THE domes bought to shelter residents temporarily left homeless by Hurricane Dorian have been a mess from the start.

It took forever for the domes to be made available, there seemed to be an ever-changing plan for what to do with them – and there are still a number that are vacant, as we head towards three years since the storm that prompted their purchase.

And now in today’s Tribune we hear a report that some residents are renting out domes.

These are only meant to be an emergency shelter – not some step onto the ladder of being a landlord.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Presumably the person renting it out is living with a roof over their head somewhere else – so they don’t need the dome. Give it to someone who does.

In fact, with domes still vacant, there should not even be the possibility of a market for renting out domes. If people are in need, the empty domes are right there.

The Minnis administration bought nearly 200 of these domes. In Spring City, Abaco, how many have been erected so far? Just 39. And four of those are vacant.

What an absolute waste of time and money and energy.

Even with some of those that have been put up already, there are apparently claims of mold and other issues.

These should be emergency accommodation, not still being discussed nearly three years after the fact.

Why are any still empty if there is a need for them? How can people be in need of somewhere to stay and domes still packed away and not assembled?

As for anyone renting out a dome? Take it off them and give it to the person staying there instead.

If these claims are true, there is absolutely no justification for such behaviour – and the people doing it should be ashamed of taking advantage of those in need of the most meagre roof over their heads.

It is not acceptable, and it should be stamped down on. If ever there was a sign of bureaucracy failing the people, it has to be domes gathering dust while people go in need.

Minimum wage

The Bahamas Public Service Union is aiming much higher than the government’s plan for an increase to the minimum wage.

The government has reportedly proposed an increase from $210 a week to about $250. The union is aiming for “nothing less than at least $350 a week”.

It doesn’t take a genius to note that those are a significant distance apart.

In a week, too, where the Budget has already come into question over the optimism in the government’s ability to raise enough revenue to cover its spending, there is an obvious thing to ask too – where’s the money going to come from?

There is, of course, nothing wrong with being ambitious in what can be achieved – but on the back of the major financial blows of Hurricane Dorian and the pandemic, the union could also do with a healthy measure of reality in their goals.

That said, there is a question of affordability on the other side too – how can someone afford to live on minimum wage at a time when inflation is surging and supply chain shortages are affecting the price on the shelf?

Talks are still ongoing, but as we noted in yesterday’s editorial, union relations are a far cry from the happy camp depicted by the PLP in the run-up to the election.

Solving the problem of raising a minimum wage enough to have an effect, while still keeping a rein on the nation’s finances at a time when revenues remain down will be no easy task.

That’s just the public sector too – if the government expects the private sector to follow suit, there are plenty of companies that have not experienced the full rebound after the pandemic yet, and may struggle to raise staff salaries to meet a minimum wage requirement.

Money is tight – and solutions are not easy to come by.