The initiative is “to allow the CNMI to incur a debt by issuing a pension obligation bond to exceed 10 percent of the aggregate assessed valuation of the real property in the CNMI and to authorize the debt to be incurred for investment purposes.”
Do we know what this means? It seems properties of the CNMI are to be used to back the bonds. What happens should we fail to pay the bonds? The bond holders (investors) will be awarded what was pledged — real property. Where? Capital Hill? Navy Hill? Marpi?
Are we willing to do this? If this is acceptable, why then are there people that oppose abolishing Article XII of the Constitution, a restriction on fee simple landownership of private land?
Could it be that since the real property involved is public land, we do not care? There are those that believe that land needs to be preserved for future generation. Certainly what is being proposed contradicts it.
No one knows the future. But, we are not a rich place; we do not have natural resources such as oil or minerals. It seems prudent to be cautions and perhaps look at other ways to resolve what H.L.I. 17-1 is set up to do.
The least we can do is study the initiatives and make an objective decision: one that is for the common good and includes the future. I think the answer is clear. Vote no on H.L.I. 17-1.
Efrain F. Camacho
Navy Hill, Saipan
