Wednesday's editorial incorrectly stated that Camden, now the Premier's official residence, was given to Bermuda by the Tucker family. It was in fact sold to Government by the Tucker family.

Folly n. 1. Foolishness, lack of good sense. 3. An ornamental building, usually a tower or mock Gothic ruin.

Government's plans to buy Chelston, the residence of the US Consul General in Paget, is already raising concerns in the community.

The concerns seem to stem from what Government intends to do with property.

Minister of Works Alex Scott has stated that the intention is to preserve the property for the people of Bermuda and to prevent the sub-division of the 15-odd acres which the estate composes. This is one of the larger areas of open space in the area, although most properties on Grape Bay Drive and the surrounding area are large, almost by definition.

It could also be argued that the purchase of the property "for the people'' would open what has been a de facto private beach to the general public. While those who have previously bought property there might be unhappy with that, it is justified when many of the best beaches are barred to the public and those which are available are over-used.

There are also reasons to balk at the purchase. Despite Government denials, many still believe that the real reason for buying Chelston is as a residence for the Premier.

It is true that prior to Pamela Gordon becoming Premier, most Premiers were fairly wealthy and had relatively large homes where they were able to entertain people when the official residence, Camden -- given to the people of Bermuda by the Tucker family -- was too formal a setting.

Ms Gordon and Premier Jennifer Smith are not in the same position and for that reason have required "official'' homes, paid for largely out of the public purse. This newspaper is on record as supporting Ms Smith's use of The Laurels, formerly the home of the Attorney General.

But one has to question whether the Premier -- if, and only if, this is the intention -- needs an even grander residence when she already has the use of Camden.

If Chelston is not to be used for that purpose, then it begs the question of who will live there; and if Government intends to rent it out, then will the public still have access to the grounds and the beach? The latest twist is the idea that Government will pay less than the $15 million asking price, which it rightly says is too high, in return for taking over the maintenance of Longbird Bridge.

This could end up as a disastrously costly deal. No-one disputes that the bridge is in poor shape. Maintenance of the existing bridge will be expensive and purchasing a new one -- which will have to be done one day -- could cost millions of dollars.

Thus Bermuda could end up paying for property which it may not need -- and paying for a new bridge into the bargain. That would be a folly in both senses of the word.

That makes little sense and in terms of cost, even less, when the loss of taxable income from stamp duty, if the property is sold to a private buyer, overseas purchase tax, if the buyer is non-Bermudian, and land tax are added to the equation.

The buying price of Chelston -- plus the tax revenues to be gained over the long term -- would build or renovate a lot of houses, and that may be Bermuda's greatest need right now.