The Tribune

By LARRY SMITH

SOON after Hurricane Joaquin smashed into the southern islands a year ago, newspaper reports cited “critical weaknesses” in the national emergency management system, which “should worry us all”.

At the time, this column noted that “despite the millions of taxpayer dollars we spend on NEMA and BIS (not to mention the Office of the Prime Minister), those at the top feel little obligation to report to the people who pay those taxes about one of the biggest natural disasters to affect the country in recent times”.

This time around, things were a little different - perhaps because there is an election around the corner. There was plenty of warning and information about the storm’s passage. Residents in low-lying areas were advised to evacuate, and the prime minister and other officials were more visible and forthcoming.

Despite the hundreds of millions in reported damage, the storm was not as strong as initially feared. Things could have been much worse – especially on New Providence.

According to a Weather Channel recap of the storm, on late Wednesday, October 5, Exuma clocked a 119mph sustained wind. Winds gusted to 85mph in Nassau on Thursday, October 6, and Freeport recorded sustained winds of 100mph with gusts up to 121mph as the eye wall passed over Grand Bahama that evening.

There was serious damage to homes, docks, trees and utilities on North Andros, western Grand Bahama and parts of New Providence. Although the amount of rain was less than expected, flooding from storm surge was significant in coastal areas.

In fact, the parts of New Providence that can expect to be affected by storm surge are well-known to government planners. A category five storm could flood the entire island, except for the coastal and central ridges.

Too much of New Providence is just too low-lying, and sea levels are gradually rising due to climate change. Development takes place without regard for the potential consequences. The only solution is to restrict construction in very low-lying areas and require building designs that take account of flood risks.

As usual after a major hurricane, there has been a lot of waffling talk about facilitating supplies and donations, moving people out of low-lying settlements, legalising forced evacuations, and getting more prepared for the next disaster.

But the biggest news of this particular cycle was the government’s fast-tracked decision to borrow $150m for reconstruction – on top of the $6.8 billion we already owe. This decision was taken without the slightest effort to provided accountability or justification of any kind.

Coming just before a critical general election, there will be an obvious temptation for the government (any government) to use these funds for its political advantage. So we strongly support calls for a cross-party committee or independent commissioner to oversee relief spending.

The Christie administration long ago destroyed any credibility it may have had in this regard. It won’t co-operate with the Public Accounts Committee, it dismisses the damaging reports of the auditor general, and it deliberately hides important information on public affairs.

Supervision is even more important in the wake of the prime minister’s decision to politicise the relief process by placing a highly partisan minister in charge.

The law says the director of NEMA is in charge of disaster relief - why do we need a political commissar named Shane Gibson?

The Great New Providence Landfill Debacle

So the story is that from before the 2012 general election the principals of what became known as Renew Bahamas and Stellar Energy were competing for the opportunity to exploit the Harrold Road landfill - an epic environmental disaster.

Stellar wanted to build a multi-million dollar waste-to-energy plant at the landfill - something that has been proposed by a range of local and foreign investors for years. Renew wanted to start a recycling operation at the landfill, and make money on the export sales.

The competition between Renew and Stellar over the landfill was said to be wrapped up in the obscure political rivalry between some members of the government.

There were early noises in the Christie administration’s current term about a waste-to-energy solution for the landfill. But in late 2013 the government signed a five-year contract for Renew to take over the landfill.

A few months later, the then parliamentary secretary for the Ministry of Works signed a controversial “letter of intent” in support of Stellar’s waste-to-energy project.

No explanation was available for this document until recently, when court filings showed that the Finance Ministry had produced an earlier version for the Inter-American Development Bank in support of Stellar’s funding efforts.

Renew’s landfill contract sparked complaints about the lack of a proper tendering process. And the government has kept the contract secret, despite demands from opposition politicians, journalists and civic leaders.

The Harrold Road dump has never been properly operated, as is obvious from the toxic fires that explode every year - becoming more noticeable as housing estates encircle the once-remote landfill.

Early in this term, Environment Minister Ken Dorsett talked bravely about renewable energy. The stated goal was to turn the landfill into a solar farm and waste-to-energy plant.

But just a few months later, Renew was in, Stellar was out, and all talk of renewable energy was put on hold.

As we noted at the time, Renew’s contract “required the indefinite postponement of a waste-to-energy plant, as well as the snubbing of a coalition of Bahamian waste management firms that had also been seeking to remediate the dump.”

By all accounts, Renew invested a fair amount of money in its recycling operation and made genuine efforts to remediate the dump and reduce the incidence of toxic fires. But it was always an uphill battle.

Recently, the company’s principal - Gerhard Beukes - withdrew from the operation. And right after the hurricane, Renew collapsed - arguing that the government would not talk to them about a subsidy. The landfill is now back under government control.

Meanwhile, Stellar has filed a law suit against the government for allegedly reneging on its commitment (as documented by the notorious letter of intent) to support its waste-to-energy project.

So, here we are at the end of Christie’s second term no further ahead than when it began in 2012. And at the end of Ingraham’s last term, we were also no further ahead than when it began in 2007.

There’s no doubt about it. Our leaders can talk about change but they never actually get around to delivering it.

Policing Social Media

The newspapers recently published a letter from a retired senior cop calling for the prosecution of those who spread misinformation on social media “which appears to result in public alarm and panic.”

The top two examples given were the rumour of an island-wide fuel shortage and the report that police were not showing up for duty after the hurricane. The writer suggested prosecution under Section 492 of the Penal Code:

“Whoever, with intent to cause public alarm or disturbance, publishes or attempts to cause the publication of any news or telegram which he knows or believes to be false, is guilty of a misdemeanour.”

In our view, this should not be tolerated because the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. The best way to deal with misinformation is to avoid a vacuum and provide full and credible information as fast as possible. Our political and business leaders very often do not do this until they are cornered. And sometimes not even then.

The original scare about fuel shortages came when someone noticed that the docks at Clifton were no longer there and extrapolated a lengthy power island-wide outage. Others noticed that multiple gas stations were closed. Lots of people passed this information on urgently as if it were fact, but there was nothing sinister about it.

There were similar rumours after Hurricane Joaquin about deaths on Long Island. But how do you determine if a rumour which could potentially cause panic was spread maliciously? And should we waste court time and resources to pursue such matters?

Remember that Maria Daxon, an ex-police officer, now a lawyer, was recently arrested under the criminal libel laws for criticising the police commissioner on social media, and held initially without bail.

Since we have so many conflicts of interest in this town – personal, political, financial and otherwise – combined with general political immaturity polished up by high-powered spin doctors, it would be unlikely that policing social media will be an impartial exercise for the benefit of public order.

• What do you think? Send comments to lsmith@tribunemedia.net or visit www.bahamapundit.com