I stumbled upon Abdulla Waheed's blog post on 'Raising the resort tenure limit to 50 years'. As I read it, an array of thoughts ran through my mind. I did not want to transpose them into readable texts unnecessarily but I inserted a comment as follows.

Why do you think there is no clear answer to the issue?

Islands are a national asset and they must be kept so well into the future. At given frequencies islands must be returned and retired. The government can then re-lease the islands for good and able entrepreneurs at the time. In 35 years, as it now stands, the owner (leaseholder) would have made a handsome return on his investment and it is reasonable for the government to provide the opportunity to someone new. For changing hands 35 years is thus a very good period / frequency.

Important rules to remember in assigning lease of islands are (a) to preclude those with valid lease agreements with more than 5 years remaining in contract and (b) existing contracts must be stripped off instantly from those who purport new leases through use of alias.