Help Save Bermuda’s City from hundreds of years of cronyism – Say yes to Government’s Municipal reform.  Emancipation Day is almost upon us. Help Government erase the final vestiges of pre-emancipation Bermuda.

A kind reader has supplied the Municipalities Reform Act 2010 law, which … as usual … Government has not made readily available to the public.  Information is power, and they seem to want to retain both for the insiders.  Or cronies as the case may be.

I find the audit requirement of the law to be a hoot.  It’s an admission that Government has no idea what the Corporation owns or does.  They are not looking for accountability … they are looking for help at figuring out what it takes to run a city.  The C of H is already audited;  the documents are here.  Unlike Government, it’s a clean audit.

In my opinion, this is not reform, it is a mugging.  It’s not emancipation, it’s a consolidation of power.

This chaotic draft law should be shelved.  The my$teriou$ consultant report should be made public.  A proper public consultation on reform should be started.

The risks of this plan are huge:  it kills the City of Hamilton’s revenue (endangering jobs) and takes away the resources that are at the centre of plans to redevelop the city (Par-La-Ville and Albouys Point).  And for what?  Or for whom?

And Bermudians would be very foolish to allow this plan to be passed through Parliament, in a rush, in the dark of night.  It’s not reform.  It feels like a power play by the New Forty Thieves.

As no public consultation has been held on the proposed hostile takeover, The Corporation of Hamilton has sent a briefing to all members of Parliament with their side of the story.  I copy it here for the Internet to see (any typos are my own).  The original, with supporting documents, may be found here.  Unfortunately, the Brown/DeSilva Takeover Bill is not easily available to the public.

** There will be a rally this Friday at Noon at City Hall **

TO: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

THE CORPORATION OF HAMILTON’S PRESENTATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THE PROPOSED MUNICIPALITIES REFORM ACT 2010

Brief History of the Corporation

1. Parliament by the Hamilton Act 1793 created the Corporation of Hamilton much in the same way that self governing towns and cities in other democratic countries came into existence.

2. The Corporation is an elected body and its powers are governed by the Municipalities Act 1923. The Corporation has no power to determine, extend or amend voting rights. Those powers have always vested with Parliament, but those powers have been exercised sparingly over the centuries.

3. The City of Hamilton was established to develop trade in the centre of the Islands and to service the needs of the inhabitants of the area. Parliament gave voting rights to merchants to elect a Mayor and Council Members.

4. In expectation of the creation of the Hamilton Act 1793, the original land that comprised the City was purchased and then sold to interested locals by several public auctions under the instructions of a commission appointed by the Governor. Once founded the Corporation continued to purchase properties needed to develop the City infrastructure and services. The purchased property has always been used for the benefit of people that live in, work in or visit the City. It would be wrong and a revision of history to suggest that the property owned by the Corporation was a gift from Parliament.

5. In 1923, Parliament extended voting rights to one resident per household within the boundaries of the City. Although the predominant character of the City was that of a business centre in 1923, people were starting to live within the boundaries of the City and Parliament considered it appropriate to extend the vote to them.

The Unexpected Cabinet Plan to Take Over ALL City Operations and Services

6. The PLP have historically encouraged democratization and fair public participation through voter reform in Island wide elections, Parish Councils and in the Corporations.

7. In 2009, Cabinet proposed abolishing elected City government and transferring all city operations and functions to the Bermuda Government. This was Cabinet’s definition of voter reform and democratization.

8. On 26 June 2009, under the leadership of Premier Brown, the Bermuda Government formally announced that it intended to repeal the Municipalities Act 1923 and transfer all operations of the municipalities of Bermuda into relevant Government departments, and thereafter in January 2010 the Government appointed a group of foreign led Consultants for the express purpose of overseeing, managing and implementing the integration of the municipalities of Bermuda into the Government within a year. The foreign consultants’ expertise is focused on using public assets for the benefit of private business people with the theory that the public will eventually benefit.

9. Cabinet unfortunately confused the public early on by describing their plan as reform and democratization of City Govemment even though in truth their plan called for the abolishment of City elections and City government. When the Corporation asked Cabinet to make it clear what their true intentions were, Minister Roban refused to provide clarification.

10. Cabinet authorized the expenditure of $800,000 to retain foreign led consultants to create a step by step plan for taking control of City functions and to end City elected government, but the public were led to believe that Cabinet was attempting to make the City more democratic.

11. The Corporation met briefly with Cabinet’s foreign consultants on two occasions. The first meeting which lasted for half an hour occurred on 19 January 2010 and was to give the Consultants an opportunity to 2 introduce themselves. The second meeting was on 9 February 2010 and was in lieu of an informal lunch that the Consultants had suggested. The meeting lasted for just over an hour with a substantial amount of time being taken up trying unsuccessfully to determine exactly what the Consultants’ mandate was. On both occasions the Consultants made confusing representations about what they were actually hired to do because Minister Roban had himself clouded the issue by characterizing the takeover plan as a reform effort. Cabinet thought that the Corporation should have shown the Consultants more respect, but it was plain to the Corporation that the Consultants were not hired to talk about true voter reform or democratization of cities, but were hired to end City government in Bermuda.

Imagine if in the USA, the Massachusetts State Government sought to take over the City of Boston and brought in foreign consultants to help with the takeover. When faced with those inconceivable circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the Corporation was compelled to fight for true voter reform and the reaffirmation of the fundamental principle that City and town government provides a vital platform for community participation.

Participation fosters commitment and without commitment (the sense that your efforts matter and that you have a voice) a town, a city, a country is doomed.

The Corporation’s Proposal would have encouraged far greater community involvement

12. In 2009, the Corporation presented comprehensive recommendations to Cabinet including the recommendation that voting be extended to all Bermudian residents (18 years and older) who live in the City. The Corporation also recommended the retention of the business vote given the strong commercial nature of the City and the desirability of encouraging participation in the affairs of the City from all stakeholders. The philosophy was simple and fair: if you pay City taxes you should have the right to vote, and participation in a small community should be encouraged at every level. This concept is not unique or antiquated and operates in much bigger cities. The City of London, after a recent country wide Labour Government review, maintains a similar franchise model.

Conversely, jurisdictions that have experimented with eliminating the business vote have unintentionally created an environment that discourages investment generally and particularly discourages the development and viability of small businesses in cities and towns (see: the April 2010 Submissions by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to British Columbia’s Local Government Elections Task Force – www.Cfib.ca). The Corporation is and always has been open to endorsing any better concept of voting provided that it encourages community involvement by all stakeholders, but to date Cabinet has not indicated that it wishes to discuss or explore options. The Corporation’s proposal would have greatly expanded the franchise with the weight of any future vote being in the hands of residents.

Encouraging greater participation in the affairs of the City by the community is considered a universally desirable goal.

13. Cabinet has never provided the Corporation with any substantive response to the recommendations. The Corporation has no reason to believe that Cabinet or its consultants carried out any study on how voting rights are addressed in other jurisdictions; how those cities in terms of residential and business bases compare to the City of Hamilton; and the extent to which the residential population of the City of Hamilton and other cities encompass those persons who own and operate businesses in the city so as to ensure that such commercial interests are capable of being represented in City government. If such studies were done then the public should be provided with this information so that they can satisfy themselves that the various interests that make up a vibrant City will have a voice in City government.

14. In 2010 the Corporation commenced a public awareness campaign to ensure that the public was aware that Cabinet’s true intention was to dismantle the City government and use the City’s assets and revenues for risky ventures which Bermudian tax payers could ill afford with a Government deficit approaching a billion dollars and climbing. The Corporation also highlighted its strong financial position and the need to ensure that a successful, self-governing City is not dismantled or harmed by Cabinet’s ambition to control every aspect of life in Bermuda.

15. The Corporation calls upon Cabinet to release the secret Consultants’ report to the public and let the public see for itself the background behind this Bill. Any vote on the Bill ought to be done in the full light 4 of day with all Members of Parliament, the Senate and the Public knowing what transpired between Cabinet and the foreign consultants and what is inside the $800,000 Report.

16. Since 2009, the Corporation has invited Cabinet to endorse a cooperative, joint effort approach in regard to reforming the Municipalities Act, but this has been rejected. On 1 June 2010, the Corporation asked Cabinet again to consider a cooperative approach on reform with the aim of introducing legislation that would have wide public support. The Corporation’s approach was met with silence.

17. Throughout 2010, various organizations have carried out independent polls using Bermudian Professional polling companies. All polls report that the Public is strongly against Cabinet’s takeover bid. In the most recent Poll conducted in June 2010, 82% of Bermudians were against the takeover bid. Press polls put the figure even higher. The Bill Does Not Strengthen the City But Weakens the City

18. In the face of overwhelming public opposition to Cabinet’s plan, Cabinet nonetheless produces a Bill that:

(i) Discourages c.ommunity participation by taking away voting rights from Bermudian business owners, but nonetheless requires them to pay the lion’s share of City taxes. Taxation without representation is fundamentally wrong. Minister DeSilva’s Bill results in approximately a 50% reduction in who can participate in City government. By contrast, the Corporation’s reform plan expands the franchise to allow more people to vote and participate. The Minister’s plan sets the City up for failure because his view of voter reform utterly fails to give a voice to all the stakeholders.

(ii) Creates an unfair and awkward voting structure where the vote is limited to City residents but anyone in Bermuda can run for City government even if they have no interest or real connection to the City. Ironically, you can run for election and live outside the City but you cannot cast a vote. Apparently, this is Minister DeSilva’s answer to eliminating the business vote. The right to vote in the election process should be a prerequisite to the right to run for office. If it is the political will of the people that business representatives should be denied the vote (we seriously doubt that it is), then at the very least, the voting structure should allow any Bermudian (18 years or older) to vote and run in City elections provided that they either live or work in the City. That ensures that all people that have a real connection to the City have a say in how the City runs. It encourages community participation.

(iii) Sets the City up for financial failure, job losses at the Corporation and reduction in services by significantly reducing the City’s revenue base. If the Bill passes, the Corporation’s power to charge a fee for anyone tying up their ship to the Corporation’s dock facilities is taken away even though the Corporation owns the docks. This alone results in a 32% reduction in City revenues and of course raises serious concerns that the Bill breaches Bermuda’s Constitution. Is the Corporation simply supposed to let cruise ships and cargo ships use its property for free? It is apparent that the secret Consultants’ Report advised Cabinet that one way to start taking over the City is to take away the Corporation’s revenue base on the docks and create a Port Authority who could then grab and funnel that revenue to the Government. The rationale used is that Port Authorities are common place in other jurisdictions. But what Minister DeSilva does not tell the Public is that those Port Authorities actually own the docks they administer and with ownership comes the right (constitutionally protected) to charge ships for usage. This explains why the Bill allows WEDCO to continue charging cruise ships for use of the new docks in Dockyard but no serious argument is advanced by the Minister which explains why both Corporations are now being discriminated against and denied this same right. Minister DeSilva does not tell the public that it is common place for Municipal governments such as the Corporation to operate their own docks and charge ships for the use of those docks. The City of New York owns the Manhattan Passenger Cruise Ship Terminal and charges cruise ships for the use. The City of Fort Lauderdale owns and charges for the use of its port as does Richmond City, the City of Long Beach and Philadelphia. These are but a few of countless examples. One only has to spend half an hour on the internet to appreciate that Minister DeSilva’s modernization argument for taking away revenue from the Corporation is without any substance. His unconstitutional plan is about strangling the City financially, grabbing its assets and taking it over.

(iv) Discourages participation in City government as no one devotes time and energy to any venture if the fruits of their labour are arbitrarily taken. The Corporation’s assets and revenue base is an easy target for a Cabinet that has emptied the public accounts and run up a billion dollar debt. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is, however, not a wise Government policy for Bermuda and will only lead to further instability and worry. The Corporation works and it works well. Every Member of Parliament must ask why on earth would anyone take a thriving public institution and remove its revenue basis. To what end?

(v) Erodes the Corporation’s revenue base by shrinking the existing boundaries of the City without any explanation whatsoever. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Cabinet wants to take for itself the tax revenues and opportunities that previously would have gone towards providing city services. The Bill is silent on who is going to provide services to the carved out pieces of the city and at what cost. The Corporation is not going to provide these services to the many businesses in the area for free. The Bill will create tremendous uncertainty for these businesses as they now have to wonder who will collect their garbage and at what cost, who is going to keep their streets clean, and will they be allowed to maintain their connection to the Corporation’s sewage infrastructure and at what cost? In an unprecedented economic downturn it is difficult to understand why Cabinet has decided to create such uncertainty and why it is tampering with a City that works well.

(vi) Significantly increases City expenses by requiring the City to now pay Government land tax. Public institutions are not generally taxed because such institutions are providing public services. Government does not pay any city taxes to the Corporation on any of the many Government buildings located within the City.

(vii) Erodes the historical political independence of the City (a common if not universal feature of all great cities) and seeks to give the newly created Minister responsible for Municipalities extraordinary powers oiler the Municipalities. In substance, Cabinet appears to be empire building and seeking to gain control over the Municipalities in a way that is inconsistent with all other democracies. The extraordinary. powers that are being given to this Minister also highlights how many unexplained gaps there are in the legislation that either have not been disclosed to the public or surprisingly have not been worked out. It is hard to believe that $800k of the tax payers’ money has resulted in a Bill that leaves more questions unanswered than answered.

19. Minister Roban told the public that the Bill would give effect to the Consultants’ Report. The Consultants were specifically hired at considerable cost to advise Cabinet on how to takeover City operations and services. Cabinet wants to keep this Report secret. Minister DeSilva, on Friday 16 July 2010, suggested that the Bill is not a take over Bill, but is simply intended to modernize City and Town government. If that is true, then there cannot be anything controversial or secret about the Report. We urge Members of Parliament to call for the immediate release of the Report so that the intent of this Bill can be properly and openly evaluated by all Bermudians.

Considerations

20. The Corporation respectfully asks each Member of Parliament to have regard to the following considerations before exercising your vote:

(i) Give consideration to the importance of self governing cities and towns in a democracy;

(ii) Give consideration to the value of encouraging community participation by anyone who has a real interest in their town or city;

(iii) Give consideration to the fact that in poll after poll, the Bermudian people overwhelmingly oppose this govemment takeover – by a margin of 82% in the most recent poll;

(iv) Will this Bill bring Bermudians together, push them apart, encourage them to take an interest in the City or disengage;

(v) Does the voting component of the Bill fairly capture everyone who has a real stake in the well-being of the City;

(vi) Having regard to the subject matter, namely the future of Bermuda’s only City, was the public adequately consulted before the introduction of the Bill;

(vii) Were any reports or studies carried out and, if so, was the public given access to this information or was the information kept from them;

(viii) Consider whether what is being proposed to be done to the City would be done in any other democracy;

(ix) Should a Bill that will profoundly determine the fate of a City be the subject of greater debate or has sufficient time been allotted, and is the subject matter the type where the party whip should be applied or should this be a vote of conscience;

(x) Does the Bill weaken or strengthen the financial integrity of the City and the City’s ability to provide dependable services; (xi) Is the Bill likely to increase or decrease the national debt;

(xii) Does the language of the Bill clearly inform the public what goal or objective is being pursued or does the Bill raise more questions than it answers. The Corporation respectfully asks Parliament to vote against this Bill or defer it for further public consultation and consideration. The Bill is presented without sufficient or any public input and no input from the two Corporations. The Corporation believes that the best way forward is for the Corporation and Government representatives to work together, with ample opportunity for public input, and do their best over the Summer recess to reach a consensus on true voter reform and any other issues of mutual interest. Clearly, there is the need for real dialogue on the serious ramifications of what is currently being proposed.

Thank you for considering this presentation. Copies of all previous Govemment announcements, correspondence between Cabinet and the Corporation and press reports can be found on the Corporation’s Save Our City Website at www.SaveOurCityBermuda.org.

CORPORATION OF HAMILTON

19 July 2010

One has to wonder if this is about reform at all.  I wonder if the costly advice was really about how to slide through the takeover, rather than how genuine reform might be achieved.  That theory is certainly supported by the draft law:  it’s clear to me there is little public support for taking over the corporations, and the law seems to seek to crush them financially as an alternative.  Very tricky … but we’ve come to expect that, haven’t we?

It is being shoved through late in the Parliamentary session where, through poor planning, there are so many backlogged bills that they will need to add extra meetings next week.

Finally, let’s question whose priorities are running this country.  The takeover was a late entrant in Dr. Brown’s destructathon.  It gets bullied through like the proverbial shit through a goose.

By contrast, PATI has been an official goal of the PLP for a decade – one that I strongly support and applaud.  The law is written, many consultations have occurred, we’re ready to rock.  But apparently, yet again, there’s no time for it in this Parliamentary session.  They want to claim it without actually having it.  No, there are other prioritie$.

The new forty thieves are at work.

Whether this is a statement of support for the Corporations, or a vote of no confidence in the PLP Government, is debatable.

But the takeover is a fixation of the Premier, and he appears … as usual … to have bent the PLP caucus to his will.

Based on news reports of the draft law, the PLP’s approach (for now they own it) to taking over the corporations is worrying and part of a pattern.

The rumours have been rife for years that Tourism’s steadfast failure to procure cruise ships for Hamilton and St George was really an attempt to starve those towns of revenue, forcing it all to Government-controlled Dockyard.

And also the Government takeover of Par La Ville raises eyebrows.  You may remember that City Hall has lead the way in lining up an urban hotel developer – yet was cut out in a press conference held by the Premier and the developer last year.  Hmm.  This takeover will deprive the City of even more revenue for which it has worked hard.  And, given the array of questionable hotel deals in which Government has been involved in recent years, it will fuel the stink and rumour about dirty dealings in that sector.

The PLP plan – rather than introduce the reform that they say is needed – instead aims to starve the Corporation of Hamilton of revenue by depriving it of tax revenues, while taxing it.  The PLP knows that the public does not and will not support a law to take over the City … so it appears they are taking the sneak attack approach to crush it financially.

This is not reform – reform is not the focus of the draft law.  Money is the focus.  Surprised, anyone?

In my opinion the Premier’s approach goes to the heart of the matter, that this is really about power and money, not reform.  This bill is destructive and will put jobs and services at risk in a time when Bermuda is already under significant social and economic pressure.  The rancour and sneaky tactics also cause deep distress amongst observers of Bermuda – including both our residents and our international business customers – about exactly what is going on here.

If adopted, I predict the current draft law will be a disaster for the municipalities and for Bermuda.  Stick a fork in it.  Ball’s in your court PLP backbenchers…

Rumours abound – given the PLP’s refusal to speak on the matter – including a rumbling that legislation may even be dropped before Parliament breaks for its summer slumber in 3 weeks.

Wot?  Before PATI, which they have trumpeted for years is a priority?

I call on the PLP to make clear its intentions.  Bermuda has enough issues facing it than to sap even more political energy, hardearned money, and public goodwill on another Brownian crusade.  Been there, done that.  Achieved nothing.  Still paying for it.

Perhaps most alarming is the revelation in today’s news reports, that a letter from the Mayor to ImmiMin David Burch on the matter was returned to sender ripped into pieces.

Seriously.

It’s worth noting that the Mayor was elected and the Minister was not.

In my opinion, delicately, this act reveals an anger management issue and calls into question the Minister’s suitability to hold public office.

It also shows the contempt that the Forty Thieves in power show towards the governed.

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/

Well here’s a candidate.

The Auditor General’s scary graph shows the rapid growth in Bermuda’s Accumulated Deficit over the past 6 years.

“The Accumulated Deficit represents the difference between the Consolidated Fund’s total liabilities (what it owes) and its total assets (what it owns). At March 31, 2009, the accumulated deficit stood at $719.9 million, up $102.4 million from March 31, 2008.”

Well, the assets of the municipal corporations are said to be worth in excess of $500,000,000.

A hostile takeover probably would not render an improvement in efficiency or in democracy.  But it would erase a big chunk of that outrageous Accumulated Deficit, at least on paper.

That would be a tricky piece of financial prestidigitation.  But then they’d probably screw that up as well.

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.

It’s all about the power.

Minister Roban took great pains to say that Government has no “preconceived notions” and is waiting until a consultant’s report is complete before making any decisions.

And he denied that the Government intends to close the two entities, saying that he had never used those words.

However, the truth is shown in the terms laid out for the consultants which focus on how the central government could “seamlessly absorb the operations currently performed by the Municipalities.”

My opinion is clear:  this would be a mistake.

• It would reduce accountability even further.
• It would diminish the already limited “counterbalance of power” that we have in Bermuda.
• Bermuda has enough problems on its plate in the next years – and from the polls, it seems that few citizens have much faith in the PLP leadership’s ability to guide us through them.  Having Government distracted in this way adds to the list of issues for them to screw up.  There is no impetus from the community to launch this takeover.

This will cost millions to accomplish.  Yet, we don’t have enough money to build a homeless shelter.  In my opinion, on many issues, the PLP is more focused on power than people.

By all means, contribute to the reform of the Corporations; but don’t use it as a pretext to consolidate power.  It’ll just accelerate the festering ill will that the PLP doesn’t need at this time.

But, mark my words,  this isn’t about reform.  My best guess is that it’s more about THIS.

As usual, the good news is mixed with some questions.  Why wasn’t the Corporation – the champion of the project and the landlord – present at the announcement yesterday?  What is the developer’s role in the planned redevelopment of the airport?

VSB speculates that the Corporation was not invited to the launch.  Another twisted wonder of Bermuda protocol.

The correlation between this announcement and the moves to “take under” the local municipalities is hard to ignore.  A reader points out that the Premier has also been cultivating the developer for some time.

I find the developer’s claim that “our financing is rock solid” pretty funny given the debate over the identity of PLP blogger “RockSolid.”

The Corporations of Hamilton and St George have been informed that Government intends to try and take them over.

“In its Throne Speech of 2008, the Government of Bermuda undertook to reform Bermuda’s municipalities; in considering the best means to do so, Cabinet determined that the most practical, efficient and effective reform would be to repeal the Municipalities Act 1923 and transition the operations of the municipalities into the relevant government departments.”

While I do believe that the Corporations would benefit from reform, I strongly question the Bermuda Government’s desire and capability to conduct reform.

Lacking any justification for this move from Government, nor the goals that they hope to achieve, one can only assume that this is a power grab (as well as a move to increase the Government tax base).

Do you trust giving Dr. Brown even more power in Bermuda?

• It is essentially the same proposal as they gave in 2006 with – landfilling 8 acres of Hamilton Harbour, and adding 500,000 square feet of new buildings on the land as well as two parks.
• More than 1000 underground car parking spaces?!
• This time they were pretty reticent about costs – except for the usual vague hopefulness about public/private partnerships picking up some of the tab.  No handouts.
• Although it was a flashy presentation, I characterise the audience reaction as dismayed over the lack of understanding of Hamilton’s history and needs, lack of input from locals, and eye-popping costs.
• Given the large amount of vacant real estate in town, and the current challenging outlook for Bermuda, many people were scratching their heads over what the hundreds of thousands of square feet of new office and retail space would be used for.
• Several prominent local developers, land planners, and business owners stood up to express concern over the scale of the project and whether it really matched our needs.
• The organisers said they want to move ahead as they felt the last proposal had won widespread local support.  Sorry guys, I attended the presentations in 2006 – they met the same surprised and negative reaction as last night.

Yes, we can do much to improve the Hamilton Waterfront.  People would love to bring more life to the City.  But this plan overstretches.  This wasn’t a public consultation.  It was an attempt to sell us an outsider’s concept to turn Hamilton into somewhere else.  The Corporation should speak to Bermudians about what we actually want and need.

This project seeks to replace Hamilton rather than enhance Hamilton.  A reader points out that it would transform the Corporation of Hamilton from being a service organisation for Hamilton’s residents and landowners to being the largest developer in Bermuda.  Sweeping changes would need to be made to the Corporation of Hamilton’s structure and practices before you could even consider that.

The scale of this proposal virtually guarantees that Government will try to take over the Corporation of Hamilton.