Opinion Column: Famous On Municipalities Bill
[Written by Chris Famous] The recent Municipalities Amendment Bill Act passed by the OBA returns much of the power previous held by the municipalities to government. This move is in direct contrast to many jurisdictions that are looking to decentralizing governments’ authority and give more control to independent bodies.
The Municipalities Amendment Bill Act will:-
- Restore the business vote for municipal elections
- Abolition of aldermen
- Reduce the power of the municipalities to less than that currently held by WEDCo & BHB
- Clause 13 of the Bill removes to the authority of municipalities to sell its’ lands or enter in lease agreements that are longer than 21 years.
- Require any agreement made prior to January 1 2012 to be validated by the Legislature and Cabinet.
Taking from the small Guys’?
It is the granting of the ability for government to retroactively void agreements that could possibly allow the OBA to render the 262 year lease that the CoH has with Allied Development Partners null & void. Allied Development Partners (ADP) is headed up by Mike MacLean & Alex DeCouto and is the lead developer for the Waterfront Development Project which has been touted as one of Bermuda’s biggest construction projects ever.
Along with seven other respondents to CoH’s Request for Proposal (RFP), ADP submitted a winning proposal valued at $1.7 billion and the lease of the 26 acres of the City’s waterfront was signed on December 13, 2012.
Giving to the Big Guys’?
Interestingly enough, one of the loudest critics of the ADP’s Waterfront Development Project is Sir John Swan. Swan did not submit his proposal during the September to October 2012 deadline.
“I did not submit…because it looked like it was being rushed through. It did not involve Government and it did not involve a process that was open to the public. I had strong reservations about the process.” Sir John Swan Bermuda Sun September 11, 2013
Despite opting not to submit a proposal, Sir John Swan unveiled his 3-phase plan for the Waterfront project in July of this year to the public some 9 months AFTER the RFP deadline. When asked why he chose to take his version of the project to the people, Sir John Swan said,
“To sit idly by means you have an interest, but do nothing. I have an interest in Bermuda and I have chosen to do something.” Bermuda Sun July 17, 2013.
Expanding the Tax base?
In my next column, I will further discuss the proposed long term goals of Sir John Swan which include expanding the Corporation of Hamilton boundaries. This will most likely impose further taxes on Bermudians living in Pembroke.
So the two question in many person’s minds are these:
- How far will the OBA really go to bolster the business interests of individuals who are aligned with the OBA?
- How far will the OBA really go to manipulate the voting numbers to ensure elections always turn out favourable for them and their associates?
- Chris Famous
I suppose that is one way of choosing to view things. There are others.
So the PLP believes in “taxation without representation.”
As one indepdendent Senator noted yesterday almost 99% of the CoH taxes are procured from ratepayers (i.e. business owners). And yet the PLP and their cohorts believe they shouldn’t have a say in a City that is paid for by them.
And one thing Mr. Famous doesn’t highlight is that only Bermudian business owners have ONE vote and that the former practice of opening numerous subsidiaries as a means to gain multiple votes has been eliminated. While another glaring ommission in his so called “column” is that the main source of revenue, which was stripped away by the former Government, has now been returned to the CoH.
And on top of that the residents of the City still retain their vote.
Sadly, neither the former PLP Government nor the present COH members ever realized the hypocrisy of “extending the franchise” by taking away the right to vote from hundreds of tax payers who had invested their lives and efforts in their businesses in the City of Hamilton. The former COH had advocated extending the franchise to ALL persons of voting age who live in the City. That is called extending the franchise.
The reality is that far from extending the franchise it was greatly reduced by stripping anyone who owned and operated a business, whether it was a storeowner on Front Street or the owner of a beauty shop on King Street. The owners and operators of businesses in Hamilton were and are paying upwards of 95% of all City taxes but as of now they are denied any right to have any say whatever in how their taxes are used.
The result is a complete disaster.
The new legislation does not take a single vote away from any resident of the City. What it does is to provide those who pay their taxes with a voice in how their hard earned tax dollars will be spent.
Mayor Outerbridge knows all too well that once this legislation goes through he will not be able to be re-elected by a small group of less than 125 people. He and his fellow counsellors will either have to do a good job for everyone in the City or they will not be elected for a second term. What they are fighting for is the salaries and benefits they have decided to pay themselves and you can be assured that they will fight tooth and nail to keep any control of their spending away from the tax payers, or the Government,
And Mr. Famous are you arguing against the right of North Hamilton business owners their right to vote as well? Or is it just one particular segment that you have an issue with?
“How far will the OBA really go to manipulate the voting numbers to ensure elections always turn out favourable for them and their associates?”
That is exactly what the PLP did and while highly commendable that Hamilton residents were giving the vote that change shouldn’t have accompanied the stripping of others natural right, as a taxpayer, in a true democracy.
You forget who you’re talking to.
“It’s ok when we do it”
Question:
Unless you are going to contribute some statement, factoid or bit of evidence, why comment?
You are getting like the rest of them, Hind – too busy looking at the messenger rather than the message (and for the record, I don’t agree with the message BUT I choose NOT TO ATTACK the messenger).
Q
And what are you doing?
I’m not attacking – that’s for sure. Read my comment, think about what I said, and then comment – it works, trust me. No where in my comment do I attack Mike – I simply pointed out that he is starting to get like everyone else on this blog – I expect better from him (as he expects that of me).
Q
“Unless you are going to contribute some statement, factoid or bit of evidence, why comment?”
Try your words on for size.
I am simply responding to your reply – - you do understand how this works right?
My comment was directly related to the post by Mr. Hind – - you do get that right?
I am still trying to understand your involvement in my advice to Brother Hind – - but I am sure you will reply and provide an explanation, factoid or bit of evidence – maybe?
Q
“Unless you are going to contribute some statement, factoid or bit of evidence, why comment?”
Try your words on for size.
See, here’s where we differ. I don’t expect much from you. I certainly don’t expect better! You’ve proven to be just as dishonest and demagogic as the rest of ‘em.
Attacks are not the order of the day, Hind.
I am not attacking you – - and I will not retaliate against you because of it.
I am simply taking your advice and you have a problem with it – amazing.
Q
Again, I was speaking to what you said.
Again:
“It’s only ok when we do it.”
This goes for you, as well.
Denouncing me for your own behaviour.
You choose not to attack the messenger because he’s on your side. However, you have shown, time and again, that you are more than willing to attack the messenger instead of the message. For example: This post.
I WAS speaking to what Mr. Famouss was saying. His underlying message is, as always, one of hypocrisy, denouncing and defaming people for the behaviour he both tacitly and openly defends and promotes when people on his side do it. Not sure how you missed that.
Oh, wait. Yes, I do. You were too busy with your attack on the messenger to actually try to read the message.
Let’s get some things straight first, Mike.
I didn’t attack you nor do I attack people on this blog. I simply highlight certain aspects of their comments which I, in my own opinion, deem questionable and worthy of commentary.
Your post – “I WAS speaking to what Mr. Famous was saying. His underlying message is, as always, one of hypocrisy, denouncing and defaming people for the behaviour he both tacitly and openly defends and promotes when people on his side do it. Not sure how you missed that.” – - WHERE WAS THIS POSTED AS I HAVE NEVER READ THIS NOR WAS MY COMMENT RELATED TO THAT POST.
My original comment on this story was related to this post – and this post ALONE:
“You forget who you’re talking to.
“It’s ok when we do it”.”
Which when read in context is an attack against Mr. Famous. Knowing the history between the two of you, I am not surprised at your assault on my character and my posts. However, I need to make you aware of something – - I do not agree with Mr. Famous on this and many other issues – - I believe him to be a PLP Flunkie who believes he will bleed green and white if you were to cut him – - that is not my way nor my ideal.
And my statement regarding expecting better from you is directly related to your call for intellectual, well informed dialogue – instead of personal attacks and political jabs. YOU YOURSELF HAVE ASKED TO HAVE THE LEVEL OF DISCOURSE RAISED ON THIS SITE, but then you lower your standard.
My post was to ask you to remember who and what you stand for – - not to be be attacked for being a friendly reminder to that effect – c’est la vie, n’est pas?
Funny, isn’t it?
Q
What’s funny is you ignoring EVERYTHING that I wrote in order to completely rewrite reality.
My “assault on your character”? When? The part where I pointed out that you have, repeatedly, shown that you are willing to attack the person rather than what they said? How is that an assault on your character?
Pointing out your behaviour isn’t an assault.
I know you think you’ve got a “Gotcha!” moment, but you might want to ACTUALLY read the posts.
Evidence, please?
When have I repeatedly attacked anyone?
Like you, I point out different viewpoints, thus I cannot agree with your current assessment.
But as you clear stated in previous posts, this forum is full of biased individual opinions – that’s the nature of the beast, I suppose.
Q
Well, I pointed out one instance in my post. Let’s start there…
Hind, go play your banjo !!
Careful guys. We got an internet tough guy here!
Like I said before mike hind, people have caught on, here you are now having an argument with yourself. And you say you are not an OBA follower. If you have no political allegiance, and unless you are supporting an independent, you will not vote. If you do not vote, you say means nothing to anyone. All you do is try to discredit people and call them liars. Ima start calling you encyclopedia cause ya got all the facts and ya never wrong. Haha
Nope. None of this is true. It’s just more baseless smear.
What kills me is that you accuse me of having all the facts and never being wrong (like that’s a bad thing?) when, most of the time, you guys are railing at me for asking for more facts!
Which is it?
And, in case you missed this fact, a vote for a political party doesn’t equal support FOR that party. I know you want to denounce me in any way you can, but stop for a second and think.
If a vote for a party means that I am a supporter of that party, as you claim, then I’m a PLP supporter as well as an OBA and UBP supporter, as I have voted for all three. Why? Because the person I voted for was the one I thought was best for the job.
I know this is hard to understand for someone who is party all the way, no matter what, but we’re not all like that. We don’t all think like you do.
If you’re going to denounce me, at least TRY to base the denunciation on reality. Don’t just make stuff up. It’s a waste of your time and mine.
Like I said before: If the truth is so bad, why do you have to lie to make your point?
Wish you all would’ve left us in bondage, at least we knew where and when our licks were coming !!
Ubp, back in full swing !! Well done mike faye
A $1.7 billion dollar project pushed through in less than two months, but simple wall collapse is stuck in neutral nine months later.
I’m sure everything was open and above board and that’s why the CoH has been so cooperative with the Ombudsman.
I certainly agree with your implied comment about how complex matters are pushed through quickly and quietly, while simple matters seem to linger on and on.
I would respectfully point out that the wall which you refer to is actually on Government property (Dellwood school), and therefore not the responsibility of COH to repair. Perhaps W&E would care to comment as to why it has taken so long for them to address this wall’s repairs, when they spent the better part of three months building a sidewalk on North Shore. Aesthetics seems to take priority over safety…if one tries to draw a conclusion based on work completed versus work pending…..
The most significant and universaly negative impact of the new Municipalities Act is the retroactve review of contracts (i.e. the lease for the waterfront). Several businessman have privately expressed grave concern about that change.
In public, there seems to be general support from the business community but we must think longterm. At some point there will be a change in government (i.e. PLP returns) and the precedent has been set for them to review any previous contracts that they want and overturn them. At that point we may all complain but it will be too late. Just imagine how many contracts government signs. As a minimum think of all the private landlord agreements for commercial buildings!!
A second concern relates to how the government will make sure that a single beneficial owner with more than one building wil nto manipulate ownership to allow them to have multiple votes? That is a question that has not been answered.
If we consider reality, how much does the international business sector contribute to taxes received by the Corporation? Should they get a vote to be consistent.
If history repeats, we will have alternate business and resident Mayors since the OBA and PLP will simply change the voting method each time they are the government.
What is so terribly wrong with giving a vote (as it always was) to the generators of 98% of the city’s revenue ?
Conversely , why was their vote taken away ?
To truthfully answer that would entail the use of some painfully blunt language that certain people would not like .
Suffice to say that when the COH/PLP made the changes to the voting system it was to guarantee a result that THEY wanted.
Problem was , they never , ever thought the PLP would be voted out.
The support for the addition of the ratepayers’ vote negates one important point:-
There has been a transfer of power from the CoH to the government.
The OBA now have the power to make contracts made post Jan 2010 null & void
The OBA now have the power to control all matters related to the property of the CoH
The OBA now have the power to establish the CoH’s Code of Conduct
So while there are those that see the return of the raterpayers’ right to vote as a win for democracy, the reality is that the there has actually been a removal of power from the municipalities’ voter. The municipalities’ voter base has expanded but it equates to nothing more then gaining an ability a vote for a ceremonial figurehead of a mayor.
The ability for the OBA to make leases null & void will comes with a yet to be determined cost.
Given the recent conduct of CoH officials, I would say the ability to ensure that the CoH is subject to appropriate rules of conduct is wholly appropriate.
I believe the Ombudsman, as of now, will agree given the fact that both the Mayor and his Deputy are in court on contempt charges. Don’t forget that it was one of their very own Councillors that initiated the Ombudsman investigation after witnessing what he believes to be unethical actions. Why would the current leadership exclude certain elected CoH representatives from certain meetings?
What are they hiding and who exactly did they give our hamilton waterfront to for almost 300 years?
Thanks for the feedback
Huh, the two main questions on peoples minds??? Try picking from the below:
1 How the hell we gonna get out of this financial hell the PLP left us in.
2 Why won’t the COH come clean on their dealings
3 Who the heck do they think they are, complaining about demanding money, when they knew it was a volunteer job when they went for it.
4 Who got all the voters registered and drove all those voters from Salvation Army to vote for them and was any compensation given for their vote?
The Mayor and his deputy were just found in contempt in the investigation by the Ombudsman. This is one day after the same people voted themselves payment for services past and future and the day after they *organised* a protest that nobody wanted to join.
But you carry on Famous, you are so blind.
LOL
the cut and thrust of my column is not the current administration. I don’t think you can find me speaking towards the current admin or past admin.
How come you get to have an opinion piece ??????? on Bernews. How does this work?
If you’re wondering, we are delving into some opinion columns to supplement our regular news. We have an open invitation out to both parties, as well as some of the public. Feel free to email us if you want to write one
Careful bernews, you will soon be labeled as plp friendly if you allow “that plp bie” chris famous to have an opinion piece! Lmfao, way off !!!
Opinion: it cheapens your product, to have peoples opinions as an article. The blogs are opinions and opinions on opinions. That in my opinion is where opinions should be. To have an opinion as an article without clear separation implies that you support the opinion. Do you pay the writers for the opinion pieces?
That’s the beauty of opinions, everyone has them. It’s clearly labeled “Opinion Column” at the very beginning of the title in bold font, we’ve run them on and off since 2010, and haven’t crumbled yet, so doubt the site will collapse over it
Because Bernews sets trends.
Feel free to email me directly if you wish to further discuss any of my pieces.
carib_pro@yahoo.com
Your opinions are intent on destruction and dividing. My opinions are intent on the opposite. We have nothing to discuss.
Personal attacks on Chris Famous are totally unecessary nor is it necessary to attack Bernews for publishing “opinion pieces” on line. I always find it interesting and thought provoking to read Mr. Famous’ articles and comments, some of which I agree with and others I respectfully disagree with.
Yes, I have concerns about providing Government with the ability to cancel COP lease agreements retroactively although I have much greater concern that those elected to the COH decided to lease Bermuda’s most prime piece of real estate for over 2 1/2 centuries IN SECRET. This appears to have been done with no apparent consultation with either the present OBA Government or the former PLP Government when there is literally no possibility of any development without full Government support, financial and otherwise.
I also love the question about how far will the OBA Government go to bolster the business interests of those who are aligned with the OBA and to manipulate voting numbers to ensure elections always turn out favourable for them and their associates.
The truth is, of course, that the former PLP Government did exactly that. Instead of simply extending the franchise to all residents as they should have done, and as recommended by the former COH administration, they completely removed the franchise from all those tax payers who owned or operated businesses in Hamilton, including hundreds of small businesses who are now denied any say in how their tax dollars are spent.
We now know how far the PLP Government went to in order “to manipulate the voting numbers to ensure elections always turn out favourable for them and their associates” (to quote Mr. Famous’s own words). No wonder the PLP is upset. The OBA is trying to reach a balance and allow those who pay over 95% of City taxes a say in how their taxes are spent.
It would appear that the OBA Government believes the key to our economic recovery is to support and encourage businesses both large and small, and that is exactly what the amendments to the Municipalities Act is inteded to achieve.