Dr Duane Sands, the former chairman of Bahamas Mortgage Corporation (BMC) says: ...the newly-elected Christie administration's goal of building 1,300 new houses over its five-year term was "probably unachievable"... ...suggesting it should instead focus on continuing to reduce the Corporation's 35 per cent loan arrears rate

Gov't's 1300 Housing Goal 'Unachievable'


By NATARIO McKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter

nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net

THE former Bahamas Mortgage Corporation (BMC) chairman yesterday said the newly-elected Christie administration's goal of building 1,300 new houses over its five-year term was "probably unachievable", suggesting it should instead focus on continuing to reduce the Corporation's 35 per cent loan arrears rate.

Dr Duane Sands told Tribune Business he was doubtful the BMC would be able to finance the aggressive housing initiative proposed by the newly appointed-housing minister, Kenred Dorsett, questioning: "Where is the money going to come from?"

Mr Dorsett, the minister of the environment and housing, recently said more than 1,300 government homes were expected to be built over the next five years.

But Dr Sands told Tribune Business that while the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation's financial standing had improved, he was doubtful it would be able to finance that many homes.

He explained: "It is difficult to imagine where the money is going to come from, because the Mortgage Corporation's financial standing - while improved - is not likely going to be strong enough to sustain that degree of new debt.

"If you have a deficit in the national Budget of $500-plus million in just this year alone, the likelihood that we are going to be able to afford any additional spending is going to be unlikely. I find it to be a very aggressive, ambitious and probably unachievable goal."

Dr Sands added: "I don't know where the money will come from. Floating more bonds means now that you have more guaranteed government debt. Unless they talk out of both sides of their mouth, talking about no new taxes and, at the same time, extending the government debt by new spending, I don't see how it is possible."

Dr Sands noted that the Mortgage Corporation's sinking fund is underfunded by millions of dollars. He said: "Serving that bond interest debt and bond maturity debt requires more money than the Mortgage Corporation takes in.

"The money is going to have to come from somewhere, and most likely the money is going to come from the taxpayers in some form or fashion, because the mortgage guarantee fund simply doesn't have enough money in it."

He added: "I have gone on record as saying he 2002-2007 programme was the most irresponsible use of money in the Mortgage Corporation's history. If you want to repeat that now, simply to say you have built so many houses, is unreasonable. Who is going to pay the bill?

"I would encourage them to continue to strengthen the position of the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation by aggressively pursuing some of the policies that have been shown to be effective, and which have reduced the arrears from 40 per cent to 35 per cent, as opposed to throwing caution to the wind."

Attempts to contact Mr Dorsett were unsuccessful up to press time.

June 08, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

In all honesty, the idea of urban renewal cannot be claimed as being the brainchild of either the Christie or Ingraham administrations... It preceded both by many years... In fact, Urban Renewal in the broadest sense of the word was the brainchild of Sir Stafford Sands, the creator of this country's tourism and financial industries

A people betrayed, says Ed Moxey, of the Pindling years

tribune242 editorial




THE PANACEA to all this country's social problems is Urban Renewal, PLP-style. The constant cry of the PLP is that the FNM came along, stole the PLP's idea, destroyed it and, in so doing, opened a Pandora's box of destruction for these islands. Everything, including escalating crime, both in the streets and in the schools, can be blamed on the elimination of the PLP's novel idea -- Urban Renewal.

For their part, the FNM maintains that although police patrols were removed from the school campus, the structure of urban renewal was not destroyed, but rather improved upon and broadened.

In all honesty, the idea of urban renewal cannot be claimed as being the brainchild of either the Christie or Ingraham administrations. It preceded both by many years.

In fact, Urban Renewal in the broadest sense of the word was the brainchild of Sir Stafford Sands, the creator of this country's tourism and financial industries.

In a conversation with Sir Stafford shortly after the UBP lost the government to the PLP in 1967, he assured us that he was leaving a financially healthy government. All the PLP had to do, he said, was to sit on their hands and let all his party's plans go through and the country would be in good shape. However, if they got itchy fingers and started tinkering, everything could collapse.

Sir Stafford Sands was a five-year planner. A brilliant, and well organised man, he always worked on a five-year plan. So when the PLP came in, they would have found that tourism conventions, and functions had been booked for five years into the future and the Public Treasury was financially sound. Sir Foley Newns, the able colonial British administrator, who had worked with Sir Stafford as Cabinet Secretary from 1963, was kept on by the PLP until 1971, just one year short of Sir Stafford's five-year programme. Slippage started after he left.

Sir Stafford, the Minister of Finance in Sir Roland Symonette's government, with the approval of his colleagues, commissioned a Development Plan of New Providence Island and the City of Nassau in the summer of 1966. Working through the United Nations, Columbia University's division of Urban Planning in its School of Architecture was engaged to do the work.

What resulted was a magnificent, detailed, beautifully presented transformation of this island -- down to where every underground pipe was to be laid. It also provided for population growth. It was unfortunate that it was completed and returned to the Bahamas in the spring of 1967 after the UBP had been voted out of office. However, every member of the House of Assembly received a copy. And there it died.

"If it had been implemented," said Mr Moxey in his documentary, "the plan would transform over the hill, in particular the Grants Town community, installing a sewer system, and laying out the city centre, in a way seen only in Grand Bahama and Mathew Town, Inagua. There would be green spaces and bike paths, and streets dedicated to the children of New Providence."

About 13 years later, Arthur Hanna, then deputy prime minister, explained the reasons for the plans not being considered. He said it was because "there was no cost assessed for the implementation of the plan; no one was identified to pay the cost, and there was no suitable organisational administrative mechanism for translating the plans into reality".

On that statement alone -- exposing both incompetence and lack of imagination -- the PLP government should have been fired. A master plan had been put in the their laps, and they were waiting for a fairy godmother to show them how to use it.

The UBP government's urban renewal plan was introduced by Ed Moxey, a former member of the PLP Cabinet at that time, in his documentary, which had its premier showing on Sunday night in which he recorded his personal sacrifices to try to save Jumbey Village for the upliftment of his people. In the end, he lost the battle, but not his integrity -- although Sir Lynden also tried to take that from him. In his documentary Mr Moxey told how Sir Lynden had betrayed a trusting people, and the price that he personally had to pay for having an idea that dwarfed his party leader's myopic thinking.

Last night, Mr Moxey in speaking of Sir Stafford's plans, which preceded his own vision for Jumbey Village, had this to say:

"It is unfortunate that the Urban Renewal Study and programme initiated by Sir Stafford Sands for the black masses of Bahamians was trampled under the feet of our leaders and advocates of the Quiet Revolution in 1967.

"It is like I said 25 years ago, the revolution was betrayed and after 45 years of majority rule our people over the hill still live in substandard conditions using outside toilets and water pumps. Oh, my Lord, what a shame!"

Is this the unsound bridge that Opposition Leader Perry Christie has invited Bahamians to cross with him into the future? We hope not.

March 22, 2012

BACKBENCHERS DISILLUSIONED BY GOVT - MOXEY

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

...the New Providence Road Improvement Project could have been completed "six or seven years ago" if it weren't for the incompetence of the former Perry Christie led Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) administration

Christie government was slow to act


tribune242 editorial



SPEAKING at the opening of Golden Gates constituency office, Prime Minister Ingraham said that the New Providence Road Improvement Project could have been completed "six or seven years ago" if it weren't for the incompetence of the former PLP administration.

For one thing, he said, the road works could have been continued in 2002 and completed for $56 million, instead of the now estimated $206 million.

"At that time," he said, "the price of oil, cement and plastic was lower, the price of oil was about $20 a barrel. Today, it's over $100 a barrel."

What happened to the road improvement project was unfortunate. If there had not been a change of government in 2002, the road project -- although it met with a major disaster midstream-- could possibly have been completed on time.

In 1994, the Ingraham government engaged a Canadian firm to prepare a transportation development plan for New Providence. This plan formed the basis of the IDB-funded New Providence Infrastructure Improvement Project.

Four companies were prequalified and submitted bids on June 9, 2000. Two of the bids did not comply with the requirements of the bidding document. The other two provided enough "information to enable an assessment of the adequacy of their proposals".

Government agreed to do business with Associated Asphalt, the lower of the two remaining bidders. It awarded Associated Asphalt (AA), a UK company, a $52.2 million lump sum contract to undertake the project. The contract contained no price escalation clause. At the time, the price of oil averaged US$20 and US$21 a barrel -- today it is more than $100 per barrel and rising.

AA was required to provide two bonds - an advance payment bond of $7.6 million and a performance bond of $7.8 million. The project was estimated to cost $66 million and was to be funded by a loan from IDB for $46.2 million with Government providing counterpart funding of $19.8 million. Work started on April 2, 2001 with a completion date of February 10, 2003.

Fifteen months into the contract, AA's parent company went into receivership. All work stopped. By then, the Charles Saunders Highway, the Milo Butler Highway and the Gladstone Road Realignment, valued at $11.4 million, had been completed. Excluding the advance payment of $7.6 million, the contractor was paid $8.3 million and was entitled to be paid for $2 million in unpaid certified invoices.

What would normally have happened was that the next lowest acceptable bidder-- a Netherlands company whose bid was about $8 million higher than AA-- should have stepped in to complete the job. However, the bondholder believed that the lowest bidder, a Canadian company, should be engaged instead. The Ingraham Government and IDB did not agree.

In the meantime, the PLP became the government. In November 2002 they cancelled AA's contract and demanded that the bondholder pay the sums owed under the performance bond and advance payment bond. The bond holder refused. The matter went to court. The Attorney General had to advise the PLP government that it could not sue on the performance guarantee bond because the final date on which a valid demand could have been made -- February 9, 2004 - had passed. The PLP government's failure to act in a timely manner had cost the country $7.8 million.

On July 15, 2005, the PLP government was again in the Supreme court demanding that the advance payment bond be paid. Again, the bondholder refused. This time, the bondsman claimed that then Works Minister Bradley Roberts in a meeting on October 2, 2002, attended by several company representatives and Kendal "Funkey" Demeritte, described in court documents as a "political assistant", had claimed that the FNM's award of the contract to AA was tainted. Mr Roberts suggested "political interference and corruption". The defence filed by the bondholder was that as Mr Roberts had said corruption in the transaction was under investigation -- although he had refused to disclose the details of the investigation--it had no intention of paying on an illegal contract. Again a loss to Bahamian tax payers.

However, when the Ingraham government was returned in 2007, the bondholder, agreed to discontinue relying on Mr Robert's unfounded allegations. It paid $5.25 million in settlement of both bonds.

In the meantime, time had been lost. Had the Netherlands firm been allowed to complete AA's contract, said Prime Minister Ingraham, the project would have been completed by mid-2005 "with substantial cost savings and the benefits to the economy and the benefits of the project would have been realised much sooner".

The country is now in the predicament it is in -- with escalating costs for roadworks -- because, as usual, the Christie government was slow to act.

March 13, 2012

tribune242 editorial

caribbean Blog International

The difference between Perry Christie and Hubert Ingraham: Christie talks... and Ingraham acts

tribune242 editorial


WHILE Prime Minister Ingraham was still out in a helicopter last night -- landing in Nassau at 9.45pm-- after touring various settlements in Abaco, Opposition leader Perry Christie was in Nassau talking -- rather complaining about government's disaster strategy.

At a press conference yesterday PLP officials directed our attention to government's "mistakes" and "failures" in response to Hurricane Irene. We always take these directions as an invitation to go a step further. For us it is a temptation to open the PLP files on their administration's handling of the back-to-back Hurricanes Jeanne and Frances in 2004, and the NEMA disaster funds for which -- if memory serves -- Bahamians are yet to be given an accounting for that period. Sir Jack Hayward certainly made enough noise over his million dollar donation, which was not used for the hurricane repairs for which he intended them.

On Saturday a 72-year-old lady from Eight Mile Rock said that she realised that many of our islands had been badly damaged by Hurricane Irene. "But thank God that the FNM are in power this time," she added. She said she would never want anyone to experience what they had to experience under the PLP after the 2004 hurricanes. She knew the FNM would be fair. This speaks volumes, and our files of that period will support her words.

What went on today just illustrates the difference between the two leaders - Ingraham and Christie - and their administrations. One talks... the other acts. And when election day comes, Bahamians will have to decide which man they would prefer to administer their affairs - the one landing back in Nassau last night in a helicopter amidst rolling thunder after visiting his constituents, or the one in the safety of the capital complaining to the press.

Mr Christie thought that Prime Minister Ingraham's post hurricane assessment was insensitive to victims whose livelihood had been severely affected.

"When the leader of the country enters into a debate on a matter of a distaste and the impact of it, he has to exercise greater care than (Mr Ingraham) exercised in speaking."

We presume that Mr Christie was referring to Mr Ingraham being disturbed that a newspaper chose the word "devastated" to describe the affect of Irene on these islands. Ever a positive man of action, the word "devastated" conveyed to Mr Ingraham that our islands were down and out for the count. This is a position that he accepts in nothing -- damaged, yes, but down and out, no.

He saw the people's suffering. He felt it deeply. He knew many had lost everything, but he was on a tireless mission to see that they were helped to their feet as quickly as possible. He, like everyone else, was lamenting the destruction, he was not minimising or "making light" of something that was incredibly serious. But, he knew that sitting down crying over a disaster would not get anyone anywhere quickly -- and so he moved on from island to island, discovering the damage for himself and deciding how quickly it could be repaired.

He is leaving the walking and talking and touching and looking into people's eyes to see their hurt and pain -- as expressed at the press conference by MICAL MP Alfred Grey -- to Mr Grey and Mr Christie. While they are "pressing flesh", he will be getting the material to put a roof of people's heads.

"Brave" Davis, Cat Island MP, who hurried to his district right after the hurricane, suggested that Mr Ingraham consider waiving the duty on appliances for affected persons. While Mr Davis was suggesting, Mr Ingraham was doing. He had already announced that government will allow Cat Island's eligible residents to import building and electrical materials and agricultural supplies duty free.

Before leaving for Abaco yesterday to inspect the damage there, Mr Ingraham said: "Cat Island seems to be the most affected so they will have the longest period of duty exemption." He added that he thought a case could be made for Acklins and Mayaguana. However, he thought that Acklins and Cat Island were "at the top of the pile."

While Mr Davis was talking, HMBS Nassau was in Smith's Bay, Cat Island, delivering a team of Defence Force officers to distribute food, water and tarpaulin and other items to Cat Island residents who lost homes and possessions.

The officers will also help clean up the island. Mr Ingraham's government is also arranging to set up a reverse osmosis plant and generators in Cat Island.

This is hardly the behaviour of a man who fails to understand a people's tremendous loss and personal tragedy. We are confident that these stricken Bahamians would prefer what Mr Ingraham and his government are trying to do for them.

If Mr Gray thinks that what the Ingraham government is doing is "fast and inadequate," we leave it to Mr Gray to "walk and talk and touch and look in people's eyes and see the hurt and pain." People will quickly realise that these walks, talks, touching and eye contact will not put bread on their tables or a roof over their heads.

So, Bahamians, take your pick.

August 30, 2011

tribune242 editorial

caribbean Blog International

Wikileaks Bahamas documents: The Christie administration offered to send Bahamian troops to help quell a violent rebellion in Haiti and discussed the possibility of making Fred Mitchell joint leader of that country

Mitchell 'considered for Haiti leadership role'

tribune242



THE Christie administration offered to send Bahamian troops to help quell a violent rebellion in Haiti and discussed the possibility of making Fred Mitchell joint leader of that country, newly released Wikileaks documents claim.

According to confidential cables sent by US Embassy officials in Nassau at the height of the crisis in early 2004, if diplomacy failed to contain the crisis the Bahamas government felt military assistance would be necessary and was willing to commit "perhaps as many as 100" troops to a multilateral force - whether or not it was led by the United Nations.

The documents also claim then Foreign Affairs minister Fred Mitchell was close to being named one of a threesome of "wise men" to be charged with overseeing that country's affairs.

The three cables, sent by US Embassy officials in 2003 and 2004, detail the Christie administration's response to the rapidly developing crisis as understood by embassy staff.

They claim Mr Mitchell and former prime minister Perry Christie were very concerned about the violence - particularly in terms of what it would mean for Haitian migration to the Bahamas.

One cable quotes former Foreign Affairs permanent secretary Melanie Zonicle as saying that in Mr Mitchell's view, while the preferred mechanism for dealing with Haiti was the UN, "any outside intervention would be preferable to continued and increased chaos."

Another reiterated the importance of illegal immigration to local politics, noting that Mr Christie - despite being an "overprogrammed prime minister" - repeatedly requested and put aside a full hour for an urgent meeting to inform US officials of his position on Haiti.

That position, the cables claim, placed a comparatively low priority on the human rights of the Haitian people.

One of the cables, issued in April 2003 by notoriously combative US Ambassador Richard Blankenship (see story, page 7), said that fear of "mass migration" was the Bahamas government's top priority, but that an immigration agreement with the Aristide government stalled over the Haitian demand that amnesty be granted to the illegals already in the country.

It said: "Such a concession would be suicide for Mitchell in the xenophobic Bahamian political landscape. Pursuit of this agreement and any other means to slow down migration will continue to push any concerns for democracy and human rights into the backseat."

A February 2004 cable quoted Mr Christie as saying that if large numbers of Haitians started arriving in Bahamian territory, the government would not offer asylum, but rather rely on the United States to help with repatriation.

"The Bahamas, he said, simply had no capacity to maintain large numbers of migrants for any period of time. Declaring that he had no concert with 'those liberals' on this issue, he declared that there would never be asylum in the Bahamas for Haitians.

"The total population of the Bahamas was, he said, 'less than that of a small town in the United States. We simply cannot do what Amnesty International and other groups would insist on us'."

The February 2004 cable quotes Mr Christie as mentioning the possibility that Fred Mitchell could play a "new and significant ongoing role in Haiti as the third member in a tripartite committee that, Christie seemed to believe, would effectively serve as a kind of 'Council of Wise Men' in governing the country."

Under this scenario, Mr Mitchell, as the representative of "CARICOM and others" would have governed Haiti along with a new Haitian prime minister and a representative of the opposition.

The former PM is quoted as saying President Aristide had reservations about the plan and for his own part, Mr Christie would prefer the third member to be French or American - although he seemed to think Mr Mitchell was the US's preference. The cables do not clarify if this was the case.

However, they do paint a picture of a prime minister who is a bit naive about US policy towards Haiti.

Despite the hard line on the Haitian regime sustained throughout the crisis - culminating in claims that the United States government abducted President Aristide - Mr Christie appears in the cables as appealing to the US to share his sympathy for the Haitian leader.

The February 2004 cable notes that the former PM "appeared comfortable in his newly-assumed role of international mediator," mentioning that he had spoken with Aristide "at least a dozen times" recently and at least once a week that day.

Mr Christie is said to have stressed that he and Mr Mitchell felt an agreement should be reached that conferred some "dignity" to Aristide, and that he sympathised with the Haitian leader's complaint that he was being asked to take unconstitutional actions.

He added that he does not believe Aristide would be opposed to working with the opposition on the joint appointment of a new prime minister and cabinet, but simply did not want to be "left out of the process."

Mr Christie also seemed confident that Mr Mitchell and US Assistant Secretary Roger Noriega would fly to Haiti later that week and "continue to work all sides of the issue."

Mr Mitchell, on the other hand, is quoted in a 2003 cable as saying the US position on Haiti was "hard-minded" and calling for more dialogue.

Another cable compared Mr Mitchell to Mr Christie, saying that: "While his decision-making style may be protracted and indecisive, Bahamian Prime Minister Perry Christie is also an impressive, dynamic, charismatic and ebullient presence and an indefatigable seeker of consensus. For the purpose of promoting peace in Haiti, his personality complements that of Foreign Minister Mitchell, which is steadier, stealthier, and more methodical."

July 25, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

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

Bahamas Blog International

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

Bahamas Blog International

Prime Minister Perry Christie Says No To Cabinet Shuffle

Christie said he disagreed with the notion that making changes to his Cabinet was a must because it is a sign of good governance

No Cabinet Reshuffle

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

03/05/2004

Saying that he does not want to disrupt major projects underway in various ministries, Prime Minister Perry Christie has shelved plans to make "adjustments" to his Cabinet.

"I have to have a real purpose for changing because the results are important," said Mr. Christie, who was a guest on the Radio Love 97 Programme "Jones and Company" which aired Sunday.

He said he disagreed with the notion that making changes to his Cabinet was a must because it is a sign of good governance.

Rumors regarding the prime minister's planned Cabinet reshuffle have been rife over the past several weeks, with Mr. Christie indicating to the Journal at the beginning of the year that he planned to make changes to his team.

At the time, he said, "The prime minister must always examine his government with a view to making adjustments and most certainly I am looking at making adjustments."

But on the Sunday programme, Mr. Christie revealed a change of heart.

He explained that he did not want to draw attention to a small number of ministers and ministries by making one or two changes.

"So as not to put undue pressure on one or two ministries by making adjustments, I decided to wait for a certain process to complete itself," the prime minister said.

He indicated that he is generally pleased with the job being done by his ministers, pointing to several examples.

"I realized that in tourism, for example, I had a minister in the middle of new marketing programmes that have resulted, that will continue to result in, an improvement of [the industry]," the prime minister said.

He added that if he were to make changes to the portfolio of Works and Utilities Minister Bradley Roberts, it could further delay the New Providence road improvement programme many people are anxious to see start and finish.

Pointing to Labour and Immigration Minister Vincent Peet, Mr. Christie said in considering whether to make adjustments, he realized that, "I had a Minister of Labour who had proven to be acceptable on the part of and had credibility with labour unions."

In addition, he pointed to what he indicated was a fine job being done by Minister of Housing and National Insurance Shane Gibson.

"I had a Minister of Housing who, in 22 months had build 558 houses, [compared to the former government] that built in ten years 780 houses," Mr. Christie said.  "So I had a minister who was functioning efficiently."

In recent weeks, government officials have been pointing to their record on building houses, as an example of what they say is significant progress being made by the administration.

In the case of Transport and Aviation Minister Glenys Hanna Martin, Mr. Christie said it would be difficult to change her right now, given that she is working to meet a crucial international July deadline for the upgrade of port security throughout the country.

He also said that it would be unwise to reassign Youth, Sports and Culture Neville Wisdom who is working on very important youth projects, including the implementation of a National Youth Service.

Mr. Christie said, "I had to take stock of what I call the complex nature of governance and judge what I do by the results I hope to achieve and the results I hope to achieve will be attainable if I delayed what I intended to do."