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 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

Standard & Poor's (S&P) latest assessment of the Bahamas' public finances: ...hinted strongly that it was not overwhelmed by the Government's fiscal plans and that the Ingraham administration could do more to set the national debt and deficit back on a more sustainable path

S&P: Bahamas needs 'proactive' debt policy


By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
tribune242


A major Wall Street credit rating agency would raise the Bahamas' sovereign credit rating if the Government initiates "a more proactive policy response" to reduce this nation's national debt, noting the economy's "modest growth prospects" and likely "limited" improvement in the fiscal deficit prior to the upcoming general election.

Standard & Poor's (S&P), in its latest assessment of the Bahamas' public finances during a round-up of developments in Latin America, hinted strongly that it was not overwhelmed by the Government's fiscal plans and that the Ingraham administration could do more to set the national debt and deficit back on a more sustainable path.

The analysis, prepared by Bahamas country analyst Lisa Schineller, said S&P's 'stable' outlook on this nation's sovereign credit rating "reflects our expectation that the Government will gradually reduce its fiscal deficit and will maintain a generally stable external financing profile".

On the downside, she said the Bahamas 'BBB+' and 'A2' short and long-term ratings, respectively, " could come under pressure if the Bahamas' fiscal deterioration persists and the economic base erodes more severely".

Yet, more interestingly, Ms Schineller wrote: "Conversely, we could raise the ratings if the Government takes a more proactive policy response to reduce debt levels or if the Commonwealth's economic prospects strengthen."

For its 2011-2012 Budget, the Ingraham administration is projecting a GFS fiscal deficit of 3 per cent or $248 million. Debt principal repayments of $66 million are stripped out of this measurement, the total deficit forecast to be $314 million.

Direct government debt, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), is projected to grow to 46.2 per cent at the end of the next fiscal year on June 30, 2012, and keep on rising to 47 per cent and 47.7 per cent at the end of fiscal 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 respectively.

In its latest analysis, S&P projected that general government deficits would decline to an average of 3.6 per cent of GDP over the period 2011-2013. Net general government debt, which stood at 33 per cent of GDP in 2010, was projected to continue rising to 38 per cent by 2012, gross debt having risen from 36 per cent in 2007 to 47 per cent last year.

"The Bahamas' fiscal deficit is projected to decline over the forecast period, but improvement might be limited ahead of the next general election that is due by May 2012, given the still subdued growth outlook," S&P said.

"Specifically, the Government increased capital and social spending to mitigate the impact of the recession on society despite a decline in tax revenues............ Importantly, the Government's external amortisation needs are low, as the share of external debt to locally issued debt is about 20 per cent."

The Wall Street credit rating agency is projecting a general government deficit of around 5.3 per cent for the 2010-2011 fiscal year that is due to end on June 30, down from the 6.6 per cent gap incurred in 2010.

"The Bahamian hotel industry has recovered somewhat but does not expect a meaningful revival of tourism in 2011, and still appears dependent on promotion deals," S&P added. "The Bahamas was significantly affected by the global recession, and like elsewhere in the Caribbean, has recovered very slowly.

"We expect the Bahamas' tourism sector to improve slowly in line with the US economic outlook (and US consumer). The economy's dependence on one product (tourism accounts for more than 50 per cent of GDP and employs more than 50 per cent of the labour force) and one market (US tourists account for more than 80 per cent of the total) is a vulnerability."

S&P included among the Bahamas' weaknesses the rise in the fiscal deficit and national debt, given the weak recovery, coupled with spending increases and reduced tax revenues.

It also noted the "high current account deficit and weak, albeit fairly stable, external liquidity".

June 16, 2011

tribune242

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

Charles Maynard accused Philip "Brave" Davis of hiring bloggers to post "scandalous lies" of alleged corruption and extra-marital affairs about him

PLP Deputy accused of 'Internet lies'
By TANEKA THOMPSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net:


CULTURE Minister Charles Maynard yesterday accused Opposition Deputy Leader Philip "Brave" Davis of hiring Internet bloggers to post "scandalous lies" that link him to alleged corruption and extra-marital affairs.

Mr Davis strongly denied the allegations when contacted by The Tribune yesterday morning and said he had no idea who is behind the website in question. He added that he had no time for - and did not condone - smear campaigns or personal attacks on fellow politicians.

The post in question, published on Monday, lashed out at Mr Maynard for criticisms made on a talk show earlier this week - and also in the House of Assembly last month - alleging that criminal defense attorneys and Mr Davis specifically who "profited" from and "manipulated" the slow-moving legal system.

According to Mr Maynard, every time he publicly criticises Mr Davis a scathing story about him appears on the website, making it "obvious" to him who is driving the rumours.

"I know as a fact that Brave Davis is behind it, that the person who does this works directly for him." Mr Davis emphatically denied the accusation.

"I don't think that it's fair for me to say something in the House - generally speaking and also directed to him in terms of how I felt about what he would have done earlier in his law practice - and his way of dealing with it is to have these scandalous things on blogs.

"It was so obvious in this latest attack, yesterday I appeared on a talk show and said something about him and they allude to that (in the blog) and it makes it obvious. It's immature (and) does nothing to forward the political system," Mr Maynard said.

Mr Davis, on the other hand, said he had no part in the disparaging remarks made against the minister adding that he cannot control the thoughts and actions of persons who may support him.

"That's unfortunate if he thinks every time he talks negatively about me he is negatively attacked - then he ought to consider whether he should be negatively attacking me. If he is attacking me and he finds himself being attacked, just as he has supporters out there I have supporters too. I have no interest in nor will I condone negative attacks on anyone. I have no interest in running any negative campaign - we have too many challenges in our country," the PLP Member of Parliament for Cat Island and Rum Cay said when asked about the allegations.

He continued:" "I don't need anyone to respond for me...But I am heartened to know that people feel sufficiently warm about me to come to my defence if they feel I am unduly attacked. Of course I am not going to sit by idly and allow people to attack (others)."

When asked directly if the website is run by PLP operatives, Mr Davis said: "I wouldn't say that's the case." He told The Tribune that the comments posted were "crossing the line."

Among other things, the post also alleges that the minister engaged in extra-marital affairs while on official duty at the World Cup match in South Africa and benefited from alleged criminal proceeds passed down to him by his father, Andrew "Dud" Maynard, a former PLP chairman.

Mr Maynard said his father, a veteran politician, can handle the aspersions but they take a harder toll on his wife.

"From my father's point of view he's been in politics all his life and knows it gets dirty. My wife is new to politics and not very happy about it - to me it's a new low.

"It goes out into the public domain, despite the fact that it's lies, it's still something that nobody would like to be said about them."

Still it doesn't appear that Mr Maynard plans to sue the handlers of the website for defamation.

He explained that Bahamian law has not caught up with the influence of the world wide web.

He said he hopes the Ingraham administration can advance some sort of legislative reform to address these matters, particularly before the next general election when campaigns on both sides of the party divide will heat up.

July 07, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International