Brass neck
Housing Minister Lt. Col. David Burch, speaking about the use of Special Development Orders to short-circuit the planning process last week:
“It is somewhat, I admit, an abuse of the system, but we are in a crisis and the crisis somewhat demands some abuse – some massaging – of the process.”
It’s odd to hear a member of a Government that’s currently touting sustainable development justifying the abuse of the planning process. If this is really preventing the Government delivering affordable housing, the process should be fixed, not subverted.
Otherwise, Lt. Col. Burch is likely to find people deciding they don’t trust him any more.
Archives By Date
It would seem that given his prior behaviour this should really be expected, at least in part because if the entire "Sustainable Development" process was anything more than for show it would also quite clearly be a short-cuircit of the planning department.
Posted by Alex on 25.09.06 at 07:05
So his idea of 'life interest basis' - of selling homes at a lower cost today to people who then forfeit their houses when they die - was designed to prohibit Government 'losing the stock' of houses and is targeted towards those not planning on leaving the houses to children. Okay, so to summarise, the scheme is aiming to ensure that houses occupied by someone who has not willed their property to another person is returned to the 'stock' when they die. Out of interest, what happens now? Do houses formerly occupied by dead people just sit empty?
As for bipassing the system - if this is necessary surely the problem lies with the system itself?
Finally towards the end of the article it claims he believes by building these new 'low cost' housing (though the southside developments are ranging from 700k - 1.2m...) the market will react and prices will generally come down. While I'd love for this to be the case, I just can't imagine that the 150 or so low cost houses will provide an actual supply side shift. And it certainly wouldn't be significant.
Posted by Lost in Flatts on 25.09.06 at 07:49
SDOs are just one of many ways that the PLP is "massaging the system" in order to get what their inner circle wants. Their credo is "the ends justify the means" ... but the ends never seem to be quite what the public wants! Good governance process is there for a reason; Government must play by the rules.
Posted by Tiger Bay on 25.09.06 at 08:07
How strange there is such convergence of negatively spun stories on Chiang Kai Burch (that ok for you GG?) and the Dear Leader Scott in both the Gazette and Sun over the last few weeks.
It is almost as if there is senior Minister with leadership ambitions who is desperate "to fulfill his destiny" before the whole shambles falls around his ears dictating these articles to his OBN mates in the fourth estate....
Burch seems so keen to restate his masculinity (although I'm not sure who he thinks he's fooling) - bragging that you are bigger than the system only hardens your core vote and alienates the aspirational floating vote.
Posted by Pompous G Windbag III jnr. on 25.09.06 at 08:23
Hmmm ...
first its okay to deceive us ...
now its okay to abuse the system ...
what next?
Posted by Darkside on 25.09.06 at 09:35
According to today's paper, it's okay to take illegal perks because you consider yourself underpaid.
Posted by Tiger Bay on 25.09.06 at 09:36
Christ, when will they ever stop abusing the people of Bermuda?
Posted by sandgrownan on 25.09.06 at 09:43
""We're applying for a building permit and, once that has been granted, the plans will be available in the Planning Department," Mr. Lopes said, adding that, by then, it would be too late for objectors to raise any concerns with Planning officials." - RG/MON
Give Mr. Lopes the brass ring award to hang around his neck. Sir, your arrogant contempt for your fellow Bermudians or the well being of our community as a whole is dispicable.
Posted by SmokingGun on 25.09.06 at 13:13
I cannot help but see the SDO processes our esteemed leaders are using are very much like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I also cannot help but see the brutal crimes committed against young Rebecca Middleton and the other unresolved murders being figuratively re-enacted in much the same way with the manner of our so-called leaders handling our natural open spaces. The crimes are not just in the event but in allowing the criminals to get away with them. Once taken away from us we do not get them back.
And who's back at the wheel? Randy Um Um Horton? God help us.
Posted by SmokingGun on 25.09.06 at 17:52
As has been said lately, perception is reality.
Well, the perception that I hold is that political parties in power traditionally only have two motives. What will get themselves ahead, and what will get them reelected.
Well, it could be said that we've seen many examples of where they've gotten themselves ahead, yet, the clock is ticking. A countdown to the last possible date for an election has begun and it draws ever closer. So... is the motive of getting oneself reelected once again coming into play.
How do you get yourself reelected? Well, you try to give the perception in that final year that you're doing all the things that should have been done in 8.
So, what are we seeing? Well, the hospital is a sudden critical issue, that really can't be solved in a year. Instead, you can rally the public against one proposal, then spin it so that you've "listened" and promise to change it, all the while, really doing nothing but creating the perception that you're doing something about an issue that is urgent today, but wasn't 2 years ago.
You can throw quick fixes at the housing crisis in the form of "special development orders" that could very well guarantee that these houses skip planning approval and are about as sturdy as the roof at Berkeley, pretty much guaranteeing that they'll be condemned shortly down the road. But hey, the perception will be that you've done everything you can to solve the housing crisis by rushing the project with the same tanacity as was used to rush pay raises.
Above all, you can trumpet "Sustainable Development" as the latest buzz word, much like "Social Agenda", "Empowerment" or "Independence", as a means to give the people false hope, all while effectively destroying the heritage and legacy of the few open spaces left of our great country.
To our leaders such as Burch, I do tip my hat. For they certainly have lived up to the adage that "less is more", for most certainly, that must be their strategy.
But hey, that's just one man's perception... What's yours?
Posted by Denis Pitcher on 26.09.06 at 10:49
“It is somewhat, I admit, an abuse of the system, but we are in a crisis and the crisis somewhat demands some abuse – some massaging – of the process.”
He serves the greater good, he has the health of society at heart, so of course government should be able to ignore, or by pass the process, they should be able to restrict our rights as well, we didn't stop them when it came to the smoking ban, we don't mind when they conscript individuals, why should we care when they do this?
Posted by J Galt on 27.09.06 at 08:45
Galt - I assume you're joking.
Posted by sandgrownan on 27.09.06 at 09:44
When I saw his comments last week on bermudasucks, I thought at first it was one of their jokes... til I remembereed that in the case of Burch, it wouldn't be possible to fabrcate anyting stranger than his real words. The complete disregard and contempt he shows voters is disgusting... not that he was ever actually voted for, was he?
Posted by Bundy & Coke on 27.09.06 at 20:17
Bundy and coke,
No, he lost in the last election. He was appointed to the Senate by the Premier and given the Works and Engineering Portfolio after Ashfield DeVent was booted out. I would not be surprised if the PLP put him in a 'safe' seat next time around to allow him to continue his offensive behavior, this time in the House.
Posted by Bob Masters on 28.09.06 at 11:45
Shouldn't be surprised at anything that comes out of the mouth of Burch. After all, he doesn't care what 47% of us think, his pet phrase is "get over it"., in regards to the leaking roof at Berkeley, it has to be "sour grapes", and if you happen to be black and disagree with him, you are labelled a "house nigger". Taking all of that into consideration, why should we expect a little thing like regulations to get in his way. What really galls me is that this dude wasn't even elected by the people. Lets face it, what he really is, is a mouthpiece for the elected members. He says what they think.
Posted by Linda on 29.09.06 at 19:47