Did you know that the UBP supported the Park Hyatt bill? They did. And, even the Royal Gazette reported it in Saturday's paper:

Opposition Leader Kim Swan said he and his party supported the bill and that a new resort would be great for the people of St. George's and a boost for tourism in the old town.

But today, The Royal Gazette seems to have forgotten that fact, blaring a headline "UBP wants chance to debate Park Hyatt deal."

What are they talking about? They had a debate in the House of Assembly. They're having a debate in the Senate. And, The Royal Gazette itself described the House of Assembly debate as "tame" and featured a quote from Kim Swan praising the deal in Saturday's paper:

Mr. Swan said residents of St. George's had waited for years for something like this. "Many waited and almost died on the vine waiting for something to happen," he said. "I rejoice with Mr. Bazarian and it was a well delivered speech by the Premier." Last night's debate was largely a tame one with both sides of the House agreeing that the redevelopment of the Club Med site could only be a positive thing.

The bottom line is, the UBP agrees with the PLP on the need for this legislation. They voted for it. The differences of opinion were slight - and we agreed on far more than we disagreed.

The two "major" differences weren't that major at all. The first deals with the length of the lease. Instead of agreeing to the 262 year condo lease, the UBP wants to compel the developers to walk away by demanding a 151 year lease. Cabinet Secretary Marc Telemarque sets the record straight:

The length of the lease is directly related to the ability of the developer and ultimately the hotel manager to market the product. They are competing locally with other sites who are able to offer 999-year leases.

The developer's first request was for 999 and thereafter 599 and after strong negotiation 262 years for the condominium component only was agreed. In order to persuade consumers to part with the significant sums that will be required to participate in the ownership opportunities at the intended resort, a lease of some length is required.

On the flip side, the length of the lease is a positive as it guarantees the tourism use/character of the site for that period.

We're in the midst of international economic downturn. The fact that we were able to find well respected developers eager to make the investment is a tribute to our effectiveness. Moreover, not only did we find those developers, but, we also engaged in a strong negotiation on behalf of the people of Bermuda to bring down the initial developer's request of a 999 year lease down to 262 years.

The second difference is that the UBP wants to tie the lease up in government and put the entire deal in jeopardy. As Premier Brown explained:

We feel the terms of the lease are significantly contained in the Bill that is currently before the Legislature.

Additionally, we must emphasise the need to be time-sensitive. It is clear that any superfluous delay on our part, in this stressed capital market, puts the future of the Club Med site in greater jeopardy.

An efficient leasing process increases the likelihood of a fully financed, fully developed hotel project in St. George's. All sides have said that is the desired end game.

The PLP Government did something that the previous UBP Government was unable to do: bring a large scale, new tourist development to the Club Med site that will pump millions of dollars into our economy, revitilise our tourism product, help our construction industry and create good jobs at all levels.

Now, the UBP is being reckless. If agreed to, their actions may very well kill this landmark deal that will benefit the people of St. George's and all of Bermuda to score political points. Their political posturing is cynical and dangerous. Sometimes it seems that they just oppose for the sake of opposing.