On May 28, or whenever was the deadline for the Fairmont Southampton special development offer, I placed an objection that was on time and acknowledged by the relevant authorities.

My objection was based on the developer’s own public statements that if it did not get what it wanted in the SDO and get it now, it would abandon the hotel project. I suppose with this revised version, it still holds the same attitude because it needed all those features within the SDO, which included a $75 million government guarantee, numerous tax concessions and massive overdevelopment. Perhaps the most aggravating was the closure of the hotel until 2024, which is now extended to the summer of 2025.

The argument I placed said that it was totally unnecessary to destroy the environment, including the golf course, by building a massive project-style housing development in order to finance the hotel operation and reopening. I also said there was no need for the government guarantee and the crippling concessions, which deprive any real benefit to the island, in order to be funded.

I offered that there is an alternative which did not require a government guarantee of $75 million for the $300 million refurbishment, and which would allow the hotel to remain open and be refurbished 200 rooms at a time until completed. This option could still include a redo or rebuild of the beach property, and some infrastructural items that need modernisation.

I said in my objection that I wanted this to be publicised because this issue transcends politics — it is of national interest and concern. This op-ed is the fulfilment of that promise included within my objection, which I will repeat again before the August 18 deadline for the new revised SDO.

I am grateful at least for the acknowledgement of receipt from David Burt, but had looked forward to a discussion with him. The Premier seems to be stuck with a difficult choice fearing a disastrous outcome if he does not yield to the demands of the developer.

Every negotiation must have a bottom line, and the bottom line for this hotel should include no removal of the golf course. This golf course is a feature of the hotel and its visitor amenities. It is a PGA Tour-standard par-three course designed to offer guests a full and real game, not a just a pitch-and-putt.

Another feature should be that the hotel remains open during the refurbishment. Bermuda’s tourism cannot afford to close 25 per cent of its beds and its major hotel resort for a prolonged period without serious damage to the economy. That is not just an opinion; it is a self-evident truth — one the developer chose to overlook because it does not suit its narrative.

How could the developer, as it would have us believe, say it is going to be better for our tourism, but two years down the road when it reopens?

Gencom owns the property and is using that leverage as owner also of the other large hotel property of 240 acres, which combined represents a significant component of our visitor industry. The Government can almost not say no to anything it demands.

This is why it becomes a national problem where the only resolve is in the hands of the people. We can forget the Bermuda Industrial Union in this pursuit; it has cashed out on this one with the vain hope of securing union representation. Country be damned: “We want union dues!”. No, sorry, “we need union dues”.

The country must show thunderous support to have our premier hotel reopen as soon as possible. We cannot afford to sacrifice our tourism product for some developer’s real estate proposition. This development is not for the benefit of tourism as it claims; it is to feed the ravenous appetite of a group that wants a quick return on investment, hoping to rake in a few hundred million dollars over a short run rather than the slow attrition of $20 million to $30 million a year that a hotel business of this type might provide.

Some investor would need to have real love for this hotel to accept a lowly 5 per cent to 6 per cent return on investment — that’s the issue at hand and a good reason now for Bermudian ownership to play a role because it has to be guided by love for the hotel property; not by expediency.

I declare my personal interest, yes, my great-great-great-grandfather owned a half-acre of land surrounding what we call Whale Bay. He was the original owner of what is now the Whaler Inn, formerly the “Whale House” where he and son — my great-great-grandfather, William — ran his whaling business. Those deeds, which were moved to Canada in the early 1900s, remained with my grandfather, Emelius Darrell, until his death — to no avail because the British Army took that property with no family record of compensation, along with most of the property from Long Bay to Turtle Hill from all the owners shortly before or at about the turn of the 20th century.

Yes, some would say it becomes personal when a Commission of Inquiry on Historical Land Losses (through theft) set up by the Premier denies this historical family matter even to be presented, with all protests thrown out for no reason — much like the evidence of Bobby Moulder that was quashed from being heard for 50 years. This had to be mentioned to prevent my critics from saying this is only a reaction to the CoI, when truly it is not.

While that is an incentive, the reasoning behind what we all must do is far beyond personal; it should be personal for every Bermudian who loves their heritage and is prepared stand up to bullies who would take advantage of our leaders, using them like personal pets or puppets.

In this case, to have 30 pets is good for them, but appalling for us.

What can we, the disenfranchised, landless and politically powerless people, do? We can show our consolidated and island-wide dissatisfaction with the closure of our premium resort. There is an answer blowing in the wind; it simply is not true that this Westend Properties offer is the only hope or interest that exists.

If they do not want to do the proper thing for tourism, it is best that Westend and Gencom leave. Maybe, it was not all ill-intended; maybe they took the view “if we aim for the stars, we at least land on the moon”, and maybe a solution can be to give them a compromised position where our essentials are met. Or, if they are not met, a proper sendoff with, if not a golden handshake, a bronze one.

There should be no residual hard feelings; their plan as presented is just not what we want or need for our tourism product right now. Bermuda, you must stand up and be heard: let them feel our displeasure or be known for ever as the country that can be kicked around for a few dollars placed in a cap.

My work begins when we stand up. I am absolutely sure there is a better solution available, which would be good for everyone. This Westend Properties approach is not it.