August 13, 2013Dear Sir,Sometimes silence is seen as consent. I read with interest the letter called “A different view of Hamilton waterfront” by Just Watching in today’s Royal Gazette. The main point of the letter seems to be questioning why the Bermuda populace hasn’t embraced this latest move on the waterfront with open arms. Unfortunately this letter is very particular in the information it reveals and ultimately, given the limited few who could source this material, comes across as originating from one of the aggrieved parties. There are some points I would like to correct and highlight differences between my approach to this issue and how it has been recently been handled.The short-lived “group styled” as the Waterfront Development Steering Committee” had three voting members, The Premier, the Mayor, and two members of Bermuda First (one collective vote) with a recording secretary. The Committee was not led by the Mayor, the arrangement being truly tripartite. The Premier had the Legislature and licensing authorities, The Mayor was the landlord and Bermuda First had the potential to get the cash. There was a larger subcommittee with a number of Cabinet Members and their Permanent Secretaries, CoH Members and Technical Officers and Bermuda First members. My attempt to bring in the Leader of the Opposition to make this a committee with broad “buy-in” was unsuccessful. The only meeting Sir John Swan, along with about 30 others, attended was a two-day session facilitated by KPMG’s Steve Beatty to map a possible first step in a way forward. One other member of the steering committee identified in Just Watching’s letter is Oliver Whayman - I assume they mean Oliver Wyman, who is not a person, but a global management consulting firm and who was not invited to, nor attended any meeting.I am quoted in Just Watching’s letter from the minutes of one of the meetings as saying, “We (COH) have invested so much into the project, that we have to proceed with it”. I was in fact referring to the work and plans we had done with Sasaki Associates (the overall planner of the CoH proposal) which should have had a proper review by all parties before potentially throwing it away and starting afresh. Too often when we review any new development, we look at micro-specifics of the plan first; where is the iconic building, where is the convention centre, a casino, a hotel, a cruise ship finger pier etc, rather than identifying what for us would be an overall successful waterfront; one that attracts the city workforce when they are not at work, a magnet attraction for visitors and locals both day and night, an area where all Bermudians could congregate safely and have a great time, entertainment opportunities, family friendly, an area attractive to businesses, investment and revenue potential. An iconic glass building reflecting a summer sun may not fit into that criteria.That was certainly my intended comment at the time, however Just Watching is able to rely on a paraphrased record of the meetings to correct or question my recall. He knows that this group, after one two-day brainstorming session had guesstimated a budget of around $20 million dollars in a complete reworking of the ferry terminal (If we can’t get the cruise ship into Hamilton, how can we get the passengers there in the most efficient, seamless way possible?), creating a true visitor’s centre, turning #1 Car Park into a people’s park, local craft, entertainment and al fresco area, opening up the various vista view points of the Harbour, such as at Court, Parliament, Burnaby and Queen Streets etc. He is also able to identify what was said of importance, who said it and who attended (with one exception). If he looked at the minutes of the CoH meetings of the previous administration (albeit some restricted — not for public review — but he already quotes from private documents) he would also see a record (written and audio) of what was discussed and the concerns of the board and how they could be addressed.And here you have the real difference. There is no record of the intent of the original RFP (Request for a Proposal) for the new Waterfront Development, there is no record of the discussion that must have occurred somewhere on determining the CoH wanted to go this particular route and the RFP be published, absolutely nothing on the submissions received, the review process, the involvement of the technical officers, or that the board agreed (did they?) in a properly constituted meeting to the exclusive 200+ year lease to the Developer and all such terms affixed to it. Forget that the RFP was more like an IEI (Invitation of Expression of Interest), forget that the goalposts were struck down and moved to a playing field whose location was only known by one or two members of the board, forget the fact that there was no record of CoH contemplating advising the other interested parties who submitted RFP’s to the complete change in scope, forget that there was no consultation with Government, past or present. This was not a continuation of my agenda.CHARLES R GOSLINGFormer Mayor of Hamilton