And here lies an interesting thought.

The Government’s policies have led to a significant exodus of high-paid expatriate residents (term limits) and a cooling of residential real estate sales (restrictions on Bermudians with foreign-born spouses).  This has led to both a decline in rents as well as the sale value of Bermuda real estate … estimated by some to be high as 30-40% in both cases.

The Bermuda Government collects an annual land tax that is based on a notional number called ARV (“annual rental value”):

This represents the annual rental value of the property if let unfurnished on the open-market … This means that the normal market forces of demand and supply are to be taken into account … Basically, it is an estimate of the rental value of all properties (whether rented or owner-occupied) that assumes a standard set of hypothetical terms as the basis for each assessment but using actual market evidence as the source for all assessed levels of value. As part of this process of standardisation each property is also assumed to be in good repair having regard to its age, character and the locality it is situated in.

Well, actual market evidence is that there has been a long-term devaluation in the value of Bermuda real estate.  When will they adjust our ARVs and corresponding tax assessments downward accordingly?

After all, as the real estate market ballooned in recent years, ARVs were hiked.  Now that the trend has reversed, surely it’s time to rebalance ARVs downwards?  Hmm?

That in itself is no surprise.  Government needs the tax revenue.

However the reason is amusing:  the units have been added to the condo pool because “they are no longer associated with a hotel”.

But the condos had originally been allowed to help make the hotels financially viable.

This is unwinding some of the failed PLP policies in tourism and land development.  That platinum rusted away a long time ago.

If true, it is shameful behaviour on the part of Government … and in my opinion, proof that there are two sets of rules in Bermuda.  One for normal citizens.  And one for the wealthy and politically connected.

I don’t buy the official explanation that there was “too much concrete” in the proposal to explain Government’s foot dragging.  I do think we need to plan Morgan’s Point carefully – but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here.  To me this sounds like more political tinkering.

Just to make a point:

• The original Southlands plan for Warwick had impressive levels of concrete – that’s what made the community gasp and rise up leading to the Morgan’s Point shuffle in the first place.
• And the subsequent Jumeirah plan for Morgan’s Point that the Premier supported called for 450 rooms, a private residence club (fractionals) of another 450 condos, a spa, a marina, shopping village, and golf club.  A little concrete there too.
  

If the Premier has a sudden allergy to concrete, where’s his concern over the Grand Atlantic project on a narrow 13 acre site in Warwick?

• In 2007 Government provided an SDO for the development of the Grand Atlantic Resort to develop a 220-room hotel with nearly 70 residential units for international buyers as well as a two story retail centre.
• In 2009 Government amended that to allow a scaled down 100-room hotel (and 10 fractional condos) with 125 low-cost homes for Bermudians next door (roughly double the size of the intensive Paget Loughlands development).  Government hinted that it would commit up to $50 million to the BHC component of the project.

It seems that the Premier’s public positions are not set in concrete – and that little of it gets poured under his watch either.

The PLP has budgeted $800,000 for consultants to drive its hostile takeover of the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George.

In my view, a good chunk of that is a “fighting fund” against the broad public disapproval of the takeovers.

This will cost a lot of money and goodwill during a period when Bermuda has an abundance of neither.

And, I don’t think anyone truly believes this is about reform, or that the central Government can run those local services better.

So, let the theatrics begin:  http://www.saveourcitybermuda.org/

Since taking office six months ago, Hamilton´s leadership has made major progress. We´ve made the Corporation transparent and truly representative through holding town hall meetings, and opening the Corporation board meetings to the public. Now that the Hamilton community truly has a voice in the Corporation, we can´t let Government take it away.

The people of Hamilton deserve clarity on what the government´s intentions really are in this matter. Government has yet to inform the Hamilton community as to why reforms are needed in Hamilton in the first place. Just as the Corporation has been open and transparent with our constituents´ we ask the government to do the same.

My opinion is that the PLP takeover of the City is not about reform; I believe it is about power and real estate development (those corporations include about a half billion dollars in assets, pretty yummy).  Watch the money.

If it were about reform, surely Government would have paid some notice to the requested reforms put forward BY THE CORPORATION last year which address the very areas that Government claims to be concerned about.

I hope that the public shows up in numbers at this meeting to underline the message that the community does not support this power grab.  Things won’t change unless you do.

Because at its $60 million pricetag, it cost every single Bermudian about $1,250 in long term debt.  You better kiss that dock ‘cuz it owns a piece of you.

Some months ago I tweedled some vague numbers (look, I could be a Minister!  The Hon 4 Life!) and decided the pier was a justifiable investment at $35 million.  At $60 million, I am not so sure, particularly if we get rid of the landing fees (as is being hinted).

Without any histrionics, this project deserves an independent and external investigation.

• The numbers and excuses provided by Government and the contractor don’t mesh
• Government itself admits it could not resist tinkering throughout the project, driving costs through the roof
• Intriguing leaks from a (disgruntled) subcontractor

They can’t blame this one on the UBP, so they are falling back on blaming the dolphins! We did it for the fish!  Err, mammals.  Err, Pretty Leaping Porpoises?

Seriously, in this economic climate, $25 million would go a long way.  Waste on this scale simply must be investigated, lessons learned, and the right thing done and seen to be done.

One of the book sections talks about a meeting held with The West Group, one of the most successful developers in the US and creator of the “edge city” of Tyson’s Corner in Virgina.  They were prepared to invest huge sums  in a Bermuda project to create a significant mixed use development on the US Naval Annex (aka Morgan’s Point).

The West Group had been in detailed talks with the UBP, and following the change in power those negotiations had continued with the new PLP Government

Until one meeting apparently blew the deal to shreds.

Allegedly, PLP environment minister Arthur Hodgson took the opportunity to deliver an unscripted critique of the US treatment of immigrants and minorities, and according to the book suggested that:

If the West Group was going to invest $90 million at Morgan’s Point, Hodgson said, he wanted to know when Bermuda was going to have that $90 million. “When will we repatriate that investment?” He said he was thinking of an arrangement akin to a household mortgage that left Bermudians owning the house. In the West Group’s case, he proposed establishing a fund over 15 years, wherein the company’s money would be invested until it matched its initial outlay. The West Group would get its original investment back and the earned money from the fund’s investments would be distributed to Bermudians, perhaps for continuing education and job-training that would help them get “to the top of the pack.” If that wasn’t enough, Hodgson added that the project should include low-cost housing for Bermudians. The government, he said, was not interested in seeing the construction of another Tucker’s Town.

In my opinion, this type of activity is why Morgan’s Point still remains empty 10 years later, and this is why Bermuda’s tourism sector is moribund.

You could argue that this was a “training wheels” mistake by a new Government.  But in my view, those mistakes and misadventures continue to this day at massive expense to Bermudians.

• Government has provided an SDO for the development of the Grand Atlantic Resort to develop a 220-room hotel with nearly 70 residential units for international buyers as well as a two story retail centre.
• That Government will amend that to build a scaled down 100-room hotel with 125 low-cost homes for Bermudians next door.
• Local radio news reports that Government wishes to invest up to $50 million in the project, and a local developer (who built the housing project on the site of the Loughlands hotel) is interested in the housing component.

What we haven’t heard is:

• Who are the local businessmen behind the Grand Atlantic Resort?
• Whether the Grand Atlantic Resort has any agreements with international hotel management companies?
  
• Where the $50 million would come from?  At what real cost or opportunity cost to the tax payer?
• Whether the combination of a luxury resort and low cost housing are complimentary?
  
• Whether the cost of $400,000 per unit for the low-cost housing is a good investment versus other options?
• Whether Government would hold any ongoing equity ownership in the resort in return for its financing?
• Whether Government will ensure that the Southlands property next door will be converted into public parkland/greenspace as part of this high intensity development?

These are important questions, and it is distressing to see that they are not being answered forthrightly.

Update:  some answers now are leaking out.

“I was telling a colleague this morning that such is the challenge of our times that a capitalist problem may require a socialist solution…”

Dr. Brown said the project would use part of Government’s Budget for affordable housing as capital for the developer in an investment partnership. “It’s a way of matching two national priorities, tourism and affordable homes, while at the same time helping a local businessman,” he said.

In 2007, Government granted a Special Development Order (SDO) for the Grand Atlantic Resort and Residences to build a nine-storey, 220-room hotel on South Shore along with nearly 70 residential units for international buyers and a two story retail centre.

Now, Government will invest tax dollars in the development to build a scaled down 100-room hotel – on the proviso that 125 affordable homes (presumably for locals) are built alongside it.

This has the potential to go oh so very wrong.

In my opinion, this is a political rather than a practical move.  Why was this major change in strategy not discussed in the Budget last month?  Certainly there were no funds of this size in the 2009 Housing budget or sloshing around the capital projects.  So are we taking on new National debt for this?

The Premier has hung his political competence on a tourism revival which seems – through a mixture of mismanagement and global circumstance – unlikely to happen, so he’s now trying to finance it with taxpayer funds.  Tourism is supposed to earn us money, not cost us.

This also sets a precedent … I’d guess that every other SDO recipient will be lining up with their hands out, otherwise Government would be putting them at an economic disadvantage.

The problem is that political overrides are being used with great frequency – and often in contravention of established Government routine and the clearly-articulated public desire.

This practice is asking for trouble as it undermines our democratic checks and balances.  The Sun opines:

Just about every examination of corruption I know of, from those made by the World Bank and Transparency International to “On the Take”, the classic study of political corruption by William J. Chandliss, point to indicators of corruption that are alarmingly similar to what we see here.

Among the most significant indicators are haphazardly enforced regulations and the political over-ruling of regulations – because they make it clear that decisions aren’t always made “by the book”.

Other indicators cited by these sources include lack of transparency and a resistance to auditing, which makes it easier for corruption to take place without anybody knowing, and can be used to cover up corruption if it is already taking place.

So what we’re talking about here isn’t just irritating politicians and sports awards.

We’re talking about something much more fundamental than that, like whether our society is going to run well or run badly.

Bermuda’s governance standards are slipping.  We need reform.

Why him? Was the Rat Control Guy unavailable?  Did all the Cabinet Office sycophants get out of the room first?

The Tourism stats have been unreliable for many years.  One reason is that the statistics are gathered and interpreted by Tourism itself – making it very tempting to layer all sorts of spin on their compilation and release.  Moreover, the stats seem to mysteriously disappear from Government’s websites, making it nigh impossible for the public to track over time how Tourism is doing.

This should stop immediately.

I reiterate my earlier calls for Bermuda Government statistics to be entirely neutral and free from both departmental and political influence.  Here are some strategies adopted in other countries:

• Statistics must be gathered and analysed by Government’s Statistics Department, which is competent and relatively independent.
• The Stats team should release its results to the public and to Government at the same time (reducing the urge to pick out the most flattering data and craft a message for public consumption).
• The Stats team should independently choose how to present the data (reducing the spin surrounding statistics – by the time the public have had time to digest the numbers behind the hype, the news has moved on).
• The Stats team should choose the release dates for statistics (reversing the trend of choosing good days or fancy lunches for burying bad news).
• An independent watchdog should annually comment on the quality of the statistics and make binding recommendations for improvement.

Numbers that have been complied by amateurs, or massaged by interest parties, are not useful management tools.  Nor are they a fair scale for accountability.

The Royal Gazette points out the double tragedy of these failed statistics:  the 2009 budget for Tourism has been invested based on 2008 statistics that are now admitted to be incorrect.  Epic fail.

Sooner or later, you have got to question Dr. Brown’s track record as Minister of Tourism.