One of the rather cynical things about this whole cement crisis is Dr. Brown's posturing as the saviour rather than one of the instigators.
It's quite simple to see what was going on here as I said last night, which is an overt attempt to dismantle a long-standing Bermuda business so that they could achieve an idiotic yet symbolic point of showing who Bermuda's power brokers are, to borrow a phrase.
Yet, as usual, it's all built on a pack of lies:
The issue over cement supply reached a critical point in this country because a former government provided BCC with an environment that permitted it to hold the country at ransom – do business with us Bermuda or go without cement.
Now I know that facts are irrelevant in Brown's world, but the truth is different. The history of the BCC is quite simple as I discovered today.
About forty years ago, the Bermuda Government was desperately trying to attract industry and investment to the west end through Crown Lands (presumably now WEDCO).
As a result of this, some investors drew up a lease for a patch of undeveloped grassland which now is the site of the Bermuda Cement Company.
BCC then built their facilities on the site, from the ground up, including 3 silos. There is no legislated monopoly. They weren't given any protections. They just started producing cement which, from everything I've been told, is not expensive in Bermuda and is at a price that is low enough to not have invited competition (and fuels thousands of jobs).
Eventually BCC dismantled the metal silo as it was not profitable and the two cement ones remain today. While the silos are part of the land under the lease and are not technically BCC's, there is no reason to relocate them 300 yards down the dock, other than vengeance. Does anyone see high-end condos in Dockyard as a viable development?
Even Dr. Brown made clear himself that the terms of the lease demanded of BCC are different than what a new company could negotiate. Hence, even the most simple or partisan (or simple partisan) observer can see that the lease was designed to be unacceptable to force sale/liquidation.
As an example, do you think it is normal practice for a landlord (WEDCO in this case) to be able to demand in a lease that a tenant make 20% of their company public? Does that sound like something a landlord is within their rights to do?
And, from what I've learned today, this actually wasn't unacceptable to the BCC (although I understand that they were advised a couple of years ago that the company was too small to be listed anyway*). BCC has stated all along that the issue is the cost of building a new facility next door, dismantling the facility, and a short 20 year non-renewable term.
Bermuda's reputation as a safe and reputable place to invest your capital has been irreparably harmed by this debacle. Foreign and local investors will be wondering if their capital is safe from Government interference.
Just ask Cemex, a minority shareholder and Mexican conglomerate, which is about to see their investment devalued by a forced Government takeunder.
A few select insiders will win. Bermuda loses.
[* CORRECTION: The post originally said that BCC was informed by the BSX that they were too small to be listed. That is incorrect. This was advised by an advisory firm. The BSX has advised me that the BCC could have qualified for listing at the time.]
