry of Works, but then again that is a government ministry," said Mr Wrinkle.
"We met with the opposition party and their caucus; we briefed them on our position paper and had discussions. We have met with Baha Mar and had discussions with them, but we have had absolutely no response from the government. I couldn't elaborate any further on what their position is because we don't know," he said.
Last week Mr Ingraham suggested Baha Mar may have to review the labour component of its proposal as well as plans for a "single-phased development" in order to satisfy the government's concerns.
One of the main concerns of industry, according to Mr Wrinkle, is the involvement of Bahamian contractors and the transfer of knowledge.
"These big international contracts are extremely difficult to micro-manage at a small level. It will take additional resources on their part to include more Bahamian contractors. It will take more oversight, more management, more participation from the project management team. We understand that," said Mr Wrinkle.
"I think there are concessions that have been given and others that are available to offset this added expense. The tradeoff is well worth it," he said.
On the matter of transferring knowledge, Mr Wrinkle said foreign contractors are not interested in transferring knowledge at the level of labour.
If the focus is only on supplying labour, he said, there would likely be little transfer of knowledge.
"How do you transfer knowledge on how to drive a shovel? That is nothing. We don't need that type of transfer of knowledge. We need to capitalise on techniques and technologies that are unavailable to us on the local market.
"There is not transfer at knowledge at the labour level. It is the duty of the government, the responsibility of government to put in place measures to ensure participation of the local industry. We cannot do it on our own," he said.
So far, Baha Mar has been responsive to the concerns of industry representatives, according to Mr Wrinkle.
However, there are currently no pledges on the table for money to be allocated for training and no stipulations requiring Baha Mar to integrate Bahamian contractors and their crews into the Baha Mar project.
October 09, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)