The Tribune

Dear Editor ,

I imagine the government is in a major quandary over Grand Bahama International Airport. The quandary is not whether the $70m needed for a new terminal has to be spent, but by whom.

As I have explained, Freeport has no viability if a new international airport is not built, and I believe this is a generally accepted premise.

All indications are that the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) families, as I expected, have turned up their hands and said they have no money, but they are apparently interested in “handing over” their 50 percent interest in the airport for $1, thereby reneging on their responsibility to provide Freeport with an airport compliant with international standards and saving them the significant costs associated with the rebuild.

I have pointed out that the Haywards and St Georges have significant assets such as the harbour and Grand Bahama Utility Company, which will be severely impacted (as will Freeport itself) if the airport is not redesigned, reengineered and rebuilt. But I believe they are prepared to take the gamble that the government will fund the construction and do “the right thing.”

In addition, I am told Hutchison Whampoa’s position remains that they do not want to rebuild the airport, but they want to keep the Insurance proceeds (similar to the Grand Lucayan). Their position is essentially the same as the families, except they have their 50 percent interest in the Container Port to safeguard and 50 percent of the harbour. The Grand Bahama Development Company (DevCo) land of 70,000 acres, I daresay, is ultimately worthless at this time but the Port and Hutchison had done nothing to make it valuable before Dorian.

My reason for writing is that neither the Port families nor Hutchison should be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities and “hand over” the airport to the government with the intention of making the latter pay for the reengineered/elevated international airport and terminal (as its Public Duty shall otherwise require), and for them to continue making profits as they enjoy the benefits of this new terminal for years to come without paying the bill for its restoration.

As I have also pointed out, the Port families have a legal and moral duty as the parties to, and benefactors of, the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, and as trustees of Freeport, to make certain the airport is rebuilt and in place.

I also submit that Hutchison, as the 50 percent owner of a public service entity for which it also has board and management control, has a duty to reinstate the airport that they seem reluctant to accept.

The Port families should therefore pay, in equal share, either by cash or note, against their interest in the Harbour and/or Grand Bahama Utility Company, and Hutchison should pay an equal share by handing over to government the insurance proceeds. In any event, government should take the title to the airport to include the Sea/Air Business Centre development site.

It is essential that the new airport be built and in place within the two years it will take the Carnival, Royal Caribbean and medical university investments to be in place and, in that same time, to have the 4,000 homes (15,000 Bahamians) affected by Dorian rebuilt and/or made habitable so that Freeport can come back stronger than it was before. The government already has to find $150m for the home rehabilitation, hospital, schools and Post Office (more on this at another time), so why should it pay for the airport by itself?

In the meantime, we still await with bated breath the delivery of the Port families’ masterplan for the redevelopment of Freeport to be published, and we also await the government’s own such masterplan. Where are they?

Yours sincerely

TERENCE R H GAPE

Freeport Resident

PS: Freeport Harbour Company

There is growing sentiment among Freeport watchers that, given the failure of the Port families and the intransigence of Hutchison, the government should move to compulsorily acquire the Freeport Harbour Company. This would help to quantify and pay the families’ share of the increasing burden being undertaken by government in the Port area, and to pay for it over time but, also, would solidify the Royal Caribbean deal and pave the way for a new shipyard and other major Investments presently being planned by international investors who can make no progress so long as the harbour is held by the families and Hutchison.

This public harbour facility is too big to be left in the hands of these two non-players. Moreover, the Port families’ expenses look likely to keep escalating as there is a major road-building programme that needs to be implemented.

Certainly, I believe this harbour acquisition should be sincerely considered by government if only to get the attention of these two (past) investor groups whose time is up and, of course, cause them to make an urgent deal on the airport.

TG