Cycle parking dilemma

February 19, 2009

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my extreme dismay over how little the powers that be care about Bermudians. Every time construction occurs, bike parking seems to be the first to disappear. The buzzword of the year may be sustainable development, but I think they just like saying the word. I have seen nothing that even comes close to sustainable development on this Island. People who still ride their bikes in an SUV-obsessed society should be rewarded. I could have a car if I wanted to but I choose to ride a bike. Before they started new construction next door to the building I work in they sent an e-mail to all the people who parked their cars down below that they would have to find alternative parking arrangements. They never addressed the people who ride their bikes.

One day we just arrived to find that the bike parking, which was separate from the car parking, had been demolished. This eliminated about 20 parking spaces for bikes and we were left to find parking on the street. Now, a couple of months later, we come to work to find the bike parking out front gone as well as the parking around the corner. This eliminates another 14 parking spaces for bikes. My employer will have to tag on another hour to my lunch break so I can ride all over town searching for that ever elusive bike parking space. I know there is such a thing as urban planning. I know that the Planning Department specifically has a City Plan. Shouldn't traffic flow be a part of this plan? It is in other countries.

PUNISHED NOT REWARDED

City of Hamilton

Gambling is a drug

Dear Sir,

I am a Bermudian at heart who loves the Island dearly. I was fortunate to have grown up on the Island during the 70's and 80's as a US Military dependant. I still have many dear and close friends there I keep in contact with. Having said that, I must respond to the gambling issue that has come about in recent weeks. Over the last few years in following The Royal Gazette's news, I have seen a very disturbing rise in violence in your paper. I cannot help but think of how much higher those figures will rise if the Government eases restrictions on gambling in Bermuda.

I live in Virginia in the United States and I remember when Virginia passed laws allowing the lottery. In the area I live in, which is a very rural area with limited income to begin with, I observed the increase in violence out of desperation to make ends meet where pay cheques previously used to do that were now spent on that "dream" of winning it big with one lucky number. I have also witnessed not just the young and middle aged spend their money on that pipe dream but also the elderly on very limited fixed incomes. They will go without food or medicines just to purchase up to $100 worth or more of lottery tickets in hopes of being the big winner. I have witnessed successful families get torn apart and lose everything as gambling takes root in their lives.

I urge the Bermuda Government to realise that gambling is a "drug". Although some of us can control ourselves and only "drink" occasionally, there are many who will become addicted with just one purchase. For someone with an addictive personality, all it takes is one drink, one puff, one purchase of a lottery ticket, or one lucky turn at the tables to become addicted. I am beseeching all those involved in this controversial decision to please weigh all the facts before you decide. How many more violent attacks will happen, how many more tourists will be robbed, how many more homeless will be on the streets, how many more children will suffer because parents or caretakers have become addicted to gambling? Not to mention the other sorted varieties of crime that will be encouraged if gambling be allowed. Our wonderful Island of Bermuda will be at a greater risk if gambling is allowed. The little bit of money to be gained by the government upon legalising gambling is not worth the loss that families will endure as the gambling bug infests their lives and literally eats them alive.

ANGELIA FAITH

New Church, Virginia

Kudos to BNDF

February 23, 2009

Dear Sir,

We have the privilege of attending many of Bermuda's finest black tie events, and all of them are in their own way memorable. But Saturday evening's event to benefit the Bermuda Dance Foundation (BDF) was truly exceptional – not just because the evening was an outstanding success but also because it showcased the very dancers, people and partnerships that have been the focus of BDF's efforts. BDF's success was clear to see, and that was both heartening and encouraging for all. So we offer a warm thank you and hearty congratulations to all who made Saturday evening's event such a success. Special thanks to BDF Chair Donald Kramer, Event Chair Alan Thompson, Event Organizers Mary Faulkenberry and Wendy Davis-Johnson and BDF's Super Sponsor: Catherine Zeta-Jones (who does a mean tap).

As was made clear again on Saturday, so many of Bermuda's youth benefit directly and substantially from BDF's efforts. And BDF's work to partner with some of America's finest dance companies has born excellent fruit as well. Hats off to everyone involved with BDF – and thanks again for a truly enjoyable and inspiring evening.

GREGORY AND MARINA SLAYTON

Mr. Slayton is the US Consul General to Bermuda

Cut the fat and excesses

February 20, 2009

Dear Sir,

It would seem that everyone but the PLP was aware that Bermuda was going to be entering a period of protracted economic decline more than a year ago. Instead of budgeting for lower revenues and expenditures for the 2008/09 fiscal year, the current PLP administration oversaw a swing in estimated surplus available for capital expenditure of $23 million to an actual deficit of $6 million. A difference of almost $30 million dollars (or in real terms the cost to build affordable housing for at least 50 families).

Clearly the 2008/09 Revenue and Expenditure Budget prepared last year was woefully inaccurate, as further evidenced by the upward adjustment of $61 million to the revised borrowing figure. On top of these erroneous estimates, capital spending spiralled out of control, rocketing up $35 million higher than originally budgeted to a total of $190 million! For the life of me I just can't figure out where we incurred (and more importantly as a country benefited from) $190 million of capital spending in 2008/09? These recurring patterns of failure to be fiscally prudent totally fly in the face of Government's "zero based" budgeting principles touted some years ago. And for 2009/10, instead of cutting back on expenses the government has instead budgeted increases of more than $35 million over the original 2008/09 expenditure estimates.

This uncontrolled and unchecked spending (you will recall there is still in excess of $500 million in unaudited expenditures on the Auditor General's to do list and it's helpful to note his 2008/09 office budget stayed in line with expectations of $2.9 million while the Cabinet Office zoomed past their own estimate of $6.2 million to a staggering $7.8 million, a difference of more than $1.6 million) reveals perhaps a much more serious issue. How is the Government going to pay for these ever growing, excessive, unreasonable and bloated annual budgets?

Their proposed solution? Go further and further into debt (thereby significantly burdening future generations with capital repayments and interest expense obligations). This irresponsible approach is evidenced by the explosive growth in the consolidated fund deficit – having almost doubled in only the last three years as follows: $467 million (2008); $735 million (2009); $883 million (2010 estimate).

(Unfortunately the gov.bm web portal, even with a Ministry of Energy, Telecommunications and E-Commerce budget of $30 million, is so poorly organised and lacking of useful information it wasn't possible, after five minutes of searching, to find budgets from earlier years – or was that an intentional omission on behalf of a Government that likes to play statistical Three Card Monte?)

On top of all this, the Government is looking to increase the statutory ceiling for long term borrowing to $1 billion for an "added financial cushion of approximately $250 million". Who are they kidding? Why would any rational and fiscally conscious person endorse a plan to dig us further into debt? We don't need a cushion – we need a scalpel to cut away the fat and excesses which ten years of PLP governments have burdened us with.

KEG

Pembroke

Time to cut back

February 21, 2009

Dear Sir,

Prior to this Budget, I had a bet with friends that this Government would borrow money when things got difficult, so I wasn't shocked when I read the newspaper today that they intend to increase borrowing to $680 million and want to raise the statutory (potential) borrowing level to $1 billion. One billion Dollars. Do they have any idea what this could mean for our children and our children's children? This is intergenerational theft at its worst. The interest alone on $680 million would be $29.7 million; if borrowing was increased to $1 billion, it would be around $43 million, at current rates.

Who will be paying this? It will be our children and our children's children who will be lumbered with this debt. I would have had some respect for the PLP if they had said they would start cutting back, but they just don't seem to know how to do this. Why are they still paying Rolfe Commissiong, who is some sort of "consultant". What about the $200,000 being paid to Julian Hall as a "consultant". If they had any sense of decency or loyalty to the people who voted them in, they would make some attempt at "cutting back" on all of their expenditures.

Start with the Department of Immigration. Numerous expatriates are now leaving, so why do we need so many civil servants at the Department of Immigration? What about all of the credit cards given out to Ministers and civil servants? What about all of the unnecessary travel? There is no question that Bermuda and Bermudians have a difficult path to tread over the upcoming year or years and if this Government had any conscience at all, they would do their absolute utmost to cut back on unnecessary expenditure – they owe it to the 52 percent of the population who voted for them.

CAMELOT

Pembroke