The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

An outspoken QC has slammed the selection of Bimini as a model tourism public-private partnership (PPP), arguing that the Resorts World project was “completely divorced from a harmonious relationship” with local Bahamians.

Fred Smith QC, who led the Bimini Blue Coalition’s unsuccessful Judicial Review challenge to the Bimini Bay expansion and associated dredging, told Tribune Business that the project was the “complete opposite” of what a model tourism PPP should be.

He blasted the Resorts World project as “a one-sided give away” of some of the Bahamas’ most precious natural resources, and questioned whether the agreement with the developer would hold both it and the Government accountable if there was “a failure to perform”.

Mr Smith also reiterated concerns that Bimini and similar ‘anchor projects’ were “boom or bust” developments, whereas initiatives that involved local communities from the outset stood a much better chance of creating “thousands of jobs” and sustaining for decades.

The Callenders & Co partner was speaking after Bimini, and the Resorts World project, were cited as a model tourism PPP at last week’s third annual CIBC FirstCaribbean Infrastructure seminar.

Addressing an international audience, Sir Baltron Bethel, the Prime Minister’s senior policy advisor, lauded Resorts World’s impact in reversing the island’s lacklustre tourism performance and “sub par” quality of its hospitality and public infrastructure.

He added: “The economic impact from the project has been very significant. Annual visitors to Bimini have increased in two years from 20,000 to 100,000, with as many as 500,000 projected annual within the next four years.”

This cut little ice with Mr Smith, who told Tribune Business: “I think it is ironic that Bimini should be chosen as an example of a PPP. Bimini is the complete opposite.

“It is the imposition, without any consultation, by central government of a foreign private development company that had no prior interaction with those most affected.”

Mr Smith said the expanded transportation, medical, infrastructure and educational facilities necessary to support a development such as Resorts World’s had not been taken into account before the project was approved by the Christie administration.

“It was all one-sided,” he added. “With this partnership, the Government simply gave away one of the natural resources of the Bahamas.

“Imposing any development on a Family Island without prior planning, organisation or consultation with the local government completely divorces it from any kind of harmonious, organic and mutually supportive relationship with the local community.

“Yes, it’s a partnership between the Office of the Prime Minister and the developer, but just as quickly as it can come, it can go,” Mr Smith said.

“Its impact may be just like hundreds of other anchor projects throughout the Bahamas that did not work. That is why these things should not be rushed.”

The Callenders & Co partner said that government agencies in other nations, when major tourism and housing developments were proposed, worked together to determine with the surrounding community, utilities and public services could support them.

Noting Sir Baltron’s concerns about the inability of Caribbean governments to manage and keep up with major investment projects, Mr Smith said: “It’s not after the fact that the Government should be scrambling around, patching together some kind of organised quilt work.

“I continue to oppose the imposition by the central government on Family Island communities of anchor projects that are not home grown via PPPs with local communities.

“An organic project would provide thousands of jobs for decades, and not be a boom or bust scenario. That is what the anchor projects are in danger of becoming - overnight splashes that are in danger of disappearing the next day,” he added.

“I continue to emphasise that the Family Islands are not colonies of Nassau to be developed for private profit, with bread crumbs scattered to the local community.”

Mr Smith instead suggested Freeport as a model Bahamian development PPP, arguing that the Hawksbill Creek Agreement had accounted for the city’s infrastructure, public services and utility needs when it was negotiated between the Government, Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) and investors.

“Nothing of the sort happened in Bimini,” he told Tribune Business,” and that is the result of these Heads of Agreement that exclude, and do not include, local residents.”

Mr Smith said Biminites did not know if there were any “side letter” arrangements between the Government and Resorts World and its parent, Malaysian conglomerate Genting, and the extent of the tax concessions given away.

“Are there penalties in the Heads of Agreement that are enforceable for failure to perform in any way,” Mr Smith told Tribune Business.

“What is to hold the Government and developer, Resorts World Bimini, accountable to the people of Bimini? Nothing.”

Sir Baltron last week said that within two years, Resorts World had invested hundreds of millions of dollars into Bimini’s public infrastructure, and undertaken the development of a 325–room marina hotel; a casino; restaurants; a deep water pier; upgrades to the airport and the introduction of a cruise ship; and the acquisition of aircraft dedicated to transportation to Bimini.

“The Bimini Bay Resort was unprofitable, mainly due to the lack of adequate transportation, accessibility marketing and branding,” he said.

Ed Farrell, Resorts World Bimini’s president, said the development was expecting to attract between 125,000-150,000 visitors next year.

Some 100,000 passengers were travelling to Bimini weekly on its cruise ship, and the developer had invested $10-$15 million in public infrastructure to-date.