It now appears that the very same game that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government has been playing with the public and the Grand Bahamas Port authority (GBPA) has now been turned on them but it would appear that the “wave” that they rode in on, is not as safe as the one that has turned on them and the vessel that they once sat comfortably in is not as “sea-worthy” as most thought that it was.

“Mitchell: GBPA working to turn citizens against govt.” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell yesterday accused the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) of trying to poison the public’s opinion of the Davis administration.

Mitchell was responding to criticism from the GBPA over the government’s public statements on an ongoing dispute between the parties.

“They’re trying to map out a path to create public pressure on the government and to persuade citizens to turn against the government on this issue,” said Mitchell at a press conference in Freeport.

“That’s what’s happening here. Well, you know, it’s a very dangerous thing, it seems to me, to get involved in political contretemps with the government of the day.

“The predecessors in title would never have engaged in this. The problem is that you can’t have a situation where the public domain and the well is being poisoned every day by one side without some countervailing view being put.

“So, our view is every time false information is put in the public domain, the government has a responsibility to set the record straight. That’s all that’s happening here.”

It seems that there are two interpretations of the same law here, wherein the government is asserting that the Utilities Regulations and Competitions Authority (URCA) is the sole licensor and regulator for the utilizes in The Bahamas and the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) saying while this may be true to an extent, it does not apply to Freeport, which is guided by The Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA), which names the GBPA as the sole regulator of utilities in Freeport.

This was the beginning of the game by the New Day, Old Way Progressive Liberal party (PLP) government, where Chairman Mitchell and a band of very loyal PLP crumbstanchers used every waking moment to attempt to “poison the public opinion against” the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA).

They spent every waking moment in the “public domain” in an attempt to poison the well of the public domain” with the thought that the tides would never change, could never change, because as the Chairman of the PLP said ; “The predecessors in title would have never have engaged in this”.

Minister Mitchell seems to fail to realize that he is dealing with a new generation; as a lot of persons have come to realize that the New Day, Old Way PLP government has produced a much nastier, vile and wicked supporter.

So, Mr. Mitchell is now shocked by the “clap back” that he has gotten by a group that was fully expected to bow down at his feet.

But now with the tides changing, the Minister of Foreign Affairs seeks to attempt to cry foul – “oh, what a tangled web we weave…..”, but Mitchells seems to have gone even further than just the misrepresentation of the truth as the rest of us know it.

“That’s what’s happening here. Well, you know, it’s a very dangerous thing, it seems to me, to get involved in political contretemps with the government of the day.”

This sentence here is odd and seems threatening; it is strange that the chairman of the New day, Old Way government would suggest that the GBPA should not get caught up in “political contretemps with the government of the day”, is he issuing subtle threats to the Executive Director , whom he instructs to stay out of the present dispute between The Bahamas Government and the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA); I sometimes seriously wonder if Mr. Mitchell know what he is actually saying.

If my memory serves me correctly, this situation was on a very slow simmer and progressing “peacefully” until the Minister of Foreign Affairs saw fit to weigh in and begun this “us against them” war that we are currently engaged in today; I am beginning to believe that Fred Mitchell just may be the problem itself.

So wrapping this up, it seems that the Minister is now crying foul as he attempts to now paint the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government as the victims here, by accusing the GBPA of attempting to poison the minds of the public against the government, when he was caught “throwing the vile of  of poison in the well of the public domain.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.

END

#ASTHETIDETURNS

“GBPA Must Live Up to Contractual Obligations” – The Bahama Journal – 16th August 18, 2024

Welcome back, let us look at what’s happening as we take a close look tonight at a brewing political and legal storm brewing in Grand Bahama.

 “GBPA Must Live UP To Contractual Obligations” The Bahama Journal, excerpt from this article

“Prime Minister Philip Davis continues to hold nothing back in his quest to persuade or force the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) to do more than it is currently doing to help revive the City of Freeport and, by extension, much of Grand Bahama.

While attending the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) Grand Bahama men’s and women’s branches installation ceremony over the weekend, the Prime Minister said that the GBPA must do a better job of running the city for residents as mandated in the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA).

‘Understand this,’ he said, ‘that is why we are doing something that no previous government has done before: we are insisting that the Grand Bahama Port Authority live up to their contractual obligations.’

‘The Port Authority has received concessions under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement worth millions of dollars. So, let’s admit what we all know, the politicians of the past were too timid, too deferential, too unwilling to hold the Port Authority to account,’ said PM Davis.

The Prime Minister says the Government will no longer subsidize private entities on the back of Bahamian taxpayers. He was also critical of the official opposition for not standing up to the GBPA on behalf of the Bahamian people.”

Let’s break this down, shall we?

First, it must be made clear that the Official Opposition was not and is not going against the people, but simply following the law, as it seems that Prime Minister Davis is finally seeking to do.

Is the prime minister attempting to backpedal as he now admits to the fact that the Hawksbill Agreement (HBA) is actually a legal contract? And I do agree with him that the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) has not been living up to their contractual obligations as per the Agreement, but why was it necessary for him to mislead the public in the first place?

As stated by the leader of the opposition, the Hon. Michael Pintard, GBPA is not just any entity; it is, by virtue of its contract, the regulator of all utilities in Grand Bahama, especially the city of Freeport. There has been no amendment made to the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) nor the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) conceding power of the government to allow for the takeover of these regulations by the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA).

It is a well-known fact that the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) gave special provisions to the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) that the New Day Davis administration now claims that the Electrical Act 2024 gives to URCA. In my opinion, only a lazy, incompetent, and inept government would not have given special consideration to these provisions.

I carry no water for the GBPA and as I have said before, I agree with the prime minister that they have to live up to their contractual obligations. But until we all realize that there is a legal contract in place which cannot simply be set aside by legislation that does not include all stakeholders is a legal affront to the whole situation brewing in Freeport and Grand Bahama on the whole.

It would do well if the government treated the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) as a legal and binding document that can only be updated by amendment that includes all of its stakeholders, which includes business holders in the Freeport area.

And only then can this issue move forward in a sensible manner.

The PLP fails for one reason: it is their nature.

END

“Unreasonable” _ The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis said on Friday that Grand Bahama Power Company’s (GBPC) request for an electricity rate increase is “unreasonable”.

Davis also hit out at the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) and its assertion it is the sole licensor and regulator of all utilities in Freeport. Davis said under the law, there is only one regulator with the power to approve a rate increase—the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA).

He was referring to a new Electricity Act that was passed earlier this year, which establishes URCA as the only regulator in the country’s energy sector.

However, GBPA has asserted its rights as the regulator for electricity on Grand Bahama, citing its powers as outlined in the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.

So the question really is; Who Holds the Regulatory Reins?

The Grand Bahama Power Company (GBPC) plays a vital role in providing electricity to the residents of Grand Bahama. However, the question of who has the legal authority to regulate this essential service has become a contentious issue, especially following the recent changes in legislation and the longstanding agreements governing the region’s utility sector.”

“Unreasonable” is how Prime Minister Philip Davis describes the request for a price increase by the Grand Bahama Power Company (GBPC), and I would agree with him on this for a couple of reason, one the power supply is not consistent and the power company just received and increase in 2022, but I feel that there is something else brewing beneath this.

There seems to be a vast difference of opinion between the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) and the government over who really has the sole regulatory right to the utilities of Grand Bahama.

I have asked who has been regulating Grand Bahama’s power supply all of this time and cannot seem to get and answer and I have asked who legally has the right; these are my finding.

The Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) Perspective

The Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) asserts that it is the sole regulator of utilities in Grand Bahama, citing the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, a foundational document that established the framework for the development and governance of the Freeport area. This agreement, signed in 1955, granted the GBPA significant powers and responsibilities, including the regulation of utilities.

Proponents of the GBPA’s claim argue that its regulatory authority has been well-established over decades, providing a consistent framework for utility management in Grand Bahama. They contend that the Hawksbill Creek Agreement is a binding legal document that should remain in effect, thereby underscoring the GBPA’s regulatory jurisdiction over GBPC.

 The Bahamas Government and URCA’s Perspective

On the other hand, the Bahamas government, through the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA), has taken a different position. Following the enactment of the Electricity Act 2024, the government asserts that it now possesses regulatory oversight over GBPC. This law effectively empowers URCA to regulate electricity services, ensuring that they meet certain standards and are provided in a fair and competitive environment.

Supporters of this viewpoint emphasize the necessity for updated regulatory frameworks that reflect modern energy needs and practices. The Electricity Act 2024 aims to enhance consumer protection, promote competition, and encourage sustainable energy practices—objectives that align with global trends in energy regulation.

Breaking down the Legal Framework

The crux of the debate centers around the interpretation of legal agreements and legislative changes. The Hawksbill Creek Agreement, while historically significant, may face challenges in light of the newer legislative framework established by the Electricity Act 2024. Legal experts may argue that legislative changes can supersede prior agreements, particularly when they are designed to serve the public interest and adapt to contemporary regulatory needs.

But what does all of this mean for Consumers and the Industry?

This regulatory tug-of-war has direct implications for the consumers of Grand Bahama. If the GBPA retains its regulatory authority, it may lead to continuity in how services are delivered, but could also stifle innovation and responsiveness to new energy demands. Conversely, if URCA’s regulatory framework prevails, it may pave the way for improved service quality, more competitive pricing, and greater accountability.

With that being said.

As the debate unfolds, it is clear that the regulation of the Grand Bahama Power Company is not merely a legal technicality; it is a matter that affects the livelihoods of many and the future of energy in the region. The interplay between the GBPA and the Bahamas government will likely continue to evolve, and the ultimate resolution will depend on legal interpretations, public policy goals, and the collective will of the stakeholders involved.

In the meantime, consumers and businesses in Grand Bahama must stay informed and engaged, as the outcome of this regulatory duel will shape the energy landscape for years to come. The question of who has the legal right to regulate GBPC remains open, but one thing is certain: the pursuit of a balanced and effective regulatory framework is essential for the sustainable development of Grand Bahama’s energy sector.

END

“FNM Seizes on Government’s ‘Cash Flow Crunch’” – The Tribune

In a striking revelation, the Opposition has jumped on comments from the Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) chairman, framing them as proof that the Government is grappling with a significant “cash flow crunch” while “taxing the private sector into oblivion.” Dr. Duane Sands, chairman of the Free National Movement (FNM), pointed out that Fred Mitchell’s message to PLP supporters not only sheds light on the administration’s “aggressive behavior” towards businesses but also confirms the “poorly-kept secret” of the Government’s liquidity challenges.

In a statement that could only be described as a candid admission, Mitchell characterized The Bahamas as being “in a tight economic squeeze.” He emphasized the Government’s reluctance to resort to international credit markets for foreign currency financing due to the heavy burden of debt service that would ultimately fall on taxpayers. He underscored the urgency of collecting every tax dollar owed to the Public Treasury, especially with the looming threat of hurricanes.

“The country is in a tight economic squeeze,” Mitchell declared. “We aim to pay as we go, avoiding borrowing unless absolutely necessary, especially with hurricanes ready to strike at any moment. We must gather every tax dollar before considering credit.”

Mitchell further lamented that while the poor and working-class citizens have been dutifully paying their taxes, some of the wealthier entities have managed to evade their fiscal responsibilities. “The PLP stands as their advocate, ensuring that everyone pays their fair share,” he insisted.

But let’s not forget the PLP’s tendency to circle back to their favorite refrain about “everyone paying their full share.” They aim to paint the FNM as the party of leniency, overlooking their own shortcomings in this arena. The recent reduction of VAT to 10 percent, while simultaneously removing it from essential items, raises questions about whether the poor truly have an advocate in this New Day, Old Way government.

Today, the FNM chairman responded to Mitchell’s comments, which admitted the country is facing a “cash crunch.” While some may have been caught off guard, many of us simply saw this as confirmation of what we’ve long suspected, despite attempts by the Minister of Finance and his team to keep it under wraps.

Naturally, the New Day, New Way government couldn’t take this revelation lying down. They swung back with a press statement denouncing the FNM as engaging in a “desperate attempt to mislead.” They unleashed a litany of grievances, from a 60% increase in VAT to failures surrounding the Oban deal, all while failing to clarify how the FNM’s statements were misleading.

They won’t disclose the outcomes of their VAT hikes, nor the stagnation of the Oban project, and they’re conveniently quiet about their consistent failure to meet fiscal targets. Why introduce truth into this narrative?

In their moment of fury, the PLP may have overlooked addressing the core issue or perhaps aimed to mislead the public themselves. They’ve attacked the FNM for “locking down” the country during the pandemic, while simultaneously labelling their opponents as “desperate.”

Amidst the PLP’s deflection, many are left wondering if it’s true that they owe their professional vendors six months or more in fees. The New Day, Old Way government seems to treat funds like a fleeting windfall, splurging at every opportunity.

While the PLP continues its assault on the FNM, claiming to advocate for those who owe their fair share, they should recognize that they must also acknowledge the FNM’s economic successes in its early years, such as reducing the deficit and improving the country’s standing with Moody’s and S&P and that the Free National Movement (FNM) i snot fighting against the initiative that both political organizations have not upheld over the years.

By neglecting to highlight these achievements and instead pushing their narrative, the PLP is, in essence, misleading the public. The failure of the Progressive Liberal Party stems from one fundamental truth: it’s simply in their nature.

END

Well, well, well, what do we have here on this fine and divinely ordained Sunday morning? I found myself under siege by none other than those devoted followers of the PLP, armed with before-and-after snapshots of the airport over at New Bight, Cat Island.

It seems that the construction crew has nearly wrapped up the concrete block exterior walls and is gearing up to pour those columns. The individual who shared these photos, or perhaps it was a fleeting video, seemed keen on portraying me as flustered by the “progress” that has seemingly materialized under the watchful eye of the representative for Cat Island, Rum Cay, and San Salvador – none other than Prime Minister Philip Davis, Esquire, AKA Secret Squirrel, after a whopping twenty-two years in office.

I must admit, it’s heartening to witness the airport shedding its shabby wooden skin and emerging as a more contemporary edifice complete with indoor seating for the convenience and safety of both residents and visitors. However, the lingering question remains: why did it take our esteemed representative, who once held the titles of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Public Works, so long to give this airport a much-needed facelift?

So, while they tout progress, I’ll nod my head and say, “Alright, we can now fly into New Bight without being left out in the rain. Even if it did take Secret Squirrel a whopping twenty-two years to usher in this long-awaited ‘progress.'”

And with that, we bid adieu.