Does the scientific evidence support this claim?

What does the pollution monitoring program say?

Is there a greater prevalence of cancer around the industrial park than there is elsewhere?

This country thrives on opinions. Let's see the data.

While the government has a RIGHT to offer exemptions under this Act, the real issues are:

1. The process is draconian (no business can commit to its future). Either there is a legitimate reason to grant a concession or there is none. But to try to take it back after it is granted is tyranny. The Act already provides for a renewal period. If the conditions change you simply decide not to renew.

2. The Act discriminates against the GBPA's own Licensees by providing a blanket exemption to GBPA Group for 20 years, with no performance requirements, while granting Licencees a conditional 5 years. The practical travesty in this is that the entity with the ability to most negatively impact the development of The Bahamas by a lack of performance is the one that has been given no conditions. (surly the government is not nieve enough to believe that a couple Board seats will change anything in a privately own company whose day-to-day operations is run by its shareholders directly).

The Act is INSANE (counter productive)

The GB Chamber did not fight hard enough and the GBPA threw it Licensees under the bus.

This makes no sense on many fronts:

1. Least environmental impact on East End is not the same as least environmental impact on Grand Bahama. Freeport is already irreversibly impacted. Why impact another?

2. A high density development in an area that has the opportunity to be an ecotourism gem is a death knell to that opportunity

3. To place the development so far from all the existing tourist infrastructure and possible attractions will result in minimal synergies (minimal economic impact)

4. To give the port to a cruise line who promise to grant Bahamians token access to the patrons is like putting it on an isolated Cay.

Grand Bahama has an opportunity to become a well planned economic development with ecotourism in the east, sporting & high density tourism in the center, industry around the harbor, and heritage tourism in the west. To go against this opportunity by plunking down a high density development in the East is like building an oil refinery on Cable Beach.

It grieves me that my people do not know the difference between the leader of the opposition in the house and the leader of a party. Wow!

New continue to prove our ignorance of the Westminster system.

By law, it is clear that:

1. URCA may regulate GB Power's sale of electricity outside the Port Area.

2. URCA has no jurisdiction over GB Power's sale of electricity inside the Port Area. The HCA cannot be usurped by subsequent legislation. All Administrations are painfully aware of that.

GB Power's mistake was in not separating it's two businesses. Freeport Power should have continued to generate and retail electricity in the Port Area. A GB Power should have been set up to bulk purchase electricity from Freeport Power and retail it outside the Port Area. Freeport Power would be licensed by GB Port Authority, GB Power by URCA.

However, they have mixed the two - providing for conflicting regimes

Yes, Baha Mar is a chinese jobs and materials program (as is the case with all their foreign financed projects - you can't fault their strategy) but what you miss is that the program is intended to be paid for by the mortagee. It helps them none to forclose and have it sit idle. It needs to be making payments or they gave away free labour and materials.

Our issue is that we don't have a strategy. We simply believe that a shotgun approach to FDI is our saviour. We have no clue about how to empower our own to venture into international markets. Domestic market activities do not add wealth, it only redistributes wealth. This is not rocket science but our leader(s) apprear oblivious to this as consecutive administrations continue to play the "keep em dumb and barefoot" game. And tax them into poverty.

Any buyer who is incapable of managing its relationship with what will be its 50/50 JV partner (Hutchison) is only fooling itself. It will have a minority management role in Freeport Habour Company and its related entities and a true deadlocked management role in GB Development Company. Choose wisely Bahamas. MSC and HPH will be a good fit for the Harbour but no one will be a good fit for GB Devco as Hutch sees it as a land bank with no obligation to develop it. Can MSC twist their arms?

It does not cleaverly leave out the Port Area, the Port Area is exempted under the Hawksbill Creek Act. GBPA has sole right to the laying out and planning of same. That Act cannot legally be modified without the consent of 80% of GBPA Licensees. Surly he knows this. If not, ask his associate, Fred, to explain it to him.

Hoodwinked? Where was Baha Mar's Project Manager in all of this? Baha Mar could not possibly be depending on its contractor to inform it of project status. This entire discourse is mischief.

Do we not think that Southern would have been very aware of the BPL deal as part of their due diligence. Surly, Power Secure would not have inked it if their suitor didn't feel it fit