Column: Fahy On Housing, Budget & More
[Column written by Michael Fahy]
As the public is aware, the budget statement was presented on 20th February 2026, with the Opposition giving its reply on 27th February 2026. During the economic debate, I tackled issues ranging from education to the state of our roads, but given my shadow portfolio of Housing, Municipalities and Home Affairs, I spent more time on housing than any other issue.
The Minister of Housing and Municipalities did quite well in the budget, getting more than $40 million for capital work. In fact, I congratulated him on his apparent advocacy skills, given the cash bonanza and competing interests of the outgoing Premier. I also reminded the Minister that he has invited the public to hold his feet to the fire, so let us make sure we all do.
The first matter I flagged is, for many months, the people of Bermuda have been promised a national housing plan for 2025 to 2035. Yet, we have had no sight of it. In fact, I challenged the Minister in early December 2025 to table the report. Given the continued delays, it should be renamed the Housing Plan 2026 to 2036.
Sadly, what we have been treated to are numerous press conferences which are high on energy but low on detail. Whilst I can admire the Minister’s enthusiasm after years of the PLP Government’s neglect, suddenly there is a flurry of activity, but does that mean the plans will give real, tangible, and sustainable benefits in the short and long term?
It is concerning that we have a large budget allocation without the plan. It is backwards. I am sure the Minister will share it with great fanfare, but who approves a budget without the plan? I am sure that we will hear from the Minister during the ongoing budget debate about the number of projects, many of which will again be recycled announcements from the Government’s own self-indulgent podcasts or broadcasts. Notwithstanding that, we are being asked to approve a piecemeal approach through press announcements.
What the Minister is asking us to do is accept an allocation of money in the tens of millions of dollars of public money on the back of a plan that the public has not yet seen. When you get a budget approved in business, the Board needs to understand the purpose. When you get financials approved, the shareholders are normally told how money is being spent and why.
Well, Bermudians are the shareholders, and yet there is no published plan. However, we knew precast homes were coming since the Chairman of the BHC floated that in a television interview. Again, we have no idea where the homes are coming from, the procurement process followed or even durability. Thanks to the drip feeding of information, we see that sites have been identified but give us the plan.
We are told that precast homes are high-quality homes built to Bermuda standards and designed to stand the test of Time. But are they? So what we actually have seen are repetitive press conferences announcing projects without a plan – modular housing without any idea on what those long term costs will be.
I do note that the word container homes has fallen out of favour before even being assembled, and I understand the Chinese-built container homes will not be at the forefront of the plans. That makes sense.
We know the Minister does sometimes listen since he has “begun structured exploration of options for the future of the Bermudiana Beach Resort and Grand Atlantic site with the clear objective of returning this public asset to productive use for Bermudians over time.” The OBA has been talking about this for years. With that cooperation in mind, the Minister may again consider utilizing empty school properties. I seem to recall the Minister saying this would be explored, yet there is no mention of it in the budget. Of the 1100 Bermudians who are homeless or facing homelessness, I am sure a safe space to lay their head at night in quickly repurposed buildings would be welcome.
As far as the Government’s idea of compulsory acquisition powers, in theory, it makes sense, but given the probate mess most Bermudians face, I cannot imagine it ever working efficiently in practice, not to mention the costs, since acquisition would need to be at fair market value.
Do the costs outweigh the returns? If they do, how will the gap be funded? Is there money in the budget for the proposal? Is the plan to buy these properties at fair market value? Far more detail is required. I struggle to think we can pass legislation to buy the property, renovate, and get a return on it in any meaningful and cost-effective way when we cannot even move into the House of the Hill due to its decrepit state. Before we run off and acquire homes already owned by Bermudians to then sell/lease to other Bermudians lets again look at selling or offer long term leases over Government property and incentivize the private sector to use it for building housing
When the Hamilton Plan was debated in the House last year, there was cross-party support for building higher in Hamilton. Let us make this happen. Perhaps give a Tourism Incentive Act style relief through tax breaks for higher builds from CoH tax since the Government will be taking over. Give customs duty relief on construction imports of materials and waive/end the Foreign Currency Purchase Tax to help lower costs. Create mixed-use developments where low, medium, and high-income earners all live in the same building. Let us do what we can to incentivize the private sector to get building. Finally let us get on with the Landlord-Tenant Act reform which has stalled. These are real ideas that will help!
The fact is solving the housing crisis is not easy, but we must proceed with care. We need to reduce red-tape, streamline building and inspection processes and follow a defined plan that deals with emergency requirements, temporary circumstances and long term issues in our market. Measure twice and cut once will be important so we do not end up with a plethora of buildings no one wants and does not solve the systemic issues we face.
- Michael Fahy
” what we have been treated to are numerous press conferences which are high on energy but low on detail.”
What part of that surprises you?