The Royal Gazette asked each of the six candidates running to become common councillors in today's City Hall by-election to respond to questions on key issues in Hamilton. Here's how they answered:

Question: Do you think Hamilton should move toward more high rise development and that the city plan needs updating to clarify the situation?

Diane Gordon: The City of Hamilton Plan definitely needs updating. The issue of taller buildings in Hamilton needs to be carefully considered to ensure that the character and the skyline of the city is maintained. Of equal importance is the introduction of more residential development and a vibrant retail and business environment in the uptown area of Hamilton as well as the traditional retail areas of the city.

Charles Gosling: The 2001 city plan has been overridden by a planning process which allows appeals to the Minister of Works and Engineering. A closer relationship needs to be in existence with the Minister to keep clear the position of the Corporation's oversight in the development of the city. Precedence has now been established to allow higher developments than that set out in the 2001 plan. The plan needs to be revised — taking into account the change in needs for residential units — with full consultation with the Department of Planning and the Minister — to the extent that he and his successors will support the Department and Corporation in their decisions. At the same time the city needs to provide more detail in the future course of the Corporation and its land holdings. This is a shortcoming of the 2001 plan. Later when the waterfront plan was finally presented, it was taken in complete isolation from the impact this could have on City Hall, the car parks and other holdings. Given the increase the waterfront development would have in office space, cultural areas, parking — each of these would have an impact on what is in use today. How these current uses could be changed, enhanced, done away with? What does this mean to the north east part of the city and any plans enhancing this important part of the city?

John Harvey: The city needs to commit to reviewing its development plans every five years in order to be of service to all potential developers. Indeed this could include increasing the city's boundaries.

Anne Kast: Yes, in answer to both questions. I agree with more high rise development in the right locations (eastern Hamilton) and depending on the use of the building (residential).

Graeme Outerbridge: Yes, in certain sectors of the city and this should dovetail in with the complete redrafting and updating of the city plan.

Glen Smith: I think Hamilton can continue to review the height restriction for the time being. Plenty of new construction has been taking place, including apartment buildings which are something of a new landscape. The one rule I would hold to in any consideration in this area is to maintain the skyline of the city with the Cathedral as the dominant building, as it has been across three centuries. I believe it is essential in any deliberations going forward that we seek to preserve wherever possible the special, intimate character of this city, which I consider one of the most important features in Bermuda.

Q: Do you think historic buildings within the city need to be listed to protect them and if so, what would you do as an elected member to safeguard their future?

DG: Absolutely! Within the existing City of Hamilton Plan there are few listed buildings, however there are many more buildings which have architectural merit or historic relevance and consideration should be given to a more extensive list to maintain the character of the city in a rapidly changing environment.

CG: Unfortunately, simply listing a building does not protect it as can be seen by the recent delisting and destruction of a prominent "protected" building in St George's. Yes, we should list historic buildings and those of great architectural note and beauty. We should also work within the islandwide community to establish that the fact that having a listed building is an asset in many ways and not another cost centre. Programmes such as reducing land tax — in effect rewarding good upkeep or forgiving custom's duties for restoration work — would go some way to getting a buy-in from the owners. Delisting should also be a harder process than present — poor or neglectful upkeep should not be an excuse for delisting.

JH: Historic buildings must be preserved and if necessary by act of parliament.

AK: Yes, there is a need to have a listing process for important historic buildings located in Hamilton. But it should not be so bureaucratic or so narrow as to interfere with the natural renewal of properties in the city.

GO: Yes, certain of the city's historic buildings should be listed and protected. This process must be done working with owners of the buildings and the Bermuda National Trust. If economic considerations are being lost by owners of historic buildings then tax relief should be examined. The COH should approach each historic listing on a case-by-case basis with a mutual constructive outcome for the city and the buildings owners.

GS: Yes. Again, it is essential to maintain the character of the city, however it is important to balance heritage with progress. Bermuda architecture is a reflection of our unique culture. It is a part of who we are. We need to keep it alive. There is enough capacity for physical change in the city without bulldozing the things that set us apart as a people. I would also like emphasise that it is important that we work with interested bodies such as the National Trust on developments.

Q: Do you think Hamilton should try to attract a regular cruise ship of its own or implement new policies to attract more trade to Front Street?

DG: The cruise ship industry is changing and there is a trend towards larger ships. However, there are a considerable number of higher end niche ships which cater to passengers with significant disposable income and the willingness to spend money whilst in port. Hamilton should market itself as a destination for higher end niche ships.

CG: Government currently sets the cruise ship policy and I do not believe the Corporation is in a position to attract its own ship. Lobbying through the MP(s) who represent the city's constituents as well as the appropriate Ministers should be undertaken detailing the impact of this season. Hamilton has to have either a regular visitor or a significant increase in the occasional visits from the smaller high end ships. This season is having a very bad effect on the retail industry that caters to the visitor. Hamilton has a visitor retail industry based on tourism levels of a number of years ago. Today's reduced number of hotel beds does not provide sufficient enough numbers to make retail profitable and the cruise ships (now in Dockyard) which have kept Front and Reid Street alive for all these years has provided little in terms of adding any revenue this year. The fast ferries, great in principle, are not bringing in the passengers.

JH: The city has a responsibility to all of its taxpayers, amongst whom the retailers must be given every opportunity to be profitable. A regular cruise ship on Front Street would assist in this regard and adds a sense of activity and vibrancy when they are in port.

AK: Yes to both questions. Smaller, niche market cruise ships in Hamilton would help support trade in Hamilton so long as they not interfere with the waterfront development and usage. Effective waterfront development is the best way to attract more trade to Front Street.

GO: Yes and I have already been an active part of this process while serving on the Wharf committee. Government is talking to a number of cruise lines on our behalf including Holland America and Royal Caribbean. It is important to remember that it will take two years from the time we sign a contract until we see a ship come sailing through Two Rock Passage.

GS: Yes, absolutely. I am very concerned that the Government is committing the Island to a cruise ship schedule that overall restricts the number of cruise ships berthing in Hamilton. A berth in Hamilton remains a strong attraction in Bermuda for cruise ships and no one should be allowed to forget that. Cruise ships are not just important to the bottom lines of Hamilton-based retailers, restaurateurs and other service providers, their passengers also bring a higher level of activity to the city that I think all of us appreciates, particularly on Harbour Nights, as an example.

Q: Do you think the commercial docks should be moved away from Front Street?

DG: The best use of Hamilton waterfront would be something other than commercial docks. However, the alternative locations thus far contemplated all have significant negative impacts either environmentally or with regard to traffic movement.

CG: There is certainly a case for that move. The waterfront has the potential of becoming an international icon of a proud city. It does not make sense to develop one part of the waterfront only to allow the remainder to be an eyesore and a hindrance to the development of that section of the city. However, there is certainly a case for not moving the docks as well. Speak to any of the shipping companies and presently the means that we have in off-loading the containers is wind dependent. The winter winds would play havoc on the offloading process if the docks were located by the incinerator. Anyone suggesting moving the docks to Southside or Morgan's Point does not understand a) the amount of containers shipped and on Bermuda's roads at any time or b) that the overwhelming majority of freight is destined for warehouses within a small radius around the city. The cost of handling freight within Bermuda is expensive enough, moving to either of these two locations would put too much pressure on our roads and inflate the on-island shipping costs by a factor of two or even three. And then we have the lost wharfage revenue for the Corporation. Can the leaseholds and other new income from the waterfront replace these losses? Properly address the reasons for not moving and then the answer is "yes".

JH: Yes.

AK: Yes, commercial docks belong elsewhere in Bermuda. The loss of revenue to the City will be painful thus increasing the urgency in developing the waterfront.

GO: Yes, I think the docks should be phased out as we bring the waterfront development on line. The Government has done a study and I think it is certain that the docks will be moved to Marginal Wharf.

GS: That depends on the plans. Opening up the docks' six acres to residential, retail and green space development is an exciting thought and would probably put Hamilton in line to be the most beautiful small city in the world, but the logistical challenges of shifting the docks to the north shore or Ships Wharf in Southside are huge. Additionally, the vast majority of containers coming off the docks are broken or stripped down within one mile of those docks and we have to be careful of the impact moving the docks would have on our congested roads as they are now. Also the revenue challenge to the Corporation would be severe. But there is scope in all possibilities for the right answers and we should continue to challenge our best and brightest to explore the issue.

Q: Do you support reclaiming land from the harbour and introducing underground parking?

DG: The Hamilton waterfront will be enhanced through carefully considered land reclamation and as a consequence the visual impact of cruise ships in port will be improved. Any land reclamation should also be with a well thought out landscaping plan which represents a careful balance between waterfront park and development. I think that the benefits of underground parking on the waterfront are likely to be far outweighed by the cost to construct an underground structure. However Par-la-Ville may be a suitable location for underground parking. The solution to access and traffic lies in a coordinated national transportation initiative.

CG: In principle yes to the first part, but not without a plan for the entire city and how the additional parkland, cultural, commercial and residential areas will enhance or replace land use in other areas. Introducing underground car parking was an agreement the Chamber of Commerce and the retail division reached with the Corporation about seven years ago as one of the criteria for the building of the underground Par-La-Ville car park as a part of the proposed hotel development. The small percentage loss in car bays would be gained by having street level access connecting into the beginning of the Reid Street pedestrian area where it joins Queen Street.

JH: Hamilton harbour is a lovely, scenic harbour/port which ought not be altered unless absolutely necessary.

AK: I support creating what we need on the waterfront with what we have. I do not support underground parking. A multi-storey east-end car park (Cavendish) would be much more efficient, economical and serve a broader segment of the population.

GO: Yes, but I would term it land creation. The new transportation hub and new waterside development will need central downtown parking. It will be cheaper to create parking than fill the new space with rubble.

GS: I am supportive of the Hamilton waterfront and I see land reclamation has been part of waterfront renewal in many countries with successes and we need to explore it. But I do believe in the need to ease parking congestion by expanding the city's parking capacity, particularly within new building or revamped buildings. In terms of underground parking, I have always believed the City Hall parking lot itself, on high ground, is perfectly positioned for a multi-layered underground parking lot.

Its feasibility would depend on cost and engineering assessments, but if it was doable I envision the existing car park becoming an urban park — finally making the "green necklace" from Par-la-Ville Park to Victoria Park a reality. It could have an amphitheatre for outdoor entertainment and public gatherings. It could be the catalyst that gives the city a new, more human centre. I also believe that a feasibility study on Reid Street extension parking lot should go down underground to create perhaps two or three storeys below ground and run a shuttle from there into the centre of Hamilton.

Q: Do you think Bermuda Society of Arts should be allowed to stay at City Hall?

DG: Absolutely! City Hall is a major attraction in the City of Hamilton and its function as a community arts and culture centre supersedes its function as office space for the Corporation.

CG: The City Hall was originally created as an administrative and a cultural centre for the city. The role as cultural centre is extremely important, probably more so today; the centralisation of office space, less so. I lean towards supporting the arts but would like to hear both sides before coming to a categorical yes/no decision.

JH: The Bermuda Society of Arts and the national art gallery must be embraced and encouraged to stay and enhance their presence at City Hall. The city has a responsibility to provide cultural and artistic delights for our residents and visitors alike.

AK: I think the use of the entire City Hall property needs to be reviewed to accommodate the long term planning and needs of the Corporation and all its current tenants.

GO: Yes, this decision has already been made and a new five year lease offered to BSOA, plus the COH City Hall committee is in the process of drawing up a strategic plan for City Hall inclusive of the arts and the Corporation's offices.

GS: Yes, yes! City halls should be more than administrative centres.

Q: Do you support opening up the Corporation's meetings to the public, publishing minutes and making the municipality more transparent?

DG: The Corporation of Hamilton will benefit from greater accessibility and transparency through more open governance.

CG: I have not been present at a Corporation meeting yet, but I am certain that the level of detail in the discussions precludes it from occurring in an open setting. I do believe though that there should be regular reports presented in a public forum giving details on current activities and future plans/priorities. Occasional open meetings would probably end up being stage managed events. To further transparency I would challenge the Corporation to become proactive in expanding the electoral list encouraging all tax payers to register and participate in all parts of the democratic process and the efficient running of this municipality. This would also strengthen the lobbying efforts of the Corporation with Government.

JH: The Corporation business is the people's business and the people must have access to what is going on at all times.

AK: I support making the municipality more transparent and accountable and will consider all alternatives. Further, I strongly support increasing the voters list through an aggressive registration drive. A broader list of voters will ensure a higher turnout at elections, a broader pool of strong candidates running for office and greater input from the people of the city.

GO: Yes, meetings should be open to the public.

GS: Yes. There is no reason for the city to operate behind closed doors. At the very least, its meeting should be open to the city residents and taxpayers.

Q: Would you like to see Reid Street pedestrianised and if so, when?

DG: The urban character of the City of Hamilton would benefit greatly from the pedestrianisation of Reid Street and parts of Court Street. An integral part of the pedestrianisation plan should include improved ease of access for the public either through more central parking or through park and ride facilities.

CG: I thought that was a done deal and about to be implemented — some time ago.

JH: A part of Reid Street can be pedestrianised or another street in the city should be experimented (i.e. it need not be permanently closed until proven successful). This has proven popular in other cities including Barcelona, New York, Toronto etc.

AK: Yes, I would like to see Reid Street pedestrianised. From what I have heard on this issue during my canvassing, we are letting perfection stand in the way of progress. Implementing the change now sounds doable. If that is the case, then we should move forward.

GO: I think that has to be done in conjunction with the waterfront redevelopment. Just doing it in isolation would be problematic.

GS: I am sympathetic to the retailers on Reid Street, but I am not satisfied pedestrianising will work for Reid Street at present. I also believe we need Reid Street to help absorb the inflow and movement of traffic. Closing it would only increase congestion on surrounding streets, particularly if we move forward on the Hamilton waterfront development.

Q: What is your policy for reducing congestion in Hamilton?

DG: Reducing congestion in Hamilton is not just a Corporation of Hamilton issue; rather, it should form part of a national transportation initiative which would include a number of measures such as car pooling, improved free public transportation and park and ride facilities around the perimeter of the city.

CG: By not building underground car parks in reclaimed land from Hamilton harbour. Working with Government on further enhancing the public transport system — especially bus service for the private schools surrounding the city and the enlarging, when necessary, of the satellite car parks.

JH: Remove the docks and this would be a step forward in addressing congestion in the city.

AK: Better traffic flow will help considerably. I find vehicles that double park throughout the City create the worst traffic congestion. I would implement stiff fines for people who double park. Vehicles that are double parked are highly visible. It should not be difficult to reduce this problem. We just need the will.

GO: Provide safer and better and more efficient public parking facilities and better policing of city streets.

GS: I am not sure there are any realistic steps available that will substantially reduce congestion in Hamilton though I am prepared to support ANY sensible ideas. But let's face it, a busy vibrant city in my experience is always a congested one, so we need to work to manage that congestion.

Q: In 50 words or less, tell the voters why they should vote for you.

DG: The past eight years with the Chamber of Commerce have allowed me to demonstrate and prove that I am an individual with strong ethical and moral standards and I truly want to see the city continue to be vibrant, attractive and grow for the Island as a whole.

CG: In four years as Chamber of Commerce president and in other public roles, I have presented, hopefully, a voice of thoughtful reason, open to all views before reaching a decision. I provided a new direction and vigour for that organisation. I will do the same for the Corporation.

JH: I challenged business colleagues to run for office but most declined. Diane Gordon and Charles Gosling came to the wicket and forced me to follow. I could be of service to the Corporation of Hamilton in these areas: tourism, human resources, retailers, security and safety, cleanliness/vibrancy, fair electoral process.

AK: People should vote for me because of my strong financial background, my dependability, my ability to get things done and to solve problems. My proven record in these areas is solid. I am willing to take a stand on difficult issues to ensure decisions are made for the right reasons.

GO: My main focus would continue to be good governance. This is an area where the present leadership of the COH has continually been going seriously wrong. I have first hand knowledge of the problems and what needs to be fixed including totally redrafting the existing Municipalities Act of 1923.

GS: The Corporation of Hamilton must get back on track, working as one to make the city a better. Teamwork is the key. All other issues are secondary. My career has been about team building and getting things done. I can help give the City a fresh start.