Leave them alone
Quite a few people showed up at Sunday’s party at food and beverage outlet “Ms B’s” which the court ruled must be allowed to stay on Dawn Beach for now, even though developer of a US $30 million luxury housing project Duck International Limited claims ownership of that section of beach as part of the land it acquired in 1967, based on the certificate of admeasurements. Most of those present yesterday were not radicals or staunch environmentalists by any means, but ordinary people who strongly believe the island’s beaches should be preserved and remain public.
As the judge indicated in the Ms B’s injunction hearing that the outcome might be different in a regular court procedure, the issue is far from settled. In the meantime, a similar issue has surfaced at another popular beach: Cupecoy.
This newspaper has been flooded with e-mails from especially regular visitors to the island, protesting the building of a seawall on the beach where a “clothing optional” attitude has been tolerated for years, even though it’s officially illegal on the Dutch side. In announcing the 16-luxury-villa Shore Pointe project, its developers said the protective seawall was needed and would provide temporary inconvenience, but hopefully also help accumulate more sand on the beach.
As the work started, however, it turned out the wall would take away a considerable part of the current beach. The developers were quick to point out that public access to the beach would not be blocked, because while their certificate of admeasurements shows a large part of the beach as their property, consideration was given to facilitate access, be it at one’s own risk during construction.
This did not satisfy the opponents, who continue to protest the taking away of any part of the current beach. Commissioner Roy Marlin said he would seek clarity from the developers, who have a permit for the seawall. Some are now questioning how government could even give such a permit, certificate or no certificate.
The latter is an important aspect. It appears that for some reason land has been and perhaps continues to be given out that includes sections of beach. The ruling in the Ms B’s case proved, however, that legal documents alone do not necessarily guarantee property rights to the island’s beaches, simply because they are in principle owned by the people of St. Maarten.
Again, whether that ruling will hold up in future court proceedings remains to be seen. Just as important is that government learn from mistakes of the past and not only stop giving out any land that includes any beach, but also permits for construction, seawall or whatever, that encroaches on the existing beaches.
St. Maarten needs to do a better job of protecting and preserving the few natural resources it has, not just for environmental, but also for economic reasons. The beaches are a major part of what the island has to offer. Leave them alone.
Give us your opinion on this story ![[new]](/images/new.gif)
Post a message on our message board! Click Here!
