February 19, 2011Dear Sir,I read with interest the letter from Alastair MacDonald to the RG published on February 18 in which he argued that Bermuda needs the SDO at Tuckers Point (TP). I know personally Mr. MacDonald and have a great deal of respect for him, but I disagree entirely with his conclusion that Bermuda needs this SDO. The thrust of Mr. MacDonald's article is that Bermuda's needs a luxury development such as TP in order to attract tourists, and whilst he acknowledges that the Management there have been amateur he believes that the Rosewood appointment could help turn the business around. It is my view that his argument is flawed for the following reasons.First of all, I also agree that Bermuda needs a luxury tourist development, and for the most part TP fits the part. The problem however is that TP has achieved this by borrowing largely from HSBC when it should have raised most of its financing in shareholder equity, which as Mr. MacDonald knows is much cheaper than debt financing. It is the compounding effect of this debt over the years that has now caused a problem for TP and it is my view that this SDO application is all about rescuing the HSBC loan. You can bet your lunch that if this SDO passes and TP is able to sell off those residential lots for development that the covenants within the loan document will see these funds used to pay down HSBC's loan. My question is why should the people of Bermuda, via its Government, agree to the destruction of one of our last remaining woodland reserve areas to bail out a bad loan made by HSBC when other Banks around the world have had to “suck it up” and restructure their bad loans.We all know that these loans were largely made during the bubble years of 2004 to 2007 and they were made to hospitality developments, office developments and residential developments around the world. What we also know is that these banks have had to “provision” for these loans and sell them off to new investors, and at times the sales have occurred at large discounts. Closer to home, we know that Butterfield Bank have had to “take it on the chin” due to the poor management decisions made there and new investors into that organization in the form of CIBC and the Carlyle Group have come in and a massive adjustment has been made in the value of Butterfield shares. More importantly, Butterfield Bank has set aside provisions for bad debts and has now taken into receivership Belmont Hills and Newstead. These developments will be sold on to new owners, most likely at huge discounts also. HSBC on the other hand sees the opportunity to pressure TP and dare I say the Bermuda Government into applying for this SDO to sell off a large chunk of Bermuda's remaining woodlands to have its loan repaid. The residential units to be built will not be managed by Rosewood and will not be a part of the TP tourism product.Mr MacDonald will know that what our system needs is a re-adjustment in valuations. The recession has already seen some value destruction in the domestic residential and commercial real estate markets and we are now seeing the adjustment hit the hospitality market. New developments can take place at places like Sonesta, Lantana, the old Club Med and other locations, but only when the price adjustment has been made so that the economics of building, maintaining and operating the development has merit.We have the same situation at TP presently and what ought to happen is that HSBC should call in the loan and sell it at the best price it can obtain. It might only be 20 cents on the dollar, and heads might roll at HSBC as persons responsible for this lending are held accountable. But such action allows the new owner(s) to be in a much better position financially to maintain and manage the resort. One could also argue that entities like Rosewood would still be interested in managing TP and be more confident doing so knowing that the new owners are not financially stressed… More importantly Bermuda would not lose additional woodlands to development and tourists visiting here will see more green space and less concrete. After all, it's not about the quantity, but quality. If I had a vote in Parliament I would be voting against the SDO for all of the above reasons but more so to protect one of the few remaining open spaces in Bermuda for future generations and tourists to enjoy. I am not a believer in adopting policy that merely kicks a can down the road while at the same time destroys for eternity our woodland reserves.ALLAN D. MARSHALL JPUBP Candidate for ParliamentHamilton South, District 7Say no to SDOFebruary 18, 2011Dear Sir,For the past few days I've been hovering between what might be called good and evil. Good in the sense of fighting for what one believes to be right, and evil in the sense of cynicism and despair that no matter what one does, money ‘now' always takes precedence over long term future benefit. Good finally won, so I am writing to add my voice to the objections to the SDO given for the Tucker's Point development. I asked myself: “What would the children of Bermuda say if asked whether a large chunk of pristine Bermuda forest and fragile cave ecosystem should be bulldozed?” I'm pretty sure the answer would be a resounding, “No!” Our children have been taught at school for the past 15 years, maybe even longer, to preserve Bermuda's environment, to think of the future of the planet, to understand the value of biodiversity. And then our government goes against all that education, to illustrate that when it comes down to it, actually it's OK to destroy it. Big business is more important. No wonder I am cynical, and so will our children be. And where will that get our planet?I have just read in the English press, that a money saving proposal by the environment minister to sell off a large chunk of Britain's forests to private ownership has met with such a public furore, that the Minister had to back down with a full apology in parliament, saying that she bowed to the people's wishes, and realised she had made a terrible mistake in judgment. I think the parallel here is very strong, and I urge the government to rethink its decision. Bermuda has so little open space, that it should be preserved at all costs. No tourist wants to visit a sterile ocean city. No Bermudian, I hope, wishes to live without open spaces around them, places where our wildlife can flourish in relative peace. In point of fact that lovely green woodland is the first sight a visitor gets of Bermuda when arriving by plane.Other people have written eloquently about the nonsensical economic arguments of pouring good money after bad, of providing homes for foreigners when many Bermudians can't afford their own homes, so I won't repeat those. I would like to ask two questions, though. The government has said it has put in measures to ensure that minimal damage will take place to caves, and that other environmental destruction will be also kept to a minimum. Firstly, I thought that's what the protective zoning was? Precisely a safeguard to keep damage to our environment to a minimum. An SDO is actually removing a measure to restrict damage. Secondly I think the public should be informed exactly what measures have been taken in this case. Who has been consulted to advise on the most environmentally sound approach? I may be wrong, but it's my impression that the people most qualified to judge have not been involved in the plans at all. As usual, Bermuda experts are ignored.So my point is, if you feel, like me, that it is nonsense that this project go ahead, don't let cynicism and inaction stop you. If Southlands was saved by public protest, if the Botanical Gardens were spared, if the forests of Great Britain, too, were preserved through public outcry, then this pristine environment can also be saved by public opinion. Bermuda needs tourism, the government and the bank need money, but casually destroying what is left of our children's heritage is not the way to go about it.JANET WINGATECzech Republic