Aritcle: Building the Bahamas

[FarmerBob]

Interesting article in the Seattle Times

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2003292691_bahamas08.html

[DrRalph]

Two key paragraphs from this article:

Developers point to three prime reasons for the unprecedented interest in the Bahamas: South Florida's crowded coastline, baby boomers with disposable income and a supportive government under Prime Minister Perry Christie.

In May, Christie pointed to all the development as among his achievements since becoming prime minister in 2002. Christie, who will seek re-election next year as the Progressive Liberal Party candidate, said he has lived up to his promise of putting a major tourism project on virtually every island with a significant population.
"We have secured the future economic prospects of the Bahamas, prospects which are unrivaled in this region and without precedent in the economic history of our country," he said.

This government obviously has no ambiguity about its policy toward development. Did this influence the ruling in the SGCR/BBC court case?

[Willy Landham]

XXXX sent me the zillion page document on the ruling and I waded through it. Yeesh... what a task that was. In part, the court basically said that the government acted in the best overall interest of the Bahamas.

The government's actions were considered to be reasonable. The court acknowledged potential environmental impact but felt that the mitigation plan that is in place was sufficient. They also referenced a case in Belize where a dam was built to generate electric power at the cost of some significant environmental impact. The benefits of being able to generate the electric power were considered to be more valuable than the damage to the surrounding area. They said that governments are allowed to make these kinds of decisions in the overall best interest of their country. The courts also believed that the development company would be shooting themselves in the foot if they totally destroyed the local marine environment because that is what brings people to the area. So they felt that the development company would be good stewards because it would be in their own best interest.

So in a nutshell. It's OK to cause damage to the area to some extent if the government decides that a "greater good" will be realized by the entire country.

Also... I'm just the messenger here. Don't shoot.

One bit of commentary...
This is the point that I have been trying to make all along: The government of the Bahamas is responsible for the development on GGC (and everywhere else in the Bahamas for that matter) NOT the development companies. The prime minister of the Bahamas apparently agrees with me and touts it as a major accomplishment.

[Yellow Hanna]

Mr. Landham, i fear that your assumptions about the motives of our politicians are far too charitable. Closer up, often, it becomes apparent that our politicians are much more concerned with enriching themselves than the Bahamas. Rumour has it that most of these very big deals begin with a very large retainer to an attorney, who also just happens to be the minister of government that magically arranges for all of the approvals and Crown Land which make the big deal possible. For example, they say that Mr Christy was Mr. Desavio's personal attornery before Winding Bay was magically converted into the Abaco Club. And, of course, there are similiar rumours about the other big deals. It helps to understand that conflict of interest is a way of life in the Bahamas.

"One bit of commentary...
This is the point that I have been trying to make all along: The government of the Bahamas is responsible for the development on GGC (and everywhere else in the Bahamas for that matter) NOT the development companies. The prime minister of the Bahamas apparently agrees with me and touts it as a major accomplishment." http://abacoforum.com/forums/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://abacoforum.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1629)

[Willy Landham]

Mr. Hanna,

These are not MY assumptions... they are the assumptions of the court. I was paraphrasing the ruling handed down by the Privy Council as expressed in the release.


WL

[SamFamAustin]

Gosh this is depressing. But I recall I made similar arguments as Yellow Hanna and was roundly defeated ... on the 'other' forum I think. Anyway, there are ways to arrange for attorneys and services that can enrich the government in ways that we'd rather not delve into, other than all is perfectly legal on the outside.

I appreciate what you said, Willy. Other than some turtles, I can't think of any endangered species that could be impacted, and goodness knows the Bahamas might not even have an endangered species policy - I mean they still allow people to eat turtle soup and turtle eggs, right?

What does tend to bother my conscience is that coral reefs are dying at an alarming rate - I am sure I am 'preaching to the choir' here. I don't have a feel for whether coral bleaching and die-off is occurring in the Abacos or Guana area. It just can't be all that good. swells

[Yellow Hanna]

Sorry about that, Mr. Landham.

[coolchik]

Everything was dismissed. There were no rulings. It's still all up in the air.

SGCR can and will appeal to the full Supreme Court, and if need be, the Privy Council.

This was a lone judge, who is not even a permanent member.

[Willy Landham]

I'm no lawyer and I'll admit that it was hell wading through that entire document but how is "...claims for relief is denied and the application dismissed." not some sort of a ruling?

[coolchik]

Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

[AbacoBoy]

I agree with Mr Landham in that the government of the Bahamas is totally responsible for any permitted development that happens in their jurisdiction. To blame the developers for endeavoring to do that which is their stated goal, is ludicrous. The government of the Bahamas is clearly stating that they have considered all of the evidence presented, and they still stick by their earlier decisions.

If the Bahamian government is being influenced by personal considerations as some suggest, then they certainly are not operating on the same level of transparency as the developers. Legal recourse should be available. Perhaps criminal charges? Failing that, if the Bahamian officials are not responding to the people's priorities with integrity, the people can (and should) remove them democratically.

AB

[PELLUCID]

I was going to quote President Andrew Jackson's famous saying regarding the Supreme Court's ruling on the removal of the Cherokees from their land -- "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" -- but it turns out he never said that :~

See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

The larger point I was aiming for, that it takes time for a nation to develop a balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, is still valid I think. The Bahamas is a young nation. With this case, you may well be witnessing history in the making.