Recently in Environment Category

It's hard to remember any issue which has united such a diverse group of people in Bermuda in opposition as the Tucker's Point SDO. The Uighurs is perhaps the closest I can think of, but even that didn't draw out publicly traditional PLP support in public opposition.

The protest today promises to be big, and it will be tough for the PLP to use their normal 'angry white mob' line against this one.

I'm hoping the Senate kicks this back to the House and all sides can come back to the table and reach some sort of a compromise position. The problem for TPC is that the scale of their economic problems appear to be so large that anything less than this massive proposed development will be insufficient to prevent bankruptcy.

I wouldn't be opposed to construction on the existing brownfield sites on the property, such as the top of Ship's Hill, but many of the areas are too environmentally sensitive, and the area would become too crowded.

There's not a lot of good options on the table, and Bermuda should support Tucker's Point and our existing properties as much as they can, but this request has been so horribly managed by both the developer and the Government and is too big of an ask. The overwhelming public opposition can't be ignored.

For what it's worth, with the Tucker's Point SDO up for debate today, I don't support it. Certainly not in its current form, and potentially not at all.

This is a bail out of private investors and an HSBC loan, and neither pose a systemic risk to the Bermuda economy. Tucker's Point is an important tourism development and everyone wants it to succeed, but that will arguably be more achievable not by cutting down huge swaths of protected land and selling it to non-Bermudians so the investors can add assets to their balance sheet, but by having HSBC take a hair cut on the hotel loan, restructure it and then the economics of the hotel work better.

If Government bails out this loan by HSBC will they bail out, or require HSBC to restructure, residential loans for Bermudians which may be in trouble for example (the banks already do this I know, but I mean require)? This deal looks like a one way street with Government securing little in exchange for what Tucker's Point and HSBC are asking.

Simply giving them more real estate to sell for a very uncertain outcome doesn't strike me as worth it at all.

The US bail-out, while you can disagree on it, at least was built around an apparent systemic risk from the banking sector. This is just a bad investment if you ask me.

Emerging PLP hatchet man Marc Bean is getting some attention for using the Senate floor to call environmental group BEST a 'muppet show', and then after being called out has upped the ante with a 'pimps and prostitutes' reference.

I feel compelled to weigh in here because I seem to recall a couple of rent-a-protestors being sent over to harass my employer after I used the term 'media whore' in reference to the outgoing Premier in 2007 and his love of mugging for the camera.

I'm glad that the PLP has come around and implicitly acknowledged that I was trailblazing, and I must say I chose much more interesting language than 'pimp' or 'prostitute', which is Mr. Bean's primary offense.

His attack lacks creativity and originality. It's just crude, and lazy. Simply throwing out 'pimps and prostitutes' is really missing an opportunity to add a little creative license. He needs to get a bit more original and creative.

You see, the beauty of the term 'media whore' versus 'pimps and prostitutes' is that it says so much with two simple words. You know precisely what a media whore is as soon as you hear it (I didn't create the term but it's an all time favourite). Its beauty is its all encompassing brevity. Pimps and prostitutes doesn't have that same effect, it's low hanging fruit

These attacks are also weak on the substance on a guy like Stuart Hayward and BEST. Stuart, who I don't really know other than his public profile, is clearly committed to the cause of environmentalism - throughout his life. To try and suggest that he is some tool of the ever expanding Combined Opposition makes the pimps and prostitutes allegation more inflammatory than illuminating. Stuart has been an independent MP and an equal opportunity critic who admittedly has been applying a lot of heat to the PLP in the past few years. But he's got a lot of company in that regard.

Back to Mr. Bean. In 2007 the now Senator then candidate was previewing his flair for the overdramatic by calling the UBP 'neo-fascists' who wanted to lock everyone up when they (rightly) called for urgent action to arrest violent gang crime.

At the time I gave Mr. Bean a new award, the DIngbat of the Day, for his stupid and incendiary comments. Later that day I received an email from Mr. Bean saying that I was being disrespectful by calling him a Dingbat.

After a short exchange I decided to amend the post to "Hyberbole of the Day" as it was meant more in jest than an insult. The 'dingbat' can still be seen in the filename of the post.

So I would suggest that Mr. Bean take a look in the mirror and do a little self-assessment, ask himself what his reaction would be if someone called him a muppet or a pimp and a prostitute for expressing his political views. I suspect he'd argue that like my dingbat reference it was disrespectful and unhelpful for generating civil discourse in our country.

He'd be right.

But, judging by his release today that UBP Senate Leader Michael Dunkley is 'ignorant and arrogant' - an accusation that I might add would immediately send the PLP thought police into a frenzy if leveled by (white) Michael Dunkley against anyone in the (black) PLP - he's got a long way to go.

An aspiring environmental prosecutor writes:

A gigantic sand sculpture will grace Front Street as a part of Wednesday's Harbour Nights. Let's hope it's made out of debris from Club Med. Because if it is made out of beach sand, it will be a clear violation of the law which forbids the removal of any sand from the beaches.

The reader is correct I think. I believe the Act that covers it is the Sports, Camping and Recreational Areas Act 1977:

Offences

6 Any person who within a declared area—
(a) wilfully takes, removes or destroys any plant, tree or shrub, or makes any excavation or removes any sand, stone or soil; or

I've been remiss in posting a link which was sent to me a few weeks ago to a new blog from the BAMZ crew.

It's called Bermuda BREAM (Bermuda Reef Ecosystem Assessment and Mapping Programme).

I guess "Bermuda Bibbler" was already taken.

It dawned on me today that the solution to BELCO's new power plant location controversy is obvious.

They should:

1) Buy a plot of environmentally sensitive protected coastal woodland
2) Make a donation.
3) Apply for a (not-so) Special Development Order.

Done. Problem solved.

A reader with his experience with a wind turbine:

In reference to the planning application for the wind turbine installation. I am all for seeking and using environmentally friendly energy resources. My only concern with the wind turbine it that during a normal breezy day the turbine is extremely quiet and unnoticeable, but during times of moderately higher winds the "blades" of the turbine make an extreme amount of very high pitch noise!

I know this because I had installed one for test purposes on my own property and found that on windy days (sometimes) but definitely nights I had to shut it off as it would keep everyone in the immediate area including myself awake!

This was a very expensive unit definitely not the bottom of the barrel but it was 5 years ago so maybe things have changed. I definitely wouldn't recommend this type of energy generator for an area where you have anyone living near you.

I've been told that they're getting quieter, but I can imagine that if their use became widespread you could have a serious noise pollution problem.

In this case Mr. Miller applied for a one year test period as well. I'm sure his neighbours would have notified Planning if noise was a problem.

There are lots of issues to consider for new power sources (solar seems best suited to Bermuda I'd think), but 'unattractive' seems like a low one on the Ministry of the Environment's hierarchy of concerns.

A reader writes on the wind turbines:

While I do agree that the application for this should have been turned down, for me it is not the unsightly aspect that is unacceptable but how many birds are killed or maimed by these. That seems to not even have been part of the minister’s concern. what meaning of “environment” is she using, i wonder?

Not something that I'd considered, but at least that would have been understandable from an environmental perspective.

The more I think about the 'unattractive' reasoning, the more silly it seems.

I mean, really. If we're rejecting wind turbines because they're an unattractive method of delivering energy, then surely we should be banning above ground power lines as well...which can be seen in the bottom left corner of the background of the proposed wind turbine photo.

Here's one for the ages, the Ministry of the Environment, henceforth known as the Ministry of Exterior Decorating, rejected an application for wind turbines (aka enviromentally clean energy) on a residence because they were...get this...unattractive.

This is of course the same Ministry (or perhaps more accurately Minister) that issued a Special Development Order to destroy woodland and coastal reserve at Southlands though.

The article in the paper today sums up the incoherence and inconsistency of planning decisions. But it boils down to the age old saying of "It's not what you know it's who you know."

If I were Mr. Miller, I'd move my wind turbine to a protected coastal or woodland reserve and make it 10 stories high so that it violates every height restriction - then it's sure to get approved.

Oh, and most importantly, pay your membership dues and resubmit the planning application through a preferred developer (here or here).

The Southlands saga continues, with news breaking late last week that Government is looking to shift the project to Morgan's Point.

I think most people would welcome the mega-development not blighting South Shore as the Government has authorised by ramming down the public's throat an SDO voiding all zoning laws, but the sudden shift raises a lot of questions, which Denis Pitcher covers well in his post from a couple of days ago.

The obvious implication here is that the results of the heavy pre-election canvassing that have been going on across the island recently, but also in the key battle grounds in Warwick, revealed that the PLP are in danger of losing Warwick seats because of the blatant disregard they had for the public interest over this project.

The Ministers - including she of the Environment - always acted as the agents for the developers, abdicating their responsibility to represent the public.

As one person said to me the other day, the general sentiment towards the PLP MPs in the Warwick constituencies has been 'stick it in your tunnel'....hence, the sudden change of heart.

The release of the potential Morgan's Point move to the press has been carefully orchestrated as an effort by PLP Warwick MPs (excluding the Premier presumably), to respond to the concerns of their constituents (after ignoring them for the better part of a year). Isn't it interesting what the prospects of an election can do?

So, in an effort to salvage some votes, we're now seeing the Government trying to do some sort of a swap with Southlands and Morgan's point.

It's not a bad concept, except Government holds no cards here now after issuing the SDO. The developers could start digging the Southlands tunnel tomorrow presumably to leverage this up and extract more concessions form the people of Bermuda in exchange for moving to Morgan's Point.

With an SDO in hand and a Government with a political problem, they're rubbing their hands together with delight I'm sure.

Government so desperately wants to save face over this now and salvage something (in Warwick in particular) so that the Premier can swoop in and claim credit for the great compromise, listening to the community, respecting sustainable development etc. that they'll probably say yes to an unattractive deal.

I'm pretty convinced it will get done, because the PLP website is linking to 3 press stories on the topic.

But the problems here are massive:

I can't see the Southlands/Jumeirah developers paying to clean up the pollution, so the taxpayers will foot that one.

Some sort of legal indemnity will have to be worked out so the developers/owners can't be sued for any health problems that may arise - back on the taxpayers absent some very well crafted legislation (which this Government isn't known for).

By needing to get this done to solve a political problem the PLP Goverment are likely to accept a deal that isn't as attractive for the people of Bermuda as it could have been if Morgan's Point was open to a competitive bidding process and Southlands hadn't been rezoned.

Instead, we now have Southlands being given preferred access (after the PLP chased away a development at Morgan's Point immediately after taking over in 1998).

This is a mess. Moving the project away from Warwick is the optimal solution, but we'll have to wait to see just what is put on the table as an alternative, because the Government aren't holding the cards. They have a massive political problem they need to solve, and see Morgan's Point as the answer.

That's not a good combination for the people of Bermuda.

Very interesting article in the Rocky Mountain News today.

It's not everyday that you find a connection to Bermuda out there, but the Aspen city council just turned down a request for the first new luxury hotel development in 20 years....because it wasn't sustainable.

How sensible. That decision didn't include have to consider overturning all sorts of long-standing environmental restrictions either from what I can tell.

But by a 3-2 vote, the council ruled that it would not approve new hotel rooms at any cost. At 175,000 square feet, the lodge would have been the second-biggest building in town.

Besides 80 hotel rooms, the project also would have included four residential condos at 4,000 square feet each and 21 fractional ownership suites.

The hotel also promised to rise to the standard and price point of the town's three flagship lodges: The Hotel Jerome, St. Regis and the five-star Little Nell.

"We cannot only court the high end, and that's what this project did," Aspen City Councilman Jack Johnson said. "This sort of project and this sort of economy we have is not sustainable."

In the past 30 years, Aspen has gone from a town that nearly elected Hunter S. Thompson as sheriff in 1970 to a place where private planes line the runway at the airport and the average single-family home costs nearly $6 million.

Although the local affordable-housing program is the envy of other mountain resorts, reasonable rental accommodations are still a rare find. Local employers, from existing hotels to the school district, still have a tough time finding and keeping employees.

With much of the work force living in communities down the valley, a traffic jam chokes the entrance to town every workday.

Mick Ireland, who has been Aspen's mayor since June, said he could not approve a project that would further stress the housing and traffic problems. While there is a need for more moderately priced lodging in Aspen, Ireland said the need for more $1,000-per-night rooms was nil.

"I think we have to think about scaling back our mission," Ireland said. "In the resort-community balance, I think we've lost our balance."

The similarities seem quite compelling. I'd say Aspen made the right call, and our guys blew it. But this was always a done deal, with the Premier and his Government acting as the developers' chief marketer, forgetting that they represent the public interest, not private ones.

I didn't catch the Government broadcast on the Southlands project, but a reader did, and he also caught the Brown Bag Lunch news segment:

Wondering if you saw VSB news tonight?

They had a clip of the Premier on one of his “invite only” lunch dates describing the tunnel at the Southlands project. He said that the tunnel is going to be for tourists (hotel guests) to go under South Shore road. He then went on to say that the South Shore road would go up and over the tunnel that allows the tourists to get to the beach. He also explained that this was in the drawings “he saw”. His final point was that the Southlands objectors were essentially making up lies so that people would object to the construction.

The funny thing about this clip is that we had just watched the 20 minute video produced by the Bermuda Government with Premier Brown himself, Minster Butterfield, Minister Lister and a host of others explaining the Southlands development and SDO, in which they showed the plans including the tunnel along South Shore road in detail. AND, OF COURSE, the tunnel is for cars not for tourists!! As a matter of fact, Minister Lister dedicated 3 minutes of the video to explain the tunnel in more detail (18 ft high for all trucks and cranes in Bermuda, sidewalks, open roof at the junctions, lighted, etc.).

I am shocked (I guess I shouldn’t be too shocked anymore) that as Minister of Tourism and Premier, Dr. Brown was either unaware of the tunnel (as Minister of Tourism shouldn’t he know what the hotel looks like…especially as controversial as this one!) or he was just blatantly lying about the project.

From the better late than never file, I've uploaded the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce's Southlands and South Shore Segment, broadcast on Monday July 2nd in 3 segments (minus the first 60 or so seconds which I missed):

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Some time ago someone sent me a link to an online petition which had been started by former PLP candidate Neville T. Darrell in favour of the Southlands development, to counter the one opposing it. I took a quick glance and dismissed it as it wasn't getting much support (currently at 87 people versus 3,226 opposing) and the little it had received read like a who's who of Bermuda's construction industry.

I don't know why, but the corruption scandal of the past week and a half triggered a memory that after the revalations of the Mid Ocean News BHC Police Report report just puts it all in perspective yet again.

What was the memory?

Well, let me put it to you in a question:

Who do you think is the first signatory on the pro-Southlands petiton?

You get three guesses, and the first two don't count.

So who is it?

None other than one Zane DeSilva, key player in the BHC Police Report, being the central player in almost every lead that the Police were investigating in conjunction with Dr. Brown and Nelson Bascome, whether it was Dr. Brown and Nelson Bascome's alleged $100,000 kickback for the Cuba asbestos plan, or Dr. Brown's apparent $1,500 'consulting agreement' with Zane Desilva on asbestos abatement, or the contractor behind the alleged 'mixing of funds' between Dr. Brown's AP Owen Road Home and the Southside housing project, or the alleged sponsor of an apartment in Fairylands for Nelson Bascome's girlfriend and child.

The fact that Zane Desilva should show up as the first signatory on the pro-Southlands petition, in light of the allegations that Dr. Brown is now trying to muzzle, just seems so appropriate doesn't it.

Just a reminder that 5PM today is the deadline for objections to the draft SDO at Southlands to be received by the Department of Planning.

A reader, and lawyer, chimes in on the implications of the opposition to the Southlands development by senior civil servants in the Ministry of the Environment and the Department of Conservation:

This morning's news that both the Department of Planning's and the Department of Environmental Protection's officers have opined that the Southlands development is undesirable and not in the best interests of Bermuda may turn out to be quite a thorn in Government's side.

The Premier, who has been swanning around with the developers and generally treated like royalty has repeatedly talked publicly in terms that suggest that the development will simply be rubber-stamped. The civil servants' reports to the Minister on behalf of their respective departments could be just what the objectors need to hang their hats on to launch a legal challenge, however. Although the Minister has a discretion to approve the development, either by way of the normal planning process (on appeal from a rejection by the DAB) or by way of an SDO, administrative law dictates that her discretion is fettered by the proviso that he decision be reasonable.

In a legal context, 'reasonable' has a specific meaning - a decision is unreasonable if it is such that no Minister could have reasonably come to it. It's a high standard for objectors to meet, to be sure, but when you consider that the only information that the Minister has to rely on is that supplied by government officers, who are clearly opposed to the development, there is certainly a reasonable argument to be made that any approval of the development would be perverse and, therefore, unreasonable in a legal sense. What this space - this could end up being very, very sticky for Government and put them in a tight corner...........

I'm still short of time for the blog this week, but I was asked to post this link to an online petition opposing the issuance of an SDO for Southlands.

A new song by The Lizards on Bermuda's rapidly diminishing open space. It's catchy too:

Southlands developer Craig Christensen weaves his way through the tricky landscape that is his new investment in today's Royal Gazette.

While I'm not converted, some of my initial concerns remain (ie. rigged SDO process, rezoning of protected areas, net increase in foreign workers etc.) I think he probably won over a few skeptics with this article, while opening up a whole new can of worms - CASINOS.

This one is shaping up to be the perfect storm! Pass the popcorn.

I'd heard rumours last week that Southlands had been 'promised' a casino, whatever 'promised' means, but to see the article today lends some credence to some of that.

As someone who submitted a (non-form letter) protest letter, with some of the concerns addressed today by Mr. Christensen, I remain against this project as proposed.

I should say that the developers certainly have a right to develop the property. I would never oppose that, however there are enough concerns around the periphery that I'm far from convinced an SDO is justified to facilitate the full scope of what they're requesting.

With the latest round of tourism stats out, it's clear that Bermuda can't fill our existing beds. Dr. Brown seems to be subscribing to the "If we build it they will come" approach.

I also am opposed to a development such as this being rushed through a secretive Special Development Order process, in which no real rationale has been provided as to why it has been approved (and Dr. Brown's announcement last week confirms that it has been approved even if the official approval hasn't come).

With the number of sites which could be redeveloped successfully, it seems unnecessary to raze Southlands and leave brownfield sites fallow.

One can also not ignore the destruction of the coastline and woodland, in conjunction with the tunneling of South Shore Rd..

Government has not made the case of what the benefit will be to Bermuda and the economy, nor have they addressed the potential inflationary effect and resultant increase in foreign workers which will be required to staff a resort such as this.

And then there's the massive housing component, which is hypocritical in the extreme with locals being shut out of selling their high-end homes to foreign buyers while Southlands/Jumeirah can.

And finally, a nagging concern for me is that Dr. Brown sees this as Bermuda's Atlantis. And while I'm sure Atlantis is a great place, I must admit that more and more it seems like Atlantis is the Bahamas, or at least a lot of people think of Atlantis first.

I'd hate for that fate to become Bermuda. The threat is there that the island could be secondary to some swanky new resorts.

The UBP's David Dodwell has harped on for years that we need to fix the product before we can roll out massive increases in beds.

Nowhere have I heard that critical piece addressed if we are to fix Bermuda's tourism product, not just create a new self-contained resort.

I'm going to comment more over the coming days on what has always looked like, and was confirmed yesterday as a done deal at Southlands; but for now I'll say only that I find the disregard for the public in this process profoundly disrespectful, yet typical of this Government, and in particular Dr. Brown.

I have received an email advising that there will be a meeting tomorrow of the "Friends of South Shore", to discuss the Southlands announcement.

The details:

Tea House
Botanical Gardens
Thursday Feb. 1st at 5:30PM.

I hear what Alex DeCouto, president of the Construction Association of Bermuda (CAOB), is saying.

Special Development Orders are not the answer however, as Cabinet seems to believe. They weren't designed to speed things up but to allow some flexibility for issues of national importance.

Adequately staffing and streamlining the Planning Department is. The situation Bermuda finds itself in now, with a construction boom, is not something that was unforseen with an influx of new reinsurance companies in 2001 and 2005.

The Government has been negligent in allowing things to get this bad. The Immigration Department is a similar story, with key employee exemptions taking over a year to process and regular permits 6 months or more.

The only good thing to come of the slow planning process is potentially a check on an overheated industry.

Fix the process don't circumvent it. Process is important - but not sexy I admit.

Putting these decisions into the Ministers' hands may be expedient, but it lacks accountability and throws far too much into the realm of political backscratching and back room deals.

Last night I was surveyed by an affiliate of Total Marketing and Communications on behalf of BELCO.

Normally I transcribe the surveys, but once I heard that it was BELCO I didn't bother, although among the standard run of the mill questions were some interesting ones which lent some insight into where BELCO (and the island) is heading.

The questions that got my attention were the ones about:

1) Whether I thought BELCO could continue to meet Bermuda's energy needs while being reliant on foreign oil?
2) If I would support the construction of a new power plant and/or sub-plants around the island?
3) Should a new plant be located at the existing site or somewhere else?
4) If I was open to renewable energy sources such as wind turbines?
5) If I supported 'green' energy alternatives and would be agreeable to alternative energy sources (presumably solar panels and the like) installed on my property?
6) Whose responsibility it was to educate the public on environmentally friendly energy usage and alternatives.
7) And the perennial question of whether I thought power lines should go underground (and if that would be more reliable/cost effective/safe etc.)

All in all it was an interesting survey, suggesting that BELCO is in the planning stages of a new plant (both scale and location), is measuring public opinion on that while testing the appetite for renewable energy sources.

A former resident of Southlands writes:

Dear Sir,

I write concerning the proposed development of Southlands, which I read about with great sadness as I lived on the estate as my only home for some 30 years. My late Mother was the widow of Brigadier H.D. Maconochie, a past owner of the estate.

What has been missing from the comments that I have read so far is the historical aspect of the property apart from the Morgan tomb. The main house appears on the famous 17th century maps of Bermuda, and many of the cottages are also sufficiently old to warrant a second thought before approving demolition. Also, the eastern end of the south side of the South Shore Road contains the site of the gun emplacements and ammunition arsenals which acted as Bermuda’s protection during the Second World War.

The unique Quarry Gardens have been mentioned, but one has to see them to understand the significance of them. I recommend that the Editor of this newspaper visits them

In London, many old and historical properties have been demolished in the name of greed, without consideration of the fact that these actions remove part of the heritage future generations would treasure. Bermuda will be done a very great disservice if it copies this.

Yours sincerely,

Julian Darrall-Rew.

The resident Marxist over at Limey Land, Jonathon Starling, found a promotional video for the proposed Southlands development.

The video reveals the true extent of the development. It's a pretty well put together promo-spot, but what I couldn't help but notice is that they are selling the development on the beauty of the land, but then have designs for a massive beachfront glass and concrete structure which will eliminate any of that natural beauty.

This issue is a complex one.

I am very concerned on a larger scale, about the overheating of the construction industry, if all of these 5 developments were to come to fruition simultaneously, and that's not to even mention a (budgeted) 3/4 of a billion dollar hospital replacement and a new causeway, the economy, wages, rents etc. would skyrocket.

So that's one concern, which is broader than this specific development.

I'm also concerned about the increased use of Special Development Orders to circumvent planning laws. While the inefficiency of the planning department is an issue, SDO's aren't the solution. The solution is streamlining the planning process while enforcing the existing regulations. If the PLP Government feels that the current zoning laws need to be amended, then do that legislatively and engage the public on it, but don't just sidestep it all with SDOs.

Now, with respect to the specific developments and SDOs:

I'm less concerned about the request for an SDO with the proposed city hotel, to facilitate a higher structure, as that will be built in an urban area which is already built up.

I am however concerned that the Southlands development essentially proposes to concrete in a massive area of protected woodland. I certainly have no problem with the developers developing their land, as is their right to achieve a return on their investment (and help improve our tourism product), however it should be done under current zoning laws, the laws that applied when the property was purchased.

The loss of open space is a loss, that is indisputable. And while I do like the idea of Government purchasing the property as a park/nature reserve (as proposed by the UBP), I think that is unlikley.

Blocking development is also unappealing, as that essentially nationalises private property, which I can't support.

But it seems to me that a hotel can be developed on site which is much more integrated with the surrounding environment, and doesn't tear to shreds and fill with concrete a very scenic and environmentally sensitive stretch of South Shore.

And finally, I feel compelled to point out the hypocrisy of allowing the Southside (and other) developers to build homes for sales to foreigners, after this Government retroactively removed the right of Bermudians with eligible high-end properties to sell to non-Bermudians - dramatically devaluing their asset over night.

Bermuda Sun Columnist Stuart Hayward just about nails it in today's Bermuda Sun, writing on what I posted briefly on last week.

"SDOs are now becoming so common their name should be changed to Standard Development Orders. And instead of being used only in extraordinary circumstances, they are becoming a frequent device to circumvent Planning regulations. It's discouraging - we have been fighting for years to prevent developers from loop-holing the orderly planning process. And now our own government is becoming the most prevalent loop-holer. It's outrageous."

The only thing I think he misses is that the sudden rise of SDO's is the PLP's attempt to make up for 8 years of inaction and orderly development in the run-up to an election - aka "Hurry Up Mode".

Cole Simons and the UBP address that aspect in today's Royal Gazette:

New hotel developments would require hundreds of extra foreign workers, more vehicles on the Island’s roads and put further pressure on housing needs, said the UBP MP. “We believe Government must raise its gaze above short-term political ends to consider what is best for the Island in the long-term. Careful planning is critical. The current rush to convey a sense of turnaround in the tourism industry should not be the starting point for decisions that will impact the Island for generations to come,” said Mr. Simons.

To all those who worked so hard to block the desecration of the Botanical Gardens, your work has only just begun.

As I said last week:

I've never felt like much of an environmentalist, but I'm starting to now.

Let's start with the good news.

Government has backed down from building a new hospital on the Botanical Gardens. Well done to all the campaigners and public who aggressively pushed back.

Now the bad news.

Has the new Premier (also a member of the previous Cabinet) or the new Health Minister read the Bermuda Hospitals Board Estate Master Plan? It doesn't appear to be the case (which is scary for an MD and former Deputy Premier) when they keep making statements like this:

And the Throne Speech, confirming this stance, said Government would shift the focus from where the hospital would be sited to working with the medical community to find out Bermuda’s healthcare priorities.

"Only after it is determined what services the hospital should deliver can costs, location or other decisions be made,” it added.

Take a look at the Executive Summary of the EMP:

3. Health Concerns / Profile of Bermuda 4. Current & Future Trends as it Relates to Population 5. Global Health Trends and their Impact on Bermuda 6. Service Profile for Bermuda (Existing & Proposed) 7. Services that will be Facilitated / Performed Overseas

While it's good that the Botanical Gardens and 'virgin land' (Arboretum?) are no longer on the table, it looks to me like the Premier and Health Minister are about to re-invent the wheel with respects to delivering services.

Tomorrow is Green Day in support of the preservation of open space:

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, I stumbled into the 30 minute broadcast on ZBM this evening on the Sustainable Development.

Bermuda Sun columnist Tom Vesey (who has delivered some good blows lately against the Premier) was the host, and his guests were Premier Scott and the Chairperson of the Sustainable Development Roundtable Malcolm Butterfield.

Predictably, the hospital controversy took centre-stage, with Tom Vesey bringing it up early and the Premier himself repeatedly returning to the topic.

My overall summary would be that the Premier was doing his best impression of a duck: on the surface he was calm and composed but below was furiously backpaddling.

Tom Vesey's prepared questions were good, but his follow-up was severely lacking. The Premier's redirections and re-writing of history were constant, but Tom didn't go after them; he should have been much more aggressive in pointing out his inconsistencies and mis-representations with follow-ups.

The Premier's overall mission was without a doubt to give the impression that the idea of building on the Botanical Gardens had arisen from public consultation; and now, as a result of that consultation, Government was listening and may potentially adjust (perhaps lending credence to one of my readers trial balloon theory). A weirdly contradictory position but intended to position the Government as still being in listening mode and that everyone else was jumping the gun.

Which is - of course - total nonsense.

Mr. Butterfield also gave this impression when questioned on the Hospital plan, and said that (paraphrasing) "people are responding to public consultation". That's an odd comment from the Chair of the Sustainable Development Roundtable, which recently stated that it was 'deeply disturbed' over the hospital decision.

The Health Minister's press conference - hurriedly held after the Sun broke the story - wasn't suggesting that the Botanical Gardens be used, it was announcing that it would be used. Big difference.

The Premier said several times during tonight's show that Cabinet makes the final decision on issues after consultation, trying to give the impression that they had not yet made the decision on the hospital.

But it was the Health Minister herself, who speaks collectively for Cabinet on health issues (aka The Hospital), who several days after the annoucement resurfaced to advise the public to 'accept this decision' - aka 'get over it' - before (just 9 turmultuous days later) the Premier announced that Government might change course, but that we'd likely see the wisdom of the decision (evidently he got the message that people weren't going to get over it):

“We now invite the community to hear all the facts and figures that were given to the BHB.

“When this information has been presented to people they rethink the $100m more and the extra time and they seem to move to the position the BHB has taken.

“Let the folks have that information. As a country we may do something else. We may say that $100 million extra is warranted or not.

“The public may say that two or three years longer to build the hospital is warranted once all things are considered. This Government will listen.”

So the PLP's version of consultation is: make a decision, defend it as the best choice, realize no-one agrees, and then announce that meaningful consulation ("Let the folks have that information") will begin.

Moving on to other absurd statements by the Premier during tonight's broadcast, and there were many.

Mostly the Premier went to great lenghts to give the impression that Government was always listening and came up with this gem (again paraphrasing):

"People don't need to march and wave flags anymore. Government adjusts once the community gives its feedback"

Except with independence that is. And that's just one. There have been plenty of marches to get the Government to pay-attention.

The head of this Government which 'adjusts' refuses to commit to a referendum in the face of a 15,000 person petition calling for one, nor will he drop the whole independence initiative in the face of consistently massive opposition - opposition which has in fact grown during his ongoing and now multi-year campaign of disinformation.

Unfortunately Tom didn't press on that.

Perhaps the most annoying statement, for me at least, was this one from the Premier, addressing the issue of the current KEMH site being turned into green space (paraphrasing):

"Government can use legislative tools to ensure that the old KEMH site will have to be used for green space."

I'm stating the obvious here I know, but previous governments used legislative tools to protect parkland from development; it's known as the Parks Act and states that parkland cannot be developed on. This Government, the PLP Government, Alex Scott's Government, is prepared to remove the Botanical Gardens from the schedule of parks so that it can bypass the current legislative tool protecting greenspace.

Aaarrrgh. He is so disingenuous it drives me to distraction.

You can't be using legislative tools to destroy greenspace while claiming you'll put in place inviolatable legislative tools to protect greenspace. It's just not credible and it doesn't take a genius to see through that nonsense.

We don't need new 'legislative tools'. We've got enough legislative tools already, first among them the Premier himself.

What needs to happen is for Government to respect the current legislation and not target parkland for massive developments.

Finally, for tonight, the Premier ended his campaign of disinformation with the following statement about the next step in the Sustainable Development process (paraphrasing):

"The next step is for the public to sign on to the principles and concept of sustainable development."

The hospital controversy should make it clear that the public has embraced the concept, it's the PLP Government which has not.

A reader floats a theory on why the Botanical Gardens has been targeted for the new hospital:

I’ve been thinking a bit about the Botanical Gardens / BHB debacle and government’s insistence on destroying open land and have concluded that in the end they won’t do it and will instead redevelop the existing site. However, they deliberately floated this unsustainable trial balloon as a future escape clause for the inevitable miscalculation of costs (a la Berkeley) associated with what will undoubtedly be government’s most massive capital expenditure to date. In a roundabout way it will end up being a tacit admission of their inexperience and complete lack of financial planning (save of course when it comes to spending tax dollars on themselves).

I don’t disagree that a new hospital would be nice but our first investment should be in the doctors & nurses and all other primary care givers and related service providers rather than a fancy building which isn’t going to improve the patient experience as much as an informed, caring and excessively able staff will.

While I don't rule out - and hope for - an about face on this, everything I hear tells me that they're serious about building on parkland. But I don't entirely rule out what the reader suggests.

The grapevine holds that the Premier removed (she didn't resign) Neletha Butterfield from the Environment to Education in favour of Rubber Stamp Randy Horton after Ms. Butterfield rightly refused to sign off on the Botanical Gardens site.

I think the decision is largely driven by difficulty in figuring out how to finance the project after the corporate crowd reportedly gave Government the cold shoulder when they did the rounds with their hands out some months ago.

Mismanaging Berkeley was more than just a public relations problem (the rehabilitation of the Berkeley name has been in full swing with the school finally opening (click here, here and here); it had real repurcussions.

Our historically generous corporate donors aren't willing to throw their shareholders' money at fraud and mismanagement. And I don't blame them. The fallout will be a greater tax burden for you and me; higher taxes and/or borrowing it will be.

I've now moved house, and have it all shuttered up, however my DSL connection does not appear to be working although the phone does.

So I won't be posting during the storm due to the lack of an internet connection. I'll try and take some photos and post them afterwards.

www.bravozulu.bm looks like he'll be.

Take care.

This quote from the Premier at last night's Sustainable Development meeting plumbs new depths of insincerity, even for a Premier who has made that his trademark:

“This means that the greenery will be incorporated into the design. You won’t just walk up to the door and the green stops. It may go into the building. If there’s a tree that needs sustaining, you may find that tree next to your hospital bed in the future,” he said.

The man will say anything. Does he really think voters are this stupid?

What an ass. I'm ashamed he's the Premier. I really am.

The Bermuda National Trust responds to the new hospital announcement:

Response by the Bermuda National Trust

August 30, 2006

Re: Government announcement that the new hospital will be built in the Botanical Gardens

As the specifics of the Plan have not been shared with the public or the Trust - at this time we can only comment on the process not the plan. It is unthinkable to us, especially in light of the Sustainable Development initiative - which highlights the critical importance of public involvement - that a project of this magnitude could ever reach the final stages without broad public input.

We agree that improving the Bermuda’s health care system should be of paramount importance to the people of Bermuda, but we cannot accept that the Botanical Gardens and the hundreds of acres of protected land under the National Parks System should be viewed as an exploitable resource – they are of incalculable public value in their own right.

The Government should lead by example and practice what it preaches regarding public input on the largest public project in decades – anything else presents the Sustainable Development process as a complete charade.

It is ironic that the Sustainable Development project which has been so successful in empowering Bermudians to consider themselves environmentalists should be set aside at this critical juncture.
Even if the plan proposes a net gain in open space from the existing hospital site – how can Bermuda be assured that this will happen at the end of the project.

By letter our dated July 20, 2006, the National Trust called on the BHB to develop the plan to redevelop the facility on the existing KEMH site between Point Finger Road and Berry Hill Road. We are disappointed that we have not received a response to date.

The Trust considers that Bermuda cannot afford the luxury of a total new facility on the greenfield site. We accept that this presents logistical, technical and economic challenges during the construction phase, but Bermuda has no choice but to overcome these and build on the existing site.

As the Cruise Ports Master Plan proved the Government is capable and committed to making the best decisions for Bermuda and plans can be reassessed and revised and we trust that the debate is not closed on this Plan.

Bermuda National Trust
August 30, 2006

The Limey disagrees with me on the Hospital plan, and thinks that the new structure should be plonked in the middle of Bermuda's centre-piece parkland:

"Sustainable development does not mean that open spaces should be protected at all costs."

I'd agree with that statement. I do however think it means protecting it at a slight increase in cost and inconvenience, which is what should be done here.

Another aspect of the proposed hospital redevelopment which is concerning is the Government's increasing tendency to shut out the public on controversial issues:

"National Trust director Mr. Conway was critical of the way the plan had been settled without broad public input. The Trust wrote in July to the BHB calling for it to redevelop the existing site but had not received a response."

Government has kept the proposed Loughlands housing development and Special Development Order (SDO) secret from everyone, including area residents, and didn't respond to the National Trust's letter regarding the Hospital redevelopment.

That's not acceptable. That doesn't mean that they have to cave in, but another SDO is going to be needed for the hospital if they are going to build on parkland.

A generic dog and pony Sustainable Development show doesn't mean much if the overarching principles are discarded when it comes to the nitty gritty of new development. Cabinet are going to have to do some real heavy lifting to get support on this.

I remain in favour of a phased redevelopment of the current site.

The alternative, which sets a terrible precedent whereby parkland is fair game for new development, just makes me squirm.

It's hard to believe that in 10 years when a new hospital exists in the Botanical Gardens, and land is even more scarce, that whatever Government is in place isn't going to backtrack on the pledge to turn the old hospital site back over as parkland in favour of another 'very difficult choice'.

Leave the parkland alone.

I can't get this proposed new hospital thing out of my head today. It's just bugging me.

I must admit to having a little bit of sympathy with the Government here, because this is a really tough call, but only a little bit. If they had a better track record of managing capital projects and weren't acting so holier than thou over Sustainable Development the heat wouldn't reach the levels it's going to.

But it occurred to me this morning as I was thinking of alternative sites, has Government announced any intention for the now vacant old Berkeley site on Berkeley and St. John's roads?

That's a large parcel of land (remember they bulldozed a huge woodland are for the new Berkeley as well). I know it's a massive shift in location which would render Doctor's row on Point Finger Rd. less useful, and I obviously haven't thought about any of the logistics of the hospital there, but why wasn't that site thrown in as a potential location?

It's not zoned greenspace. It's already developed. It's big enough. A building could be largely cut into the hillside and hidden from view.

Just a thought. Any comments?

And there you have it, as the Bermuda Sun scooped yesterday, Cabinet voted to develop on probably Bermuda's most iconic piece of parkland - the Botanical Gardens.

The inevitable and justified criticism is there, pointing out the hypocrisy of Goverment's Sustainable Development roadshow in the face of a massive redevelopment of greenspace into a (necessary but not there) pile of concrete:

National Trust director Mr. Conway was critical of the way the plan had been settled without broad public input. The Trust wrote in July to the BHB calling for it to redevelop the existing site but had not received a response.

He added: “We cannot accept that the Botanical Gardens and the hundreds of acres of protected land under the National Parks System should be viewed as an exploitable resource – they are of incalculable public value.

“Government should lead by example and practice what it preaches regarding public input on the largest project in decades, anything else present the sustainable development process as a complete charade.”

Pave paradise, put up a parking lot.

There's an interesting story in the Bermuda Sun today, predicting that a press conference tomorrow will announce that the Botanical Gardens will be filled with concrete for the new hospital.

Here's where the Government finds themselves stuck on a rock and hard place.

The PLP Government have a well deserved reputation for being big spenders and allowing the cost of capital projects to escalate out of control, as at the Berkeley school.

So with the new hospital they want to assure people that they will manage the development prudently. Therefore the economic decision is to build on the Botanical Gardens.

However, the Premier has been professing his visionary commitment to Sustainable Development at every turn, while preparing to mow down the Botanical Gardens and putting a massive and top secret housing project at Loughlands.

Either way they're going to take some well-deserved flack.

The idea of converting the old Hospital into a new section of the Botanical Gardens seems a reasonable compromise on the surface, but it isn't.

We're on a slippery slope when we start developing supposedly sacred parkland, and it's highly likely that (despite best intentions) the current hospital site will prove too enticing for another massive development and the Botanical Gardens will be lost forever.

If the Bermuda Sun is correct, Government have made the wrong decision, inevitable criticism aside.

Parks should be sacred. Otherwise what's the point? And let's stop wasting everyone's time with talk of sustainable development.

I picked up Saturday's paper extremely pleased with the headline [Bank loses battle for new building] that the Bank of Bermuda's proposed development of the Trimingham's site had been rejected and was off the table.

That's what I gleaned from the introduction at least:

In hindsight of the Environment Minister agreeing with the inspector’s recommendation to dismiss the Bank’s appeal, the Permanent Secretary of the Environment Wayne Carey said yesterday it was important to have Listed Buildings in the City.

I didn't know what to make of the last paragraph however, which suggests a further appeal to the Minister could be made:

However, a bank spokeswoman would not say whether it would proceed with an application for a Special Development Order that would bypass the DAB to go directly to the Minister for approval, or how much the bank had spent on the application to date.

If the Minister agreed with the independent inspector's rejection of the appeal, doesn't that mean that she's already made her decision and it's time to move to Plan B?

Reader SM discovers the true culprit of Wednesday's cruise ship grounding, Minister of National Drug Control Wayne Perinchief who was quoted on Nov. 15, 2006 as saying:

He said the PLP was now going to take control of the ship “and take it in the direction we think it should go”, adding the country was heading towards a “new horizon” and could not stay in the “doldrums”.

Time for a little drug testing.

Just back from vacation, and suffering from a Logic inflicted DSL blackout.

But while I get organised and back to life here I'd like to point anyone who hasn't read it yet, to Andrew Trimingham's comprehensive and excellent piece in last week's Mid Ocean News, on the Corporation of Hamilton's Waterfront proposal.

There is really nothing to add. He's covered it all.

As a follow-up to my post of a week ago on the huge poles erected for Belmont's driving range, the poles have been lowered with the nets now attached.

While lower, they remain visible from the Harbour and Middle Rd.. They're not as bad as before, but they're still ugly.

How on earth did Belmont get approval to post those huge poles, for what is presumably their driving range, alongside Middle Road and clearly visible from the Harbour?

These 12 or so poles tower high above the tree line and are a terrible blight on the view of the Harbour.

I can't believe that Planning signed off on those.

A co-worker of mine has pointed out the absurdity of this concession in the Bank's revised plan for the Triminham's site redevelopment:

An additional 230 square feet of specialty retail has been added on Reid Street as suggested by the Chamber of Commerce on October 11, it said.

230 square feet? That's an area of about 10 ft by 20ft, or 15 by 15.

That's not a concession, that's a closet.

HSBC has indicated that they will refine their design proposal for their Front St. building to take into consideration some of the concerns and objections raised.

While it's not clear yet what that statement actually means, it's a positive sign. Let's see where this goes.

It might also demonstrate that a bank is capable of something the Government is not: Listening to the community.

The Royal Gazette
Opinion (30 Nov. 2005)

Architectural design is an inherently subjective thing; what’s attractive to one is hideous to another. You can test that statement by trying to find a consensus on whether the ACE or XL buildings are more aesthetically pleasing. This is why the response to HSBC’s Front St. glass tower has been so surprising.

Remarkably, the bank has achieved something unprecedented in Bermuda, they’ve identified an issue that virtually everyone can agree on (other than opposition to Independence that is): The feedback to the proposed HSBC building on the former Trimingham’s site is ugly, or ‘Ogly’ as we prefer to say.

Let’s be thankful then that something positive might arise from HSBC’s redevelopment of the historic site; but let’s also be realistic.

Objecting to the development because it is ugly is an exercise in futility; there are lots of ugly buildings in town. And whether or not you believe that we need a glass palace towering over the charm of our flagging retail district, something other than a quaint department store will be built. The only question is scale.

But before we can decide what can be done to rein this in, it’s important to understand how we arrived at this point, and what the respective responsibilities of the public, Government and HSBC are.

If we’re honest with ourselves, the writing has been on the wall for some time, ever since Cabinet approved the sell off of Bermuda’s landmark retail real estate space to a foreign corporation – notwithstanding Finance Minister Paula Cox’s rather disingenuous assurance that the Bank of Bermuda is a local company, despite its 100% ownership by HSBC.

Conversely HSBC didn’t do itself any favours by pitching such a massive development – and a potential turning point in Front St. development – as a selfless act of corporate benevolence; this is primarily in Bermudians’ best interests we were told, shortly before the CEO of the "world’s local bank" rather presumptively told locals what our capital city should look like.

What is needed in this process, one that is going to act as a benchmark for future Front St. development, is for all the parties to this process – and that’s everyone – to be honest about whose interests they are representing, and then represent them honestly.

Whether they’ll admit it or not, HSBC’s sole responsibility is to maximise their shareholders’ return. And that’s exactly what it should be. All this noise about how much the bank cares about Bermuda is just a distraction.

The decision to buy the Bank of Bermuda was an economic one, as were the decisions to take over the Trimingham’s site and its subsequent redevelopment. Sure, they’ve made some concessions along the way, but those were designed to facilitate the goal of maximizing the return on that real estate.

HSBC is a shrewd operator, more so than most international conglomerates. Modern corporations are well aware that building and maintaining an image in the community as a ‘good corporate citizen’ can be good for business, but it isn’t because they’re benevolent, it’s because they want to make more money.

Then there’s the Government. The current leadership have displayed a penchant for rolling over to the banking giant; whether it be approving the buyout of the Bank of Bermuda or the subsequent takeover of the Trimingham’s site; two acts which required explicit Cabinet level approval.

But that’s water under Flatts bridge. We are where we are. The question before us now is where do we go from here? And the answer to that rests entirely with us. We have the power to put the brakes on this project and ensure a satisfactory resolution for both Bermudians and the bank.

What is clear from the fast-track planning request by HSBC is that they are looking for the fastest path to Ministerial approval by sidestepping the usual bureaucratic channels, aware that the proposal will almost certainly be rejected as is.

And that brings us to our responsibility as Bermudians. The Minister, the Government and the Opposition, need to know that they are expected to prevent this unsightly blot on the Bermudian landscape or suffer the political consequences. But both political parties have been suspiciously quiet to this point, at least publicly. John Barritt’s comments during the Throne Speech are the only ones I’ve heard from anyone thus far.

As a last resort, there is one surefire way to get HSBC’s attention, particularly as they’re so enthusiastically playing the role of caring corporate entity. If enough customers feel strongly that the Bank is over-reaching and not acting in the best interests of the community, you can take your business elsewhere.

Then they’ll sit up and notice.

Water water everywhere, and not a drop to drink.

"The summer months are now upon us, and along with the hot, dry weather comes the concern of water usage. If Bermuda's unique water system is to continue to meet the needs of Bermudians, it is critical that our good water conservation habits are maintained and improved,"

Minister of Works, Engineering & Housing, Ashfield De Vent
June 22, 2005

Typical Governmental coordination.

Wednesday Sept 1st marks the beginning of lobster season, which means that tomorrow is the last day to get your license for recreational diving (unless it's extended as last year).

In case you're on the fence, one of those who like me gets a license every year but either doesn't go out or never catches anything, just remember that the Government needs all the money we can give them right now.

So get off the fence and consider it a donation. Maybe they can be used to throw at the Berkeley project.

I've been reading a new book by Bermudian author Graham Faiella called Fishing in Bermuda (you can pick it up at any of our bookstores for $29.95) and would highly recommend it.

Mr. Faiella has produced a comprehensive book on fishing in Bermuda and it's well written and professionally produced.

Pigeons get people fired up here too (see lizardfish's comment below)!

My point in the previous post was not to try and dismiss the discussion on pigeons as invalid, or even less valid than any other, but to point out how surprised I am that these corruption stories of the past 5 years don't generate more anger in the community!

I imagine the answer is that, sadly, the public expect politicians to lie to and steal from them!

"Well you see, it became an attack not just on what D. Wingate said about
pigeons, but the entire environmental movement in Bermuda.... In the long run, we won't have an island fit for living on, where we can afford to argue about BHC fiascos. In the long run,protecting our environment is, the first and foremost task humans should be attempting globally and locally.

"So, really you see when some... vet comes along and points her finger at
all the people who are, in my humble opinion, dealing with the most
important issues we currently face, there is great reason to get upset about
it. I loved the letters in the paper. Even hers. It got people reading about
the environment and interested in one of the many problems we currently
face."

Well said.

It seems like lately, when I open the Royal Gazette Editorial page, there's something in there about pigeons (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and it all started here!) These are, by and large, some pretty well thought out and good diatribes, particularly by RG Letter to the Editor standards. I think we're well into the double digits on this topic! Who'd have thunk it?

So what's my gripe?

I must admit a certain amount of exasperation when I see so many people so irate over this issue but so little public outcry over things like, err - I don't know, maybe the feeling that the DPP is scared to go and get the people involved in the BHC fiasco!

Pigeons aren't the only ones stinking up Bermuda.

The Department of Environmental Protection sent out this email today. Sounds good to me as licking a stamp and putting it on an envelope is a severe deterrent to timely lobster catch reporting.

If you're a lobster diver I encourage you to reply to this message with a yes

----Email Below----

To All Lobster Divers:

The Department of Environmental Protection is actively pursuing the establishment of a system that will allow lobster divers to submit their statistics online. The proposed system will be internet-based and accessed by a user ID and password. It is projected that this service will be in place for the 2004/2005 lobster season. More details will be forthcoming closer to the implementation date. The purpose of this email is to firstly, confirm that the Department has everyone's correct email address and secondly, to ascertain how many lobster divers would utilise the proposed online reporting system.

To express your interest in this service, please reply to this email with a simple "yes". Similarly, if you are not interested, please reply with a simple "no". If you know of a lobster diver with an email address that did not receive this message, please tell them to send their email address along with an expression of interest to ttrott@gov.bm. If you have received this email in error, please inform us so that we can correct our distribution list.

Thank you for your interest in this new service.

Tammy Trott

----End of Email ----

Cabinet's reversal on the TCD relocation is a welcome move. A little bit of pressure (or tractors) can be a wonderful thing. See the RG editorial today.

It's a shame that after 5 years the PLP haven't learned that a little bit of consultation saves a lot of embarrassment and confrontation. However, you wouldn't have seen a reversal under Jennifer Smith's leadership, I can assure you.

Baby steps.

VSB news today reported, and the Government has apparently confirmed, that a large section of arable land on Frog Lane has been identified for a new TCD. These surprises continue to be dropped on us without any consultation or forewarning - a hallmark of the first PLP administration.

I don't quite get this? What's the need? The physical structure, location and space at TCD don't appear to be the problem - the service and bureaucracy does, and a new building isn't going to fix that.

The Frog Lane residents are not impressed and urely environmental groups will be quick to follow. That area is busy enough already with the Stadium, Cedarbridge, Prospect Primary, Devonshire Rec etc..

On a related topic the PLP is again ignoring existing environmental restrictions. The PLP has a penchant for putting concrete and asphalt on land zoned as arable or woodland with little need. The loss of the woodland reserve where the new Berkeley school is slowly being built, is a major eyesore from North Shore.

How can we expect Bermuda's residents and contractors to respect our zoning laws when Government regularly flaunts them?