Maria playing ‘cheap politics’
with undivided properties law
Says William Marlin ~
PHILIPSBURG--National Alliance (NA) leader Member of Parliament William Marlin strongly denounced on Thursday what he called the “cheap politics” displayed by Democratic Party (DP) Member of Parliament Maria Buncamper-Molanus in connection with the law dealing with long-standing undivided properties.
Marlin told The Daily Herald Thursday it was a “pity” Buncamper-Molanus had refused to support the law and instead had opted to “play cheap politics” with the law proposal that was approved by Parliament last week.
“It is her good right not to support it, but don’t use scare tactics, scaring indigenous property owners that government is taking land from them. These scare tactics may have worked in the ’70s, but they don’t anymore. People expect their representatives to provide information and not to play politics,” Marlin said.
Marlin said there was a lot of misconception about the law. He explained that the law didn’t seek to deal with the regular everyday problems of undivided properties. The law is meant to solve the problems surrounding long-standing undivided succession properties, properties that have not been divided for several generations, where the heirs have become so many that it doesn’t make sense to divide the land.
“The law helps to cut through this problem,” said Marlin, explaining that government – and by extension the people – stood to benefit, because it created the possibility, for example, to develop road infrastructure.
The law also creates possibilities for people who have been living on undivided land for years, in that these people can now ask the Judge to partition the land.
Marlin stressed that the normal prescriptive rights continued and had not changed. Also not changed is the normal process for dividing property.
“This law aims at solving division of property characterised by too many heirs that have accumulated over many years,” he explained.
He said that instead of trying to scare off indigenous property owners, Buncamper-Molanus should have organised a public session on the law proposal, as NA did.
Marlin explained that the original law proposal had been drafted when DP was a coalition partner in the Central Government and at that time there had been no consultation with St. Maarten.
NA, he added, had expressed its concerns about the original law proposal. “When the law came to the floor in a public meeting, our faction asked the Justice Minister to hold off on it and we organised a session with Professor De Boer,” Marlin said.
He said local indigenous property owners, in particular, had showed up and the session had been well-attended. Many questions were raised and concerns were voiced.
Marlin explained that after that meeting, De Boer had submitted a new proposal to the Justice Minister with changes to make in the draft law, based on the concerns that had been raised. Also covered in the new law proposal were concerns that had been expressed by the Executive Council, which sent a letter to the Minister shortly after the public session with De Boer.
Parliament debated the new version. “Had the good Senator gone through the changes, she would have noted that the law proposal was changed. Because we took the initiative to inform and involve stakeholders, she didn’t want to go along,” said Marlin.
St Maarten vacation rental
