'MPs will back city reform'

A final ‘save our city’ rally is likely to fall on deaf ears today with MPs preparing to vote ‘yes’ to reform of the Corporation.

The controversial Bill, which alters voting rights in city elections and slashes $8 million in annual revenue from the Corporation of Hamilton’s budget, is likely to “sail through parliament”, say PLP sources. Even party backbenchers who were initially against the act told us they now support it.

In a last ditch bid to persuade MPs to delay the Bill, the Corporation has organized a march on Parliament starting from City Hall at midday.

They see the Act as an ‘asset grab’ that will strip the city of popular events and undermine essential services.

If the rally fails, a legal challenge, likely to centre around wharfage collection rights on Hamilton’s docks, is possible.

The Corporation’s costly media campaign — painting the reforms as a ‘hostile takeover’ — may have backfired.

MPs believe that many of the marchers have been influenced by “propaganda” and are protesting against reforms that are not actually in the bill.

They say the Act is not a takeover and does not include any ‘asset grab’ as suggested in a print and radio ad campaign.

City Hall argues that the bill is a de-facto takeover because it robs them of almost $8 million in revenue from the docks — threatening their financial independence.

At best they say the move will force them to increase taxation and parking charges and cut services, possibly including CCTV in the city and new X-Ray scanning equipment designed to combat drug and gun smuggling.

Supporters of the bill argue it is a modernization of an archaic voting system that has not been updated since 1923 — before Bermuda’s Constitution was drafted.

PLP sources told us expanding the democratic principle of ‘one man, one vote’ had been part of the party mandate since it was elected and MPs were unlikely to vote against it.

One senior official told us: “It is an incredibly simple bill. This is something that has been on the platform since ‘98.

“Any MP that votes against it should seriously think about whether they should be representing the PLP.”

He said the majority of PLP members who had a problem with the bill felt it did not go far enough.

“The Corporation should be thanking their lucky stars that they are not being abolished. This bill brings meaningful reform but it is not what was envisioned.

“Why have two competing governments in 22 square miles? “This isn’t 1923, this is 2010. The corporation is a creation of the past and past its expiry date.

“How much money have they spent fighting this thing? What are they even fighting for? Not to pay land tax? To keep their right to exclude residents from voting?”

Ashfield DeVent, who represents north Hamilton, said he supported the bill despite initial concerns.

And he criticized the Corporation, saying the money spent on its media campaign alone could have funded a much-needed network of CCTV cameras in the city.

He added: “Much of the opposition comes from the Corporation’s media campaign. I’m willing to bet that many of the people marching have not read the Act.

“I was initially against it, maybe I was buying into some of the hype that the Corporation was putting out.

“But once I saw the legislation and read it, I didn’t have a problem with it. I would call it an improvement, particularly with regard to voting rights for residents.”

Corporation officials say they have no problem with the expansion of voting rights to all city residents.

But they believe the Act, which removes the right of city business owners to vote, just substitutes one set of disenfranchised voters for another.

They are urging the Government to hold back on the Act and debate alternative voting systems, including the London model, which gives both residents and businesses the vote.

The Chamber of Commerce questions the wisdom of excluding its members from voting.

It says businesses are a huge part of the physical infrastructure of the city, pay the most taxes and rely on services more than anyone.

It calls on Government to reconsider the Act and debate expanding voting rights to include businesses and possibly even commuters who work in the city.

The Chamber believes its members are likely to face the financial implications of the bill in the form of increased taxation and reduction in services.

“Decreases in services, less garbage collection, less maintenance of the parks and roads will impact our members, residents, workers and visitors to Hamilton,” said president Stephen Todd and executive president Diane Gordon in a letter to members yesterday.

Mayor Gosling said the Act was being pushed through without proper consultation on the basis of a report, produced by expensively hired foreign consultants, that had yet to see the light of day.

“Why haven’t they put the same energy into this as they did into the gambling bill?”

Mr. Gosling stood by his administration’s media campaign.

 “I would argue that this Act is step one. The corporations are being set up to fail, to enable Government to come in as a rescuing angel and turn us into an appointed body.”

He said the fight would not be over if the Bill did pass the House today, hinting that legal action could follow.

He added: “This will not be over until we have exhausted all opportunities out there. This is a rushed Bill, there are problems within it and if it passes we will take appropriate action.”

Q&A: The corporation row explained