The Bahamas Private Developers vs. Government Run – Albany Times Union (blog)

Lastweek I visited the Bahamas and enjoyed itslovely beaches and friendly people. A nice woman named Sharika transportedusto the beach and gave a great touralong the ride. She described how the past hurricane destroyed many businesses and hotels along the route. The rebuilding processis takinga long time and is negatively affecting the economy from decreased tourism.

I learned that half of the island is controlled by the Port Authoritysince 1955.Its a private agency that requiresall of the structures built on thatpart of the island tobeequipped withrunning water, electricity, stable walls and a roof. Every home and building on thatpart of the island must meet those requirements or they cannot build there. The Port Authority controlled halfof the island is also where the tourists comefrom cruise ships. They understandthat visitors want comfort and safety while on vacation and make sure that is what we see and experience. The Port Authority donated $3 million dollars to build a college on their island. They are trying to help theBahamiansprovide for themselves through education and better jobs.The Bahamas gained independence from the UK on July 10, 1973. Sharika describedsimple economics if people dont visit, they cantget money from tourists. The American dollar is equal to the Bahamian dollar so visitors feel comfortable purchasing gifts and spending money while on vacation.Bahamians want visitors tospend money and thereby help them emerge into a stronger country.

The other half of the islandis run by the Bahamian government. Thepeople on the government runhalf of the island live in poverty and are basically hidden from the tourists. According to Sharika, those homes are shacks. They dont have running water or electricity. Their roofs and walls are made of sticks and whatever else they can find to make a home ofnatural resources.Sharika said that the government half of the island is not safe for visitors so they keep us on the Port Authority side.More basic economics poverty yields increased crime. The have-nots will steal from the haves who are visiting their island. (Bahamas shack below.)

Think aboutthe poorerpartsof America. Those areashave dilapidated homes, higher crime rates and lower income. Those neighborhoods also predominately have the most amount of people on government assistance and haveless desirable schools. If a town is known for high crime and drugs, theywill not get people to move there, investthere, or work there. It is similar to the government side of the Bahamas where poverty just creates more poverty.

Here in the USA, thehouseon the right is froma Native American Reservation in Utah where afamily isusing cardboard for the walls and roof. Below left are empty homes in Camden, New Jersey and below center are boarded up homes in Progress, Illinois. As you can see, there are Americans living in poverty that the government didntfix across our own great nation.

Now think about the wealthierpartsof America. There arenicerhomes, lower crime from more police presence, and higher incomes. As a result, people want to live and invest there. Itmakes for a stronger economywithbetter schools, roads and jobs .The better schools help the residents attain better jobs thereby strengthening the economy. For example, below are occupied and well maintained homes in Utah, New Jersey and Illinois.

So, if you were in the market for a new home wouldntyou check out the school districts, crime levels, property taxes and local amenities before investing in a 30 year mortgage? How about if you were building a country hoping to last hundreds orthousands of years? Wouldnt you want the best for yourcitizensto live in asafer and better town? Lets face it, no one wants theirfamily and fellow citizens to live in the governmentrun side of town withcontrolled housing,high crime and low paying jobs. The USAis not much different than the Bahamas maybe.

Simple economics government run programs maintainpoverty levels while privately run programsgrow wealth. Does America need welfare programs to temporarily help citizens in need of course! Should the government provide a lifetime of minimal monetary support and render those citizens to a lifetime of poverty heck no!