Alex Jones

Member since October 7, 2025

All input submitted by this participant

There are 2 projects available.

Trending ideas have loaded.

Alex Jones2 months ago Bermuda’s Affordable Housing Strategy 2025-2035 aims to deliver 1,350 new units over the next decade. However, it will fail because it: Focuses on symptoms rather than the root causes of the housing shortage. Is mathematically impossible to achieve. To actually close the housing gap, policy must address three primary barriers: Red tape: Conflicting mandates stall progress. When the Bermuda Housing Corporation faces constant delays from the Development Applications Board and simple approvals take months, private developers don’t have a hope. Without streamlined approvals, and a single supply targets are unreachable. Inappropriate planning policy: The Bermuda Plan 2018 actively restricts affordable development. Strict low-density rules, large minimum lot sizes, and aesthetic mandates enforcing the "Bermuda Image" block the high-density and modular construction methods necessary to lower housing costs. We need new high density towns, these are illegal. There are also two sets of rules 1. The actual rules as written 2. Whatever nonsense people can get approved by ministerial override. There should be one set of rules for everyone, change the rules to make them work. Low wages: The gap between local pay and real estate prices is a major driver of the crisis. Increasing supply alone cannot help workers who cannot afford to participate in the market. Housing strategy should be made through the lens of land and wage economics. This means major changes to zoning restrictions, construction economics, tenancy reforms, and property taxation.1. A Strategy Doomed to Failure: The Mathematical and Spatial Impossibilities of Pillar 1The Strategy is fundamentally flawed. Pillar 1 relies on the state building up to 1,350 units, but this faces two massive barriers: there’s nowhere to build and no money to build with. If the Government can’t redevelop Leopard’s Club then it’s doomed. In the past when the government has compromised on build quality the future residents have paid the price with massive future remediation costs like the plywood roof structures on some 1980s government condos. The Spatial Reality: Nowhere to BuildThere is simply nowhere to put 950 to 1,350 extra units in the next nine years unless the government is planning to build on Ocean View Golf Course and Government House lands. This constitutes a massive failure baked directly into the plan. While theoretical capacity audits by the Department of Planning might point to scattered vacant Residential 1, Residential 2, and Rural lots, the government does not own the vast majority of this land. Furthermore, these private parcels are highly fragmented. Assembling contiguous, state-owned land capable of supporting high-density, multi-unit developments at the scale required to hit 1,350 units is physically and legally impossible without either eradicating Bermuda's protected conservation zones and agricultural reserves, or enacting aggressive compulsory purchases which are legally fraught and politically toxic. The government is attempting to mandate massive supply targets on an island with negligible macro-level land availability.The Financial Reality: The Numbers Do Not Add UpEven if space existed, the costs are unrealistic. Building costs range from $700 to $1,000 per square foot. Even with cheaper modular tech, 1,350 units would cost between $500 million and $900 million.With national debt over $3.1 billion, the government cannot afford this. Pretending the state can fund a billion-dollar program without a debt crisis is political fiction.Even if the numbers did add up, spending $14,500 per person in Bermuda to build 5% more housing is a bad deal when the private sector could do with proper reforms and subsidies to the truly financially struggling. 2. Demographic Restructuring and the Illusion of Population-Driven DemandHousing demand is driven by household formation and income, not just population size. While the Strategy recognizes that demographic shifts cause pressure, its solutions may actually worsen the problem.The Paradox of a Shrinking Population and a Growing Housing DeficitBermuda’s total population peaked around 2010 at approximately 64,237 and has since entered a phase of stabilization and gradual decline, with projections indicating a contraction toward 61,800 by 2035. This decline is driven by a negative natural increase—where mortality rates exceed birth rates—and the outward migration of working-age cohorts. Despite this overall population contraction, homelessness is on the rise. According to the HOME Annual Report 2025, the number of individuals homeless or facing imminent homelessness in Bermuda more than doubled in four years, rising from 555 in 2021 to 1,331 by December 2025.This deficit is caused by shrinking household sizes. The average fell from 2.61 people in 1991 to 2.26 in 2016, and is projected to hit 2.01 by 2035. A shrinking population still needs more units if people live in smaller groups. The policies we enact today will only come into effect in 2035 to hopefully have relief as the trend continues to 2045 and 2055. Bermuda is also aging rapidly. By 2035, one in three Bermudians will be over 65. This requires smaller, accessible units. Meanwhile, a smaller youth cohort faces intense pressure in the rental market while trying to live independently.Demographic Indicator1991 (Census)2016 (Census)2035 (Projected)Economic Implication for HousingTotal Population58,46063,91761,800Absolute supply needs driven by fragmentation, not growth.Average Household Size2.612.262.01Requires more dwelling units per capita; increases demand for micro-units.Senior Cohort (65+)11.2%16.9%27.3%Escalating need for accessible, single-level, or supported-living infrastructure.Youth Cohort (15-34)30.2%22.4%17.5%Diminished first-time buyer base; high demand for affordable workforce rentals.The Spatial Mismatch, Bequest Culture, and the Failure of FilteringThe Affordable Housing Strategy responds to these demographic realities by mandating that 50 percent of all newly delivered affordable units be studio or one-bedroom configurations, with an additional 30 percent allocated as two-bedroom units. While this allocation is logically aligned with the statistical trend of single-person household formation, this approach treats new construction as the sole remedy to demographic shifts, thereby ignoring the vital macroeconomic concept of housing "filtering."Filtering is the process by which older housing stock naturally becomes available to lower-income or younger households as higher-income or older households move into newly constructed or more age-appropriate accommodations. In Bermuda, this filtering process has largely broken down. The island's aging population is frequently "overhoused," with single seniors or elderly couples residing in large, three-to-four-bedroom houses that are no longer suited to their physical mobility or financial maintenance capacities.This breakdown in filtering is severely compounded by a deeply ingrained cultural expectation in Bermuda: the passing down of the family homestead to the next generation to build generational wealth. Real estate ownership has historically been the primary vehicle for wealth transfer among Bermudian families. The "primary family homestead" tax concession further incentivizes this behavior by exempting a Bermudian's designated primary home from death taxes when transferred to heirs. Consequently, many seniors view their homes not as liquid assets to be sold to fund their retirement or downsize, but as ancestral heritage that must be preserved for their children.Because of the exorbitant local cost of living, many of these elderly homeowners become "land-rich and cash-poor". Despite sitting on highly valuable assets, they frequently struggle to afford the escalating costs of property maintenance, insurance, and healthcare. Yet, they remain locked in place—partly out of the cultural imperative to bequeath the home, and partly due to a severe lack of refined, single-level downsizing options in the current market.Without reducing the severe friction costs associated with moving—such as high conveyancing legal fees, property transfer stamp duties, and a chronic lack of desirable, accessible middle-market downsizing options in preferred parishes—older residents will logically choose to age in place in oversized homes. This immobility effectively locks up the existing family-sized housing stock, removing it from the open market and exacerbating the supply shortage for growing, middle-income families. A holistic housing philosophy must balance the construction of micro-units with changing financial incentives like making the primary homestead tax exemption a fixed dollar amount detached from any physical property. 3. The Bermuda Plan 2018: Zoning as an Economic BottleneckA major policy conflict exists between the Strategy’s supply targets and the restrictive rules of the Bermuda Plan 2018. While the Ministry wants rapid, high-density development, Planning focuses on low-density conservation and the traditional "Bermuda Image."Density Limits and the Illusion of Capacity in Residential ZonesPlanning claims there is room for 1,764 more units on vacant lots. However, density rules make affordable housing economically impossible on the open market. For this The Bermuda Plan 2018 does offer a discretionary "Residential bonus" (Policy RSD.6) which permits a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre in Residential 1 zones, provided the units are managed as affordable housing. However, from a land economics perspective, a cap of 30 units per acre is still too low for a jurisdiction with Bermuda's astronomical land values and construction costs. By comparison, financially viable affordable housing developments in constrained geographic markets often require densities exceeding 60 to 80 units per acre to offset fixed land and infrastructure costs. The Strategy’s reliance on these modest discretionary bonuses will be insufficient to attract private capital to affordable housing partnerships. Also, the bonuses are entirely discretionary which means any development involving them is inherently very risky. Risk = cost. Better to create explicitly high density zones and new urban villages in places like the Hamilton outskirts, Warwick, and Smiths. Even high density zones like Hamilton are subject to arbitrary and discretionary height limits and expensive requirements for parking and outdoor space. New Urban villages (and Hamilton) paired with excellent public transport and deregulated ridesharing mean that parking mandates are obsolete. Spatial Minimums and the Floor of AffordabilityCompounding the density limits are the strict spatial minimums mandated by the Bermuda Plan 2018. Policy DSN.15 dictates that all new dwelling units must comply with absolute minimum gross floor areas: 275 square feet for a studio, 425 square feet for a one-bedroom, 600 square feet for a two-bedroom, and 800 square feet for a three-bedroom unit. Additionally, Policies DSN.16 and DSN.17 require mandatory private outdoor living space for every unit—ranging from 150 square feet at grade for a studio to 600 square feet for a four-bedroom home.High standards ensure quality but also set a high price floor. With construction at $850 per square foot, mandatory minimum sizes for apartments guarantee they will be unaffordable without huge subsidies. The government should relax these rules to allow for efficient micro-units, especially in the New Urban towns and Hamilton.The "Bermuda Image" as an Exclusionary Zoning ToolPerhaps the most formidable regulatory barrier to the Affordable Housing Strategy is Policy DSN.4 of the Bermuda Plan 2018, which requires that the massing, scale, and design of all new developments be sensitive to and compatible with the "Bermuda Image". The "Bermuda Image" enforces a prescriptive architectural vernacular characterized by stepped white pitched roofs, traditional proportions, specific window-to-wall ratios, and historical massing aesthetics.The "Bermuda Image" mandate acts as a tool to block affordable housing. Forcing traditional aesthetics onto modular units destroys the savings of prefabrication. The government must create zones where these aesthetic rules are waived to make housing viable.The State Monopoly on Upzoning: Loughlands and Harmony ClubDevelopments like Loughlands “succeeded” only because the government bypassed its own rules and rezoned the land. Private developers could do the same if granted the same flexibility, potentially recycling old sites without public money.Originally, both the Loughlands and Harmony Club properties were strictly zoned for Tourism. For a private developer, converting a defunct hotel property zoned for tourism into high-density residential housing is an almost impossible regulatory hurdle under standard planning procedures. The restrictive policies governing Tourism zones, such as Policy TOU.6 in the Bermuda Plan 2018, prohibit outright residential development unless granted exceptional discretionary approval, often requiring the residential component to be subservient to a functional tourist accommodation.In the case of Loughlands, the private developer was financially saddled with a hotel component mandated by the zoning that was likely doomed to failure on the open market. The project only became economically viable because the Government intervened as a partner and utilized its executive power to issue a Special Development Order (SDO). The Loughlands Residential Development (Paget Parish) Special Development Order 2006 effectively bypassed the regular Development Applications Board (DAB) planning process, neutralizing zoning density limits and shielding the project from standard public objection periods. This allowed the rapid construction of 96 high-density residential units on land that a purely private actor would have been legally barred from developing in such a manner.Similarly, the Harmony Club in Paget was a former hotel property that the state acquired and repurposed into affordable and emergency residential housing, only later formalizing the sweeping zoning change from Tourism to Residential in the Bermuda Plan 2018 to reflect its new use.The fundamental economic lesson from these developments is that rigid zoning, not the underlying economics of redevelopment, is the primary limiter of housing supply in Bermuda. If private developers were granted the same flexible upzoning and exemptions from the Bermuda Plan that the Government routinely grants itself through SDOs, the private sector could organically recycle defunct commercial and tourism sites into residential supply without requiring tens of millions of dollars in public capital.4. Construction Economics: The Modular Imperative Traditional masonry costs up to $1,000 per square foot. A 600-square-foot apartment costs $600,000 just to build. This price exceeds what the average household can afford. To solve this, the Strategy suggests modular and steel construction.To circumvent this mathematical impossibility, the Affordable Housing Strategy proposes the widespread adoption of modular, pre-cast, and panelized steel construction methodologies.Construction MethodologyEstimated Cost (per sq. ft.)Build Speed AccelerationEconomic & Regulatory ConstraintsTraditional Masonry$800 - $1,000Baseline (12-24 months)Highly labor-dependent; prohibitive for affordable mandates.Panelized Steel$650 - $80030% - 40% fasterRequires advanced corrosion protection in Bermuda.Stack Modular (Volumetric)$500 - $70040% - 60% fasterRequires specialized port logistics and heavy crane capacity.Capsule/Container Units~$130 - $250Immediate (Weeks)Severe aesthetic clashes; low community acceptance; shorter lifespan.Modular building saves time. Building indoors eliminates weather delays and allows site prep to happen simultaneously. Faster builds mean lower interest costs on loans, making projects more viable.The Corrosion Trap: Short-Run Savings vs. Long-Run Maintenance NightmaresSteel construction saves money upfront but fails in Bermuda’s salt-heavy, humid environment. Salt aggressively attacks metal cladding and structural steel.Historically, the real-world experience of utilizing steel-framed or container-based prefabrication in Bermuda has been plagued by extreme corrosion issues and drastically shortened lifespans compared to traditional masonry. Bermuda's early settlers quickly abandoned timber frames because they could not withstand the local climate, turning to the heavy limestone and masonry construction that defines the island today because of its inherent durability.Chasing lower initial costs with steel risks a long-term maintenance disaster. Without expensive marine-grade coatings, these units could rust within a decade. Limestone and masonry are traditional for a reason: they last.Lifecycle costs are what matter. Saving money today is irrational if the asset must be replaced much sooner than a traditional home. There are no shortcuts. This is doubly important for “low cost” housing where future owners may not be able to afford the huge capital cost of rehabilitation works and lead to permanently uninhabitable abandoned dwellings decades from now stuck in endless legal limbo of the Condominium Act.The Boaz Island Pilot: A Case Study in Institutional FrictionThe tension between construction economics and regulatory planning was starkly exposed during the proposed Boaz Island Emergency Modular Housing pilot in early 2026. Recognizing the immediate need to shelter individuals facing homelessness, the Bermuda Housing Corporation (BHC) proposed installing nine prefabricated modular "capsule" units on government-owned land at Boaz Island in Sandys.The short-term economic rationale for the pilot was solid. BHC documents revealed that the cost of each fully equipped, prefabricated capsule unit imported from China was approximately $55,000, exclusive of shipping. By contrast, a traditional masonry build of the exact same square footage would cost the public purse an estimated $287,200 per unit. BHC management rightly argued that this magnitude of savings was "transformative" and represented the only fiscally responsible path to advancing housing delivery in a constrained economic environment.However, the Development Applications Board (DAB) rightly rejected the proposal because it was plainly illegal in several different ways. The rejection cited direct conflicts with the Bermuda Plan 2018, specifically noting that the capsule units violated the "Bermuda Image," lacked adequate communal space for garbage, and failed to provide the mandated private outdoor living areas. This case shows a government-induced failure: one government arm tries to provide housing while another blocks it using subjective aesthetic standards. To use modular housing effectively, the government must streamline approvals for viable projects by creating a set of rules that works. 5. Execution Risk and the History of Government Failures: Grand Atlantic and Leopards ClubHistorical state-led projects show a pattern of waste and poor forecasting. Relying on government to deliver 1,350 units ignores the government’s poor track record with central development.The Grand Atlantic / Bermudiana Beach Resort FiascoThe most glaring precedent is the Grand Atlantic development, which recently morphed into the Bermudiana Beach Resort. Conceived originally in 2007 as an affordable housing project, the BHC was advised in 2009 against pursuing the 78-unit Warwick development due to a lack of genuine market demand. The government proceeded regardless. By 2012, despite 100 percent financing offers being made available to prospective buyers, only a single unit had been sold.Instead of selling, the government spent $23 million more to try making it a hotel. By 2024, it reverted to rentals. This saga cost taxpayers over $100 million—about $1.28 million per unit. It proves the state is an inefficient developer.The Leopards Club RedevelopmentSimilarly, the Leopards Club has sat derelict for 17 years and counting. In a functioning private market with highest value taxation, this centrally located asset would have been sold and rebuilt in months. With much fanfare the government announced a redevelopment that was lambasted at the time and immediately failed. The state’s inability to act quickly causes neglect.Implications for the Strategy's TargetTasking the state with 1,350 units is an existential risk to public finances. The government should stop acting as a developer and instead use funds to subsidize tenants and create a single set of rules de-risk private projects.6. The Building Code Conundrum:Beyond zoning regulations, the physical execution of modular housing in Bermuda faces a severe, structural impediment encoded within the Bermuda Residential Building Code 2014. To ensure water security, the Bermuda Residential Building Code 2014 mandates that all buildings must have at least 80 percent of their roof area sufficiently guttered to catch rainwater. Furthermore, Section 602.3.2 of the Code dictates that the minimum capacity of the required subterranean water storage tank shall be eight times the plan roof area in Imperial Gallons.Traditional water rules are vital but create hurdles for modular housing. Flat roofs on containers cannot catch water efficiently. Excavating for tanks also negates the speed and cost benefits of modular units.Although the Code notes that a "tank volume reduction waiver may be granted based on calculated water usage... in cases where a potable public supply is available," relying on ad-hoc waivers introduces unacceptable regulatory risk for large-scale modular developers. To implement the Strategy's modular initiatives effectively, the legislature must formally amend the Building Code to accommodate high-density modular estates and invest in water infrastructure to service them. 7. Tenancy Reform: The Hazards of Rent Control in Supply-Constrained MarketsPillar 3 of the Strategy aims to unlock 250 to 300 idle, habitable units and return them to the long-term rental market by incentivizing private landlords and reforming the tenancy framework. Concurrently, the Ministry of Home Affairs introduced the Landlord and Tenant Act 2025 Draft Bill to consolidate the outdated Landlord and Tenant Act 1974 and the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Act 1978 into a single modern framework. I detailed the issues with the proposed legislation at the time via this forum. The tl;dr is that both the existing and proposed rules are punitive to landlords and make the landlords social workers rather than giving social financial support to struggling tenants. 8. Taxation Strategy: Highest and Best Use Valuations and Rigorous EnforcementVacancy taxes are popular but often ineffective and hard to manage. The "Highest and Best Use" Valuation ModelA far more equitable and economically sound approach to spurring development in Bermuda is to assess and tax property based on its "highest and best use." Rather than implementing a pure LVT that disregards all improvements, or relying on easily manipulated vacancy taxes, the government should evaluate and tax derelict properties or vacant, developable land based on its maximum potential market capacity.Owners of abandoned properties or strategic vacant lots should be taxed based on their maximum potential capacity. This makes hoarding expensive without dismantling the tax code or punishing low-income residents in occupied homes.There’s also a social justice aspect where the old landed families would be taxed fairly on their land holdings. The Imperative of Foreclosure EnforcementDone wrong, aggressive enforcement would cause large suffering but done right it will force people to sell underutilised or derelict property and force people out of homes that they can no longer afford to maintain. Pairing progressive social housing support and policies with foreclosure and sale of tax arrears properties will be a net positive for everyone involved. Bermuda has struggled with tax collection and is ~$70 million in land tax arrears, with the vast majority being more than 90 days past due. Under the Land Valuation and Tax Act 1967, the Office of the Tax Commissioner has substantial powers to enforce payment, including charging interest on arrears, garnisheeing debts or rental income, and directing bailiffs to seize personal property however none of this is presently enforced. The Tax Commissioer should be adequate resourced and given a streamlined legal mechanism to seize and sell delinquent properties. These mechanisms should provide a compassionate but effective policy to bypass probate deadlocks, family squabbles, and owner neglect to transfer physically deteriorating, tax-delinquent properties directly into the housing supply.9. Constitutional Friction: Compulsory Rehabilitation vs. ReceivershipPillar 2 of the Strategy aims to restore between 150 and 200 derelict units. While the provision of grants and low-interest loans through the BHC's Private Sector Refurbishment Programme is a positive incentive, it’s just the same “push a string” policies that have failed in the past. More effective are the proposed "new statutory powers, through amendments to the Acquisition of Land Act 1970 and related laws, to allow the compulsory acquisition or rehabilitation of derelict dwellings where ownership is unclaimed or neglect is prolonged". This would be largely redundant to tax foreclosure suggested earlier. 10.The Residual Income ParadigmA glaring analytical weakness in the Affordable Housing Strategy is its reliance on the archaic "30 percent rule" to define and measure housing affordability. The document states: "Globally, housing is considered affordable when it costs no more than 30 percent of a household’s gross income... Applied to Bermuda, this means households earning under BMD 72,000 should be able to access housing at or below BMD 1,800 per month, and those earning between BMD 72,000 and 120,000 should find options between BMD 1,800 and 3,000".The 30 percent metric is an arbitrary benchmark derived from mid-20th-century United States public housing legislation. It is a blunt, regressive instrument that assumes all households, regardless of their absolute income level or family size, require the exact same percentage of their income to cover all other non-housing necessities. In reality non-housing necessities are mostly fixed in cost. Insurance, food, and basic transport is virtually the same cost for a low-income family as a high-income family in Bermuda. Consider the divergence: A single professional earning $120,000 who spends 30 percent on housing ($3,000) has $7,000 a month remaining in residual cash to cover food, transport, and utilities—a highly comfortable margin. However, a family of four earning $60,000 who spends 30 percent on housing ($1,500) has only $3,500 remaining to cover the exorbitant costs of feeding, clothing, and insuring four people in Bermuda. They are deeply impoverished and struggling to survive, despite technically meeting the government's definition of possessing "affordable" housing.The Superiority of the Residual Income ApproachModern land economists and housing policy experts increasingly advocate discarding the 30 percent rule in favor of the Residual Income Approach to measure true affordability. This approach abandons the focus on the ratio of rent to income. Instead, it asks a fundamental question: After paying for housing costs, does the household have sufficient absolute dollars remaining (residual income) to purchase a basic, localized basket of necessary goods and services without falling into deprivation?.Affordability MetricMethodologyFlaws in High-Cost Island EconomiesEconomic Validity30% RuleRent / Gross Income Ignores the absolute localized cost of food, energy, and healthcare. Overstates affordability for large/poor families and understates it for wealthy/small households.Low. Fails to account for household size variations and localized inflation.Residual Income ApproachGross Income - Housing Costs = Residual Funds Basic Needs BasketRequires robust, localized demographic data on the cost of a "basic needs basket" categorized by household size.High. Accurately measures true poverty, financial stress, and material deprivation.By pivoting its analytical framework to the Residual Income Approach, the Bermuda Government would realize that merely building $1,800/month apartments for families earning $60,000 does not solve their economic precarity. Because base construction costs in Bermuda are structurally high, the state cannot force the private market to deliver units at $1,500 a month without catastrophic quality degradation or massive public subsidies.This realization forces a paradigm shift in policy: rather than exclusively subsidizing expensive brick-and-mortar construction to hit an artificial rent target, the government must explore direct demand-side interventions. Implementing robust, portable housing vouchers (cash transfers) for low-income residents, or enacting aggressive macroeconomic measures to lower non-housing costs (e.g., energy grid reform, import tariff reductions on staple goods), does far more to ensure households maintain a survivable residual income than attempting to fix the price of rent.11. The Case for New Urbanism: Strategic Upzoning and "New Towns"By amending the Bermuda Plan to allow for the creation of specific "Village Zones," we can increase our housing supply, lower rents through basic land economics, and—crucially—improve the environmental beauty of our island. The rideshare legislation proposed is deeply flawed and anit-consumer but it’s a step in the right direction. With rideshare and good public transport the need for cars goes down and people should be able to choose a car-free lifestyle, especially when this brings a huge drop in their housing expenses. The Principles of New Urbanism New Urbanism isn't about building skyscrapers; it’s about returning to the human-scale wisdom of historic St. George’s. It prioritizes: Walkability: Designing streets for people, not just cars. Mixed-Use: allowing corner stores and cafés to exist beneath apartments. Gentle Density: Using 3-to-4 story buildings to create vibrant communities rather than isolated subdivisions. Density Allows for "Micro-Forests" The biggest fear regarding development is the loss of the "Bermuda Image"—our lush, green character. However, low-density sprawl is actually what kills nature, as it carpets the island in asphalt driveways and manicured lawns. Look at Loughlands, it’s compliant with the letter of the law but it’s just a car-first concrete and grass where residents look out into the back of their shutters rather than into natural beauty. True Village Zoning concentrates development, which opens up opportunities for native micro-forests. When we build denser village cores, we can mandate that the perimeter and the spaces between buildings are planted with dense, buffers of Bermuda Cedar, Palmetto, and Olivewood. These "green screens" provide superior privacy compared to a standard fence, cool the air, and create corridors for birdlife. We can have higher density and a greener, more private aesthetic simultaneously.Three Sites for a "Garden Village" Pilot1. The "PHC Village" (Warwick) The area surrounding the PHC Stadium is ideal for a "Village Green" model. By rezoning the area between Khyber Pass and PriceRite for mixed-use high density 70 residents per acre residential, we create a community anchored by recreation. The density would be focused on the field, while the outer edges could be wrapped in a thick, native forest buffer to ensure total privacy for existing neighbors. It becomes a self-contained, walkable ecosystem near the Railway Trail, on a major bus route, and within easy walking distance of a pharmacy, supermarket, bowling alley, and other businesses. 2. Collector’s Hill (Smith’s) Currently, this is a traffic pinch-point dominated by asphalt parking. A "Village Overlay" could transform it into a true town center. The town is already there, we just need to rezone the area for high density. This opportunity is disappearing right now as the large lots on the South side are being redeveloped into large luxury housing. 3. North Shore Government House Lands. The vast, empty acreage of the Government House waterfront is a missed opportunity. This site could host a master-planned, mixed-income village. It would be a model of "hidden density"—housing hundreds of families in high-quality, traditional Bermudian architecture that is virtually invisible from the road due to aggressive reforestation and landscaping, all within easy walk of C-Mart and the ocean and a quick bicycle, bus, or e-bike into Hamilton. The Economic Reality Urban land economics teaches us that all new housing lowers prices. Supply is the only thing that tames rent. By preventing the development of new, efficient villages, we are inadvertently driving up the price of every aging cottage on the island, pricing out the next generation.New Urbanism focuses on creating human-scaled, mixed-use neighborhoods where residents can live, work, and shop without relying on a private vehicle. Bermuda is uniquely positioned to capitalize on this philosophy by transforming existing large, underutilized commercial properties (often characterized by single-story retail surrounded by sprawling surface parking lots) into high-density residential hubs.12. A Superior Philosophy: The "Enabling Markets" ApproachThe Bermuda Affordable Housing Strategy 2025-2035 currently operates on an outdated, mid-20th-century philosophical paradigm: the belief that the state can build its way out of a housing crisis through direct, centralized construction programs while simultaneously imposing restrictive, punitive regulations on the private market. This approach relies on public capital that the government does not have, attempts to build in a regulatory environment that actively resists density, and seeks to punish the private landlords it relies upon to house the majority of the population.A superior philosophy, heavily endorsed by modern land economists and international development institutions such as UN-Habitat, is the "Enabling Markets" approach. In this framework, the government fundamentally shifts its role from being the primary developer and landlord of last resort to being the architect of a regulatory and financial ecosystem where the private sector, non-profits, and cooperatives are organically incentivized to oversupply the market.To achieve a sustainable, affordable housing ecosystem that transcends election cycles, Bermuda must adopt a philosophy built on the following economic pillars: Aggressive Regulatory Alignment and Deregulation: The island cannot demand affordable, high-density, modular housing while strictly enforcing the low-density, pitched-roof aesthetics of the Bermuda Plan 2018. Or half-heartedly enforcing it with a “Two Bermudas” approach where the friends and family operate by one set of rules and another exists for the rest of us. The government must introduce "As-of-Right" zoning for high-density residential development in central corridors, embracing "New Urbanism" by upzoning commercial centres into mixed-use hubs. This requires explicitly exempting affordable housing projects from subjective aesthetic reviews by the DAB and modernizing archaic water-catchment building codes to permit community-scale utility solutions. Highest and Best Use Taxation and Enforcement: Pure Land Value Taxation presents regressive risks, but the state must still penalize speculation and hoarding. The government should assess and tax raw land and derelict properties based on their fully developed, fully occupied potential. This must be paired with ruthless enforcement and foreclosure on delinquent tax accounts to transfer blighted properties to responsible developers. Subsidizing People, Not Just Buildings: The reliance on the arbitrary 30 percent affordability rule must be replaced by the Residual Income Approach. Instead of imposing rent controls (which destroy long-term supply) or pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into direct state construction, the government should redirect capital toward robust, portable housing vouchers. Subsidizing the tenant directly bridges the gap between market rents and their required residual income, allowing the private market to respond to demand without price distortion. Fix the Bureacracy: Private development cannot thrive where planning laws are outdated or arbitrary and where rent controls and tenant laws push landlords into acting as social workers. For any of this to work there needs to be a fast, efficient legal process for every step. Months long Planning applications and years-long probate and legal cases undermine affordable housing. 13. ConclusionThe Strategy is well-intentioned but contradictory. It tries to use 21st-century tech in a mid-20th-century zoning framework. It tries to incentivize landlords while introducing rent controls. It also uses arbitrary metrics for affordability that ignore Bermuda’s extreme cost of living.To close the housing gap and secure homes across generations, Bermuda must embrace the unyielding economic realities of land, labor, and capital. By taxing properties at their highest and best fully developed use, enforcing delinquent tax foreclosures, modernizing zoning to accept high-density, mixed-use "New Towns" by right, adopting the Residual Income Approach to measure true poverty, and abandoning price ceilings in favor of direct tenant subsidies, Bermuda can dismantle the regulatory frictions that have choked its housing supply. Only by shifting from a paradigm of state control to one of market enablement can the island ensure dignity, stability, and economic opportunity for all its residents.

Alex Jones9 months ago Core question: What would an ideal Landlord/Tenant Act look like if it was written on a clean slate with no consideration given to previous laws?As written there are a number of issues:Where is the enforcement? - The Courts are slow and expensive. They also fail to produce results. For example, if someone gives a landlord a security deposit and the landlord fails to keep it in escrow and spends it then the former tenant is stuck in a very long and unlikely to succeed court battle of obtaining a judgement against their former landlord. In reality, this is theft. Plain and simple - that money belongs to the tenant and stealing it should be a criminal matter.Planning/land use/immigration have been so badly mismanaged that there is virtually no housing stock so people who are evicted will literally have nowhere to go. At present there are 3 properties listed for rent on propertyskipper for below $3,000 per month. The current and proposed Act make this WORSE by making it difficult to rent to the point that many landlords have given up or switched to AirBNB after being stuck with bad tenants. We also can't expect landlords to fix a housing market that is broken by bad government Planning policy.We also shouldn't expect the landlord/tenant relationship to fix Bermuda's social problems. There's a real need for housing subsidies, but they should come from a focused and effective program separate from the Landlord/Tenant Act. Finally, we should assume that people can and will do the right thing. The role of the government should be to step in with a fast, fair, and efficient system only when the law is being broken. For example, in employment we don't require an application to Tribunal every time an employee is terminated but have laws that employers are required to follow and a (broken) enforcement mechanism if laws are broken. It should be the same (without the broken enforcement) for Landlord/Tenant.Problems with the Current Magistrate's Court SystemThe current court-based eviction process is broken and ineffective. Excessive Delays: The most common complaint is the extreme length of time it takes to resolve cases. The Consultation Paper itself notes that dispute resolution can take up to 6 months. This leaves landlords without rental income for extended periods and tenants in a prolonged state of uncertainty. These delays discourage landlords from renting out their properties, shrinking the overall housing supply. High Costs: Pursuing a case through the courts is expensive. Legal fees for both landlords and tenants can quickly become prohibitive, meaning that often only those with significant financial resources can afford to see a case through The cost of Court in terms of time/money/missed work is often as high as the losses themselves. This creates an access-to-justice issue where many people with valid claims - whether a landlord seeking unpaid rent or a tenant fighting a negligent landlord - are forced to abandon them due to cost. Even when Small Claims is “free” the reality is that it takes a huge number of daytime hours to pass through the process. Inconsistent and Unpredictable Outcomes: Because the existing laws use subjective language and enforcement relies on individual magistrates' interpretations, outcomes can be inconsistent. This lack of predictability makes it difficult for either landlords or tenants to know their rights and responsibilities with any certainty. It turns a contractual dispute into a high-stakes gamble. Lack of Enforcement: A significant frustration is the difficulty in enforcing court orders. Even if a landlord obtains a judgment for eviction or arrears, or a tenant wins a case for the return of a security deposit, collecting the funds or ensuring the property is vacated can require further costly and time-consuming legal action. Advantages of an "If X, Then Y" Automatic SystemInstead the new Act should create an automatic system designed specifically to solve the problems inherent in the current court-based process. Efficiency and Speed: An automatic process is, by definition, fast. If rent is 30 days in arrears (the "X"), then a "Notice of Termination" can be issued effective 30 days later (the "Y"). The process is completed in a predictable timeframe, measured in weeks, not months. This drastically reduces the financial damage to landlords and provides a swift resolution for everyone. Lower Costs: By making the process automatic by default, most cases would never need a formal hearing. This eliminates the need for expensive legal representation in straightforward situations. The Tribunal would only hear contested cases, serving as a low-cost alternative to the court system for legitimate disputes. Clarity and Predictability: The system operates on objective, verifiable standards (e.g., "60 days in arrears," "Police documentation of illegal activity," “Failure to resolve XYZ issue”). There is no room for subjective interpretation. Both landlords and tenants know exactly what the rules are and what the consequences of breaking them will be. This clarity reduces the number of disputes in the first place Guaranteed Enforcement: In an automatic system where a tenant does not appeal, the landlord's right to repossess the property is legally confirmed without needing a further court order. For tenants, making security deposit theft a criminal matter with mandatory restitution provides a far more powerful enforcement tool than a civil judgment that may never be paid. Also, giving the tenants a right to Tribunal any illegal/unethical eviction attempt would be stopped by the Tribunal. By shifting from a discretionary, bureaucratic process to a rules-based, automatic one, the "if X, then Y" model directly addresses the public's frustrations with the current system. It creates an efficient and fair market where contracts are respected and enforced predictably.What Urban Land Economics SaysFrom an economic perspective, an effective rental market depends on three key factors: Elasticity of Supply: The market's ability to create more housing when demand increases. Rent controls, high risks, and costly eviction processes for landlords make providing rental housing less attractive. This reduces the housing supply, concentrates landlords into a smaller group, and ultimately drives up rents for everyone. Add in inappropriate land use, a non-functional Planning Department and the scene is set for a crisis. Low Transaction Costs: The time, money, and uncertainty involved in making and enforcing an agreement. Slow courts and ambiguous laws create high transaction costs. This discourages both good tenants (who can't enforce their rights) and good landlords (who can't enforce a lease). Clear Property Rights and Rule of Law: Both parties must have clearly defined rights and a predictable, efficient system to enforce them. A system based on subjective interpretations and bureaucratic delays undermines this, creating chaos and inefficiency. The current system effectively makes landlords into social workers, bearing the burden of individual hardship. The Employment Act does a reasonably good job of setting the standard for an employee/employer relationship including a process for termination for both repeated misconduct/poor performance (with written warnings and notice), and major misconduct (immediate termination). It doesn’t need a Tribunal to allow a termination, but there is a process for people who feel they have been improperly terminated. An ideal Act must therefore focus on increasing the housing supply by making the market less risky, slashing transaction costs with efficient processes, and establishing crystal-clear rules that are easily enforced.A Proposed Framework for an Ideal ActThis framework is built on the principles of automaticity ("if X, then Y"), objective standards, and using the government as a backstop, not a gatekeeper.1. Security Deposits: Criminal Enforcement for TheftThis addresses the critical enforcement gap for tenants. It would be a process that could take ~30 days or less, not the months of the current process. The Rule: A landlord must place a security deposit into a separate, designated "Tenant Security Deposit Account" at a Bermuda bank within 7 days of receipt. They must provide the tenant with proof (e.g., a bank receipt showing the account details). For existing leases they should have the deposit made before the end of the current term or perhaps a fixed date ie. Dec 31, 2026. The Crime: Failure to deposit the funds as required, or failure to return the deposit within 14 days of the tenancy's end (minus itemized, proven damages), is legally defined as theft by conversion. It may be wise to include some sort of review of proven damages by the Tribunal after which the Police could become involved. The Enforcement: The Tribunal would review the deductions and make a ruling on their fairness. The tenant can file a report directly with the Bermuda Police Service with the Tribunal findings. The police would investigate it as a financial crime. Proof would be simple: the tenant provides their original payment record, and the landlord must produce a bank statement for the designated account and clear documentation of any deductions. Upon conviction in Magistrates' Court, the judgment would be automatic: the landlord must pay mandatory restitution of the full deposit amount to the tenant, plus a significant fine. This makes the penalty severe and the process non-reliant on a slow civil court battle. There should be very clear definition of “wear and tear” so that cases of deposit theft are clear vs. an overzealous landlord. 2. The Eviction Process: Clear, Objective, and AutomaticThis process is designed to be efficient for landlords while providing a clear and accessible appeal process for tenants. Under the Employment Act, being terminated is almost never a surprise to the employee because of the requirement to provide written warnings so too the tenant should not be surprised by the eviction. The burden of action shifts to the tenant after a notice is served, making the Tribunal the backstop.Part 1: Grounds for Termination (Objective & Specific)The "wishy-washy" terms are replaced with clear, provable conditions: Non-Payment of Rent: The tenancy can be terminated if the rent is in arrears by 60 days or more. This is a simple, objective standard proven with bank statements. The landlord can initiate a demand for payment at 30 days and termination proceedings begin at 30 days. Illegal Activity: Police verification of illegal activity and avoids subjective claims (e.g., "I smelled marijuana"). So if the Police are called to a property and begin criminal proceedings or see evidence of illegal activity (ie. stolen goods/drug paraphernalia, weapons). It involves an objective third party to verify illegal activity. Significant Property Damage: Termination is allowed for damage willfully or negligently caused by the tenant that exceeds a set value (e.g., one month's rent) or renders the property uninhabitable. This must be proven with dated photos and professional repair quotes. Failure to Cure after giving notice (see below). Part 2: The "Notice to Cure" (For Lesser Breaches)This is a mandatory first step for issues that do not meet the high threshold for immediate termination. This notice can be issued by either the landlord or the tenant. When It Applies: Landlord to Tenant: For issues like unsanitary conditions (e.g., a pest infestation caused by the tenant's habits), unauthorized occupants, or other correctable lease violations. Tenant to Landlord: For failure to make necessary repairs (e.g., a leaking roof, broken major appliance). Requirements: The notice must be in writing, clearly state the breach, specify the exact action needed to "cure" it, and provide a reasonable deadline (e.g., 14 days). It must also state that failure to cure may result in a "Notice of Termination" or an application to the Tribunal. Notice should probably be CC’d to the Tribunal. For tenants in long leases it may make sense for them to be able to pay for necessary repairs and deduct from the rent after giving notice. Ie. the roof leaks and hasn’t been fixed for 30 days, they give notice to the Landlord and after 30 days are empowered to make repairs and deduct the cost from the rent payable. Best practice everything should be documented through the Tribunual’s email dropbox. Many of Bermuda’s landlords are elderly and may not have the funds to accomplish major maintenance on their property. In these cases it may be wise for the tenant to be able to pay for more major works and then deduct the amount from rent over time. The Tribunal would probably need to be involved to approve any such schemes. So if the roof needs to be repaired and painted for $5000 and the landlord can’t afford it the tenant could pay the bill then deduct $416.67 from the rent payments for the following 12 months. This might need to be ordered by the Tribunal on behalf of the tenant. The alternative would be more properties falling into a state of total disrepair. Part 3: The "Notice of Termination" (The Trigger)If a tenant fails to cure a breach or meets one of the objective grounds for eviction (e.g., 30 days in arrears), the landlord serves a formal "Notice of Termination." Crucial Requirement: This notice must state the specific, objective grounds for the termination and inform the tenant that they have 14 days to appeal the decision to the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal. It must also explain that if no appeal is filed, the termination will be final, and they will be required to vacate. If they do not vacate then the Landlord is empowered to dispose of leftover items and block access to the premises. The Notice should follow a specified format detailing things like: The date of the notice The reason for termination The date of termination Inform the tenant of their write to an appeal by Tribunal. Standard Notice Document: The Notice document should probably be a standard fully compliant form downloadable from the Tribunal website. Service of notice should probably be similar to a Baliff process for a summons to ensure that someone receives it. If the person can’t be reached then taping copies of the notice laminated on the exterior doors of the property should be sufficient - perhaps this could be a similar Baliff process (for a fee). Part 4: The Tenant-Initiated Tribunal Challenge (The Backstop)This is the core of making the process efficient while protecting tenants. If the Tenant Does NOT Appeal: The eviction is automatically approved. After the 14-day appeal window and any legally required notice period expires, the landlord has the right to repossess the property. No hearing is necessary. So 30 days in arrears, notice given, if no appeal then eviction automatic at 61 days if rent unpaid. If the Tenant Appeals: The eviction is immediately paused. The tenant files an application with the Tribunal, which then schedules a hearing. The landlord must attend and provide objective evidence (e.g., bank statements showing 30+ days of non-payment). 3. The Landlord and Tenant TribunalThe Tribunal's role is not to be the default pathway but to serve as a rapid-response adjudicator for disputes. Frequency: The Tribunal must be mandated to meet weekly. This ensures that appeals do not create an onerous 6+ month delay. Process: Hearings are evidence-based and objective. The rules are simple and clear. For a non-payment appeal, the landlord provides bank records. If the records show 60 days of arrears, the termination is upheld. The process should be resolved in a single session. Forms & Paperwork: The Tribunal should have forms and processes clearly online. Powers: The Tribunal can uphold or overturn a termination notice, order repairs, order the return of a security deposit (and refer the matter to BPS as necessary). Email Address for documentation: The Tribunal should operate an e-mail address that serves as time stamped evidence for Landlords and Tenants to document everything. There should be a clear process for Landlords/Tenants to send photographs and correspondence with the address in the title as a way to time stamp document things for the Tribunal. So for example, a tenant giving notice to a landlord of a maintenance issue could take photos and send an e-mail with the address in the title as evidence for a future Tribunal. Any e-mail MUST include the address/unit to make it searchable. Discrimination in renting: The Tribunal should also be empowered to investigate discrimination against potential tenants that would violate the Human Rights Act. So, if a potential tenant feels they were discriminated against the Tribunal would be empowered to review the details of all prospective tenants and the successful applicants and take enforcement action (fines). The Tribunal should put out clear compliance guidelines for Landlords and encourage landlords to get rent offers in writing so they can prove they didn't discriminate. The role of Financial AssistanceIntegrating the Financial Assistance (FA) program is the critical final piece to creating a system that is both efficient and humane. The government acts as a "backstop" by providing a targeted financial safety net that allows tenants in genuine temporary hardship to avoid eviction, without placing the burden on the landlord or clogging up the legal process.Here’s how the Financial Assistance regime could be seamlessly integrated into the proposed Landlord and Tenant Act:The Goal: Curing the Breach, Not Halting the ProcessThe primary role of Financial Assistance in this context is to provide the tenant with the funds needed to "cure" the breach—specifically, to pay the rent arrears. This respects the landlord's right to be paid while giving the tenant a clear path to remain in their home.An Integrated Process: Linking Financial Assistance to the Eviction TimelineThe system would be designed to work within the clear, automatic timelines of the proposed eviction process.Step 1: The 30-Day Warning (Landlord's Demand for Payment) Under the proposed system, a landlord could issue a formal demand for payment once rent is 30 days in arrears. FA Integration: This letter would serve as a crucial trigger document for the tenant. The law would mandate that this notice includes standardized wording informing the tenant of their right to apply for emergency housing assistance from the Department of Financial Assistance and provide the department's contact information. The tenant now has a 14-day window before the eviction process formally begins to contact FA. Step 2: The Tenant's Application to Financial Assistance The tenant would take the landlord's demand letter to the Department of Financial Assistance. FA's Role: The department would need an expedited "Eviction Prevention" stream in their application process. Instead of a lengthy standard review, this stream would focus on two questions: Is the hardship temporary and verifiable (e.g., recent job loss, medical emergency, delay in other benefits)? Is the tenancy otherwise sustainable (i.e., can the tenant afford the rent going forward once the temporary crisis is resolved)? If the criteria are met, FA would approve a one-time grant to cover the arrears and possibly additional months sufficient to cure the temporary crisis (ie. 3 months rent in an extreme example). FA would have documents on the website with relevant information including a form with space the Landlord’s banking so payment could be made. Step 3: The 60-Day Termination with/without FA Intervention: Scenario A (Successful FA Application): Before the 14-day appeal window closes, Financial Assistance makes a direct payment to the landlord for the full amount of the arrears. The breach is cured, the tenancy is reinstated, and the "Notice of Termination" becomes void. The landlord is made whole, and the tenant avoids eviction. Scenario B (Unsuccessful or No FA Application): If the tenant is denied assistance or does not apply for FA they still retain their right to appeal the eviction to the Tribunal on other grounds. However, non-payment would not be a valid defense if the arrears are proven. How This Creates an Effective Backstop - and stops landlords from being social workers. Protects Tenants in Crisis: It provides a clear, official pathway for tenants facing temporary, verifiable hardship to get help and stay in their homes. It replaces uncertainty and fear with a structured process. Maintains Landlord Confidence: Landlords are not forced to become social workers or bear the financial burden of a tenant's hardship. They are assured of a swift resolution: either they receive the rent owed (from the tenant or FA) or they can efficiently repossess their property. This encourages them to remain in the rental market. Reduces Homelessness: This proactive intervention is a direct tool to prevent homelessness. By providing emergency funds to stabilize a tenancy, the government avoids the much higher social and financial costs associated with emergency shelters and re-housing a family. Government should be providing emergency housing and shelter for tenants whose hardship lasts longer than 90 days. Keeps the Tribunal Efficient: The Tribunal is not burdened with cases where the core issue is a temporary inability to pay. These are handled by the appropriate social service agency, allowing the Tribunal to focus on legitimate legal disputes over property damage, illegal activity, or other non-financial breaches. Fiscal Responsibility: Financial Assistance is targeted only to those with a verifiable, temporary need whose tenancies are otherwise sustainable. This prevents the system from becoming a permanent rent subsidy and ensures taxpayer funds are used effectively to prevent acute crises. By formally linking the notice requirements in the Landlord and Tenant Act to the application triggers for Financial Assistance, the government can effectively act as the backstop, ensuring that the drive for an efficient housing market is balanced with a robust social safety net.