***they voiced concerns over a likely significant increase in traffic and parking congestion despite the developer’s plans including an on-site parking garage.***

The above is the crux of the matter. These homeowners could not care less about the project. They are just concerned about their precious increase in traffic. Get over it - you are living in Nassau, a dense area. If you want space, move to Acklins.

There is nothing about this project that should cause it to halt.

1) We can walk and chew gum. Focusing on Bay Street does not preclude us from focusing on gas prices or lower electricity bills, et al.

2) How silly of the politician - any politician from any party - to want to revitalize an area that is primarily responsible for 80% of our GDP. Oh the gall. What an idiot the politician is.

You were perfect - right up until you repeated the tired and specious trope that foreigners "get more favourable breaks". This is not - and has never been - true. There is no concession that a foreigner ca access that a Bahamian cannot.
But your overall point is spot on.

Well, that's why we have a democracy and elections. Sebas is free to enter the race; let's see if Bahamians will elect him.

Don't be dramatic.

Exposed is partially correct. Yes, this move confers a huge pay day to the creditors - but they would have gotten that anyway. Their expense is a fixed cost.
What this ruling actually does is stop two entities from fighting over who should receive their money first (and, how much should they receive). That would have been a bitter court fight, which would have come from the coffers of the fund. By agreeing to this "contract" both entities get paid - as they should as this is their vocation - and defrauded customers have more money in the fund from which to be reimbursed.
All things considered - not a bad outcome.

You should ask yourself, why foreign second home owners - as birdie suggests -are selling, especially having regard to The Bahamas' National Investment Policy. I suspect, though, that you are more interested in "slamming" birdie, and lapping up your own political bias to ask this question.

At some point, Dawes, you - as we all - need to get our head out of the political derriere and think about our country.

Porcupine, generally you raise very cogent comments. I think your political bias, which we all have, is blinding you. Firstly - yachting fees are an inelastic demand - that is there is no correlation between increased fees and the decline of the industry. I will leave it up to you to do your own google search, and from there, I am sure that you will follow the breadcrumbs. If these so-called yachters are leaving because of increased fees, then they are people that we do not need in the first instance. (If you believe that Bezos, Buffet, Salah, et al. scoff at yacht fees, then you are sadly mistaken.) They are akin to professional pirates, who are looking for the cheapest place to moor their ships and damage our topography and ocean floor. Good riddance to them.
Given the awful degradation of our natural waters and coral reefs, the government should implement a "sin tax" on these dastardly locomotives to ensure that our environment is protected. And, if one is to bitch and moan about the increase, then they are more than welcome to go to Cayman or Europe and destroy their environment.
At some point, Porcupine, you should have the intellect and just plain ole common sense, to not attribute everything to politics, but rather you should protect your country.
(P.S. - the FNM will be utterly massacred in the upcoming election. It will not even be close.)

Reading comprehension is escaping you...

If there is one reason that I hope the FNM loses, it is because I won't have to deal with this little mutt bloviating on government issues.