THE explanations surrounding the withdrawal from plans for a new multi-million dollar Central Bank headquarters are less than convincing so far.

The bank development was supposed to be part of the overhaul of Downtown Nassau – bringing fresh investment to the area.

A design competition was launched, leading to the final design that was chosen.

It was hailed as an “iconic structure” and a “one-of-a-kind building” that would be central to the area’s revival.

And now? It is a crumpled up piece of paper in a garbage bin.

Some are making the best of it – Charles Klonaris said that Downtown had “turned the tide” without any need for the new headquarters. Others are raising concerns and wanting the full decision process to be explained.

Yesterday, Economic Affairs Minister Michael Halkitis said that going ahead might not look good. He said that coming out of COVID, “the optics of it might not be the best”.

That seems curious – that something described as an economic boost for the area would be dumped just because the government thought it might look bad.

Was it going to support jobs? Bring investment? Revamp an area desperately in need of it? Then optics can take a back seat.

Former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis was equally unimpressed with the explanation yesterday, saying that the government was throwing away $12m that had already been spent on the project.

He called the decision to cancel because building the new bank headquarters might look bad “a flimsy excuse”.

He added that it was “totally irresponsible” and showed “how they waste and have no respect for the Bahamian people’s money”.

Dr Minnis said: “Parliament approved the transfer of Crown Land to the Central Bank. Why was the decision made not to go ahead with this major project? Was this a Cabinet decision? The cancellation of the new headquarters at that site is very disturbing and begs many questions that need to be answered.”

The optics of cancelling a project destined to revive the ailing fortunes of Downtown are far worse than the optics of proceeding with something because we are still emerging from COVID.

So much so that many of the people we have spoken with on the subject seem perplexed at the decision to say the least – and raising suspicions at worst.

A full and clear explanation of how the decision was arrived at would allay some of those suspicions, we would hope – and isn’t that the least that the public deserves anyway?

There often seems to be a shroud of a lack of clarity around many of these decisions, when spelling it out would make clear to the public why such choices were made. Then the public may agree or not agree – but at least they can do so based on the information used to make the decision.

Instead, we peer at another failed effort to get a project completed in Downtown and wonder how we can be surprised that the area seems at times to be dying when every time we try to breathe life into it, the plan is abandoned.

What happens next is unclear – but one thing seems certain, that multi-million investment is not coming any time soon.

Manifesto

There was a curious statement from Minister of National Security Wayne Munroe on the issue of marital rape this week.

He said that he did not see any point in stating his opinion on marital rape as it is not on the legislative agenda. It was not in the Blueprint for Change manifesto from the PLP ahead of the election, so as far as he is concerned, if it is not in there and he did not campaign on it then it seems not to exist.

It will be interesting to see if he adopts the same attitude to other things that were not in the Blueprint for Change. There has been talk of a new prison – that’s not in the blueprint. How about marijuana legislation? The government position is not clear from the blueprint.

Not every subject a government comes to address is dealt with in campaign blueprints – things change, certainly the PLP position on VAT was far from clear from the manifesto, for example.

But if this is Mr Munroe’s yardstick, let him be measured with it on other subjects as well.