The Tribune

IT must be very frustrating to be one of the young professionals who applied for the chance to own a home in Prospect Ridge.

Getting on the property ladder can be a challenge in The Bahamas. House prices are high, fees can be high – it’s not an easy task.

So when the chance to secure a home in the Prospect Ridge development was offered, there were many who were eager to snap up the chance.

Since the election, doubt after doubt has been cast on the development.

Transport and Housing Minister JoBeth Coleby-Davis yesterday branded the whole thing an “election ploy”, reiterating that steps such as a feasibility study, a topography study and development of a master plan were not carried out.

She said: “It must be said that the Prospect Ridge development seemed a long way from being fully fleshed out as a housing solution for young Bahamian professionals. It was in the very, very preliminary stages. That’s it and that’s all. There is nothing here to debate.”

Previously, former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis defended the project, saying much work had been done, and pointing to work by the Committee for the Development for Young Professionals, which worked on the scheme for four months.

He said the committee designed the rules of the programme, while the government built a digital application process and there were meetings with banks to explain the programme and the anticipated partnership. Commercial banks made preliminary assessments and architects completed a conceptual sketch. An Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan were also carried out – although Mrs Coleby-Davis said there were problems with that impact assessment yesterday.

Here’s the thing, however, if you look past what one side or the other is saying, this was a project that was in progress at the time of the election. It wasn’t complete, nor was it completely unstarted. There would, of course, be an expectation that some of the things to carry it out would remain to be done.

The question isn’t what hasn’t been done – it’s whether this new government has the will to continue with the project and complete what is necessary.

The sounds in that regard are not encouraging – but it would be entirely possible to complete the outstanding elements of the project and proceed if the government so desires.

In the political to and fro, the people who are affected are the people now left in limbo who hoped to move into houses on that development one day. For them, time is ticking. Should they wait and hope to get the house they dreamed of? Or should they move on and try to find a way to afford a house elsewhere?

This is a political argument with real people caught up in the middle of it. So let’s hear less about what needs to be done, and more about what is going to be done. And if the government doesn’t want to proceed? Say so, and stop leaving people waiting around.

The people in the middle don’t deserve to be pawns in a political argument, so make a decision to stop or proceed, and let’s all move on.

Apples and oranges

Another argument that has been raised lately has been over complaints that there is effectively a $1bn hole when comparing the pre-election report on finances to the “truth” of the fiscal reality of our country.

Yesterday, Kwasi Thompson – Minister of State for Finance at the time of the report and aspiring to be the leader of the FNM – said that the new government is comparing apples with oranges.

He says the report showed what it was required to – bills that were due for payment right now. The “$1bn difference” touted by Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis is talking about future commitments – for which bills and invoices have yet to be received.

Now this has all the makings of a political food fight that does nothing to give meaningful answers to the people themselves – but there should be a simple answer.

Recreate the pre-election report based on the terms used to create it. Then we’ll see if there’s a real hole – or if this is just so much rhetoric. You can’t complain that one bill doesn’t show the cost of things it’s not supposed to pay for. So let’s see if there is a real difference in the finances – it is, after all, our money. Then act if there is a problem, or drop the arguing if there isn’t. The new government has been in office long enough to be getting on with things rather than just pointing fingers.