February 17, 2011Dear Sir,Careful reading is required of the government's rebuttal of Dr Wingate's concerns regarding the ecological impact of the SDO at Tucker's Point (Royal Gazette, February 17, “Wingate criticism ‘alarmist' Ministry”). The Minister's statement that “a landscape principle of 40 percent endemics, 30 percent natives, 20 percent non-invasive ornamentals and ten percent of any combination of these” being applied to each lot developed does not preclude deforestation of the land by up to 90 percent it merely outlines the composition of what might remain.What we are seeing in Bermuda is nothing short of the rapid and reckless urbanization of the island's landscape. Over-densification and poor planning are the backdrop to emerging big-city urban problems: drugs, gangs, gun violence, deteriorating standards of education. The gap between the rich and the poor widens. While hillsides and shorelines are trashed, faulty logic is applied to justify the destruction. Clearly if hotels are currently experiencing a 54 percent occupancy rate (Bermuda Hotel Association, Royal Gazette, February 17) the solution to Bermuda's tourism woes is not more square-footage of concrete. Nor will the urban sprawl improve the view from our half-empty hotels.Let there be no illusions here: This is no tourism initiative. The 78 new residences built by and for non-Bermudians at Tucker's Point are what are driving this project. Bermudians should be up in arms about this. A beleaguered property market will see prices fall even further, but even more devastating will be the loss of open space. Dr Wingate reminds us that Bermuda is home to myriad unique species, from cave-dwelling invertebrates to yellow wood trees, all of which are under threat. We have an obligation to protect the island's biodiversity, both for its own sake and for future generations. The death of tourism can be all but guaranteed if we allow the island's natural beauty to be further eroded.In the last three years, the world's big banks those bastions of capitalism have demonstrated that they have no problem socialising risk when they've gambled and lost. Taxpayers throughout the western world are paying for the bad investments of global financial institutions; bail-outs have shifted crippling debt from private companies to governments and the people they represent. In the case of Bermuda, it is not just the people who will pay for the TPR/HSBC debacle, the natural environment will suffer greatly too. Senator Roban may no longer be on the bank's payroll, but surely his connection is too close for comfort. Putting the SDO discussion through Parliament does little to wash this clean. Bermuda is simply too small a community for SDOs to exist with ethical impunity. Questions of conflict and corruption, true or false, will always surround them.It is easy to forget in our high-tech world that we are a product of, and entirely reliant on, the health of our ecosystems. Bermudians have traditionally enjoyed a high quality of life stemming not just from material wealth but from fresh air, rich soil, lush vegetation and complex marine habitats. When we cease to see ourselves as a link in the chain of and not having dominion over our environment, we risk our very survival as a species. The word conservation comes from the late 14th-century conservacioun, meaning ‘preservation of one's health and soundness'. What we need now are leaders, like Dr Wingate, who will not bow to the forces of greed or politics, but who will draw on their wisdom to protect our health and the future health of the island.Were Dr Wingate's comments ‘alarmist' as the government has alleged? They were. The situation is alarming and warrants action. (The word alarm also derives from the early 14th century, from the Italian all'arme or ‘to arms!') If there were ever a time to rise up and make your voice heard, this is it. Look at Britain - after announcing some weeks ago that England's ancient forests were to be sold off to help pay down the debt, the government has been forced to rescind that decision due to public outcry. Surely Bermuda's government will be just as wise and attuned to the outrage of its population by upholding the legislation that protects the woodland and nature reserves of Tucker's Point.FRITHA WOLSAKCambridge, UKDifficult to justifyFebruary 17, 2011Dear Sir,I continue to be baffled by the Environment Minister's defence of the Tucker's Point SDO. One argument is that they will not be permitted to go down more than three feet for various pipes and cables to prevent damage to caves. However, how do you propose building a house that doesn't go down more than three feet? Where will the water tank go? (I can hear the Eek-a Mouse song now... “How can the wise man build his house where there is no foundation”).A second defence is that a, and I quote, “landscape principle of 40 percent endemics, 30 percent Natives, 20 percent non-invasive ornamentals and ten percent of any combination of these will be applied to each proposed lot to be developed.” What does that mean? Forty percent of what? Each lot will be covered by concrete or manicured grass so I guess if you put one endemic tree on each lot you will meet the 40 percent threshold. I can also categorically state that the proposed landowners will not accept their views being blocked by trees; endemic or not so again the defense is pointless. Both defences are very weak and only confirm my suspicions that even the Environment Minister (who sponsored the SDO) is finding it very difficult to justify it.LOOKING LONG TERMHamilton Parish