Mixed signals on environment

| 18/06/2010

(CNS): As government continues with the consultation on the proposed national conservation law, the recent message it is sending on its policy for the environment is mixed. While on the one hand government says it intends to pass the law, improve public transport and promote environmental awareness in tourism and development, on the other it says it intends to go ahead with the North Sound channel and a commercial cargo port, suggesting the natural environment is still under threat. Premier McKeeva Bush has confirmed that a private sector plan to develop a cargo facility in East End is going to Cabinet for discussion and that he is seeking investors for the channel project to attract yachts to the country.

Bush told the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday, “A channel for the North Sound is an absolute necessity if the country is going to ever get business from the mega yacht industry. Bearing this in mind, government will be seeking investors to do a necessary channel. Public discussion will take place, environmental impact adhered to so that any agreed work can keep damage to the minimum.”

The long waited National Conservation Law that could ensure the protection of the country’s natural resources in the face of this kind of development, which has already gone through extensive consultation and revision, is currently being reviewed again. There is hope, however, that this latest round of consultation could see the law back on track.

The minister with responsibility for the environment, Mark Scotland, has said since taking office that he would bring the legislation to the Legislative Assembly but it needed to be revised, which has raised concern in the community that the provisions in the bill to protect the country’s threatened natural resources could be undermined.
However, the ministry instructed the Department of Environment (DOE) to undertake further consultations some time ago and those consultations are now open to the wider public. At the beginning of next month the DoE will also organise public meetings and this latest period of consultation is set to close on 16 July.
“National conservation legislation for the Cayman Islands is a topical issue and we have been receiving a steady stream of public enquiries on the proposed draft National Conservation Law,” said DOE Director Gina Ebanks-Petrie, who has stated on a number of occasions the desperate need in Cayman for this law. “To help people understand the proposed legislation, we have prepared a summary guide on the proposed law to explain what it means and how it might change things,” she added.  
Ebanks-Petrie pointed out that people can submit written comments detailing any issues they may have with the proposed National Conservation Law and, equally important, they can voice their support for the legislation as it currently is.
Meanwhile, until the law is passed the ongoing developments on Grand Cayman, as well as the planned proposals, are taking place in an environment that has no legal protection. While the premier made various comments about the environment throughout his budget presentation on Tuesday, he sent a mixed message when it came to protecting the country’s resources.
Bush talked about projects that will have a major impact on the environment, such as the North Sound channel and the cargo port, but he also spoke about involving environmental experts to mitigate the negative impacts and about pursuing moreenvironmentally friendly practises in the tourism sector, with partnerships between the Department of Tourism and the DoE.
He also raised the question of a public transport plan, as he said the country could no longer keep building roads and questioned the need for every family to have two cars. He said the country had to discuss a sensible plan of public transport that involved those who are now the operators of the business. “This could be a chance for us to set the future right. Can we afford to build as many roads? Does everyone here need to own two cars? Does every maid need to have a car?” he asked rhetorically.
And although government has added 25 cents a gallon to fuel, which may encourage drivers to think about more environmentally friendly vehicles and alternative energy for their homes, there were no incentives mentioned in either the governor’s throne speech or Bush’s budget presentation regarding alternative energy. Bush talked about a review of duty tariffs across the board but did not say if he was considering concessions on solar panels or other materials associated with reducing energy use or conservation.
Nor was there any news on changes to the legislation to facilitate electric vehicles. Although the governor in his throne speech said that the Ministry of District Administration, Works, Lands and Agriculture would be reviewing the laws governing traffic and roads, there was no indication from Duncan Taylor that the review included changes to enable and encourage electric cars on Cayman’s roads.
 Comments regarding the National Conservation Law can be submitted by email to DoE@gov.ky, faxed to 949 4020, or mailed to NCL Comment, c/o Department of Environment, P.O. Box 486, Grand Cayman, KY1-1006. If the law is not redrafted it will be subject to another mandated 21 days of public notice and additional comment before it can be taken to the LA for a vote.
This guide to the law can be downloaded at http://www.doe.ky/laws/national-conservation-law.
 
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

Comments (37)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Okay, so I spent my weekend going over the Conservation Bill AND the summary they have handedly provided, a few things I’d like to point out to readers:

    – Everything (good and bad) is not mentioned in the summary, so be aware that if you just read the summary there are lots of restrictions etc, that are open to lots of interpretation and as such have just been summarized based on the writer of the summary’s opinion.

    – A lot of the summary is misleading in it’s description of the portions of law.  Shame on DOE for trying to pull a fast one!

    This bill is being pushed for by the likes of XXXX etc whom get no benefit from Development, unlike most caymanians, and won’t be affected when development comes to  a full stop.

    Places like the ritz and camana bay would not exist if this law were in place back then, can you imagine how bad our economy would be in now?  and how much worse our crime rate will be?

    In summary, this Conservation Bill will lead to 10x more bureaucracy in building a home and thus slow down our construction industry which will in turn cause the loss of thousands of jobs and very likely increase the crime rate in cayman as a result.

    I hope the UDP does not pass this bill, we voted for them to stand up for the small man, and this bill would do just the opposite!

    • Anonymous says:

       

       

      Glad to see you take the time to ‘go over things’. While you at it, you might want to read the following article:

      "Plant life in the Caribbean is in danger, with the major threats being over-development and climate change. Colin Clubbe, head of conservation at Kew Gardens, frequently visits the UK Overseas Territories of Cayman Islands, Turks & Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and Montserrat. He explains exactly what is at stake and why."

      He says: "Effective conservation has to be a central part of government policy and development strategy. When I say short-term thinking is an issue on many islands, you can see it in the lack of control surrounding development, the building of tourist hotels, and roads and the effect this has on nature."

      Full article at:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/01/climate-change

  2. local vocal says:

    I agree with the need for the Conservation Law.

    Cayman has little enough properly planned areas, which is what i understand that this law proposes to do. We cannot continue to just "develop" for the sake of making a quick profit today. It is mainly the developer and realtors who gain from such (and even that gain will likely be short lived). Then they will lift anchor and leave. So will our own greedy and shortsighted locals involved.

    We must begin to think and act responsibly by doing sustainable and environmentally friendly development. My utmost respect to Ms. Ebanks- Petrie and others at DoE (and otherwise) for sharing their valuable knowledge with us and for having the courage to do so.

    Mac says something along the lines of; "involve experts to mitigate and keep damage to a minimum". Sounds like something that BP (and other Big oil) would have said to the US Govt. eh? And they fooled some of the people there with "jobs" too. There are more eco-friendly and sustainable jobs that we can do these days. A little open-minded research will educate us all with such knowledge.

    If Mac really wants to look out for Cayman and the people, and also thinks such developments as 1) dredging the North Sound, 2) a Cargo Port in East End and (he has also called for an Oil Refinery) then i suggest he allow democracy to happen by allowing a refferendum on each such consideration, the same way he speaks of allowing a referendum on gambling/casinos.

    Surely the people should be allowed to speak on these also, as we can repeal (change our minds and again outlaw) gambling/casinos. We cannot change our minds after we have dredged the North Sound or blasted and cut through much of East End for the proposed Cargo Dock there. Neither can we do anything once a BP oil refinery like disaster happens such as is currently taking place in the Gulf of Mexico. Either of these developments will surely be the final ruin of Cayman.

     The Cayman Islands are small islands. Development should be with that as a priority! Enough of the shortsighted development that only benifits a few already rich people!

    Caymanians and all concerned; This we dearly need to come together and take a stand for. Our very future depends on it!

    I am a Caymanian of many, many generations. (This said only for those who are posting that such concerns not from Caymanians also). I know many caymanians that are forproper and sustainable development.

    Enough also with the Caymanian versus Expat BS. Lets find sensible ways to live together and even to respond to rude and vexing commentary. Responses that may help with uniting us.

  3. K Smith says:

    I think it is about time the Cayman Islands as a whole realized what our effects have on our surroundings. We are destroying habits for other species, extinction, polluting our environment, creating harmful gases etc.  WE need to become environmentally conscious. I wrote the DOE last year about implementing a recycling program and provided them with articles about the successful programs in Canada. Trinidad and Tobago has developed a working relationship with the Nova Scotia, one of the greenest cities in Canada, to act as a consultant to them. I was unfortunately told that although they are interested in changing their current trash collection habits, it’s not a priority. Given the current state of our government’s financials, this is to be true. However, this idea should NOT be shelved. In addition to mitigating the damages, becoming more green and sustainable opens an array of business opportunities for locals.

    Back to this proposed development…East End is a gem. When I have visitors they love driving up east because it’s so peaceful and pure. Over developing it will remove the habitat for local animals and take away the simplistic beauty. I love that Cayman is developed in the sense that there are lots of businesses and restaurants and boutique shopping. But we have to have a balance between both. Visitors come here because it’s an island. They come for the weather, the laidback lifestyle, the beaches, the diving. Noone wants to sit in traffic for 45mins, noone wants to dive if our coral reefs are dead and fish scare, noone wants to explore if there’s no green. I recently had a friend stop over in Cayman on a cruise. My advice to her was to not stay in town. Her and her family weren’t on the cruise to shop (they live in a major city and live comfortably). They wanted to relax with their feet in the sand and take amazing photos. So I sent them to Smith’s Cove and then down to SMB. They loved it. My point is, we need to find a balance between retaining our islands natural beauty and thus being environmentally aware, and developing our island so that locals needs are met and opportunities abundant.

    Before proposing this major development, please look at the negative effects. Is it really necesssary? What are the potential damages? How will it affect the East Enders? I know the government is trying to bring in business. Make the development smaller or don’t go through with this at all but instead, consider alternative revenue streams. Let’s think this through.

    CNS note: Recycling would fall underthe Department of Environmental Health, not DOE

    • K Smith says:

      Sorry, I meant the department of environmental health. I abbreviated incorrectly.

  4. Anonymous says:

    cayman was cayman 40 years ago

  5. sergio coni says:

     At this pace, very soon we will not need the environmental law as there is not going to be anything to protect. There will be nothing left for the mega yachts to come to see and enjoy. No beaches, no mangroves, no fish, no coral, no trees. Just buildings, roads and docks. There will be no financing industry and no tourism either, no jobs. There will be no positions to be filled by ex-pats and we Caymanians will have the islands just to ourselves. I am not sure what we will do then ‘ cause there will be no thatch to make rope, no turtles to catch, no conch and no fish to eat. Perhaps then it will be our turn to go away and seek work in another countries…again.

    • Anonymous says:

      pray tell me which country has work for Caymanians when they dont have work for their own

  6. Anonymous says:

    Are we seriously bringing this bill up again?  This was drafted by dozens of EXTREME environmentalists who want nothing other than to put Cayman back 40 years.

    Backers of DOE, expats mostly from the financial industry, who have now made their millions and CAUSED cayman to develop in the first place now want to bring everything to a screeching halt.

    Environment can go hand in hand with Development but not with the current group of tree-huggers at DOE, to bring change to policies you don’t need a change of laws but a change of persons at that sweet giglioli building!

    • Anonymous says:

      Money talks! Once you are prepared to show the green backs then anything is possible with this administration. Do you really think they care for the environment? I think they care more for the green backs (DOLLARS).

    • BORN FREE says:

      Most of the damage to Cayman’s environment has taken place since 1992. There was a moratorium on development on the 7 mile beach & no sooner had the National Team won the ’92 elections they lifted the moratorium, & then all sense went out the window. The world famous 7 mile beach became an instant concrete jungle, & it was mostly all down to one man. 

      The destruction of Cayman by way of over development, & the destruction of Cayman’s environment, especially the destruction of most of the mangroves in & around the North Sound has happened mostly since one man has been in government.

      It is wrong for one man to hold the power in the ministries responsible for tourism, planning & development. That is very wrong, & it is compounded when that all too powerful man also owns a real estate company. 

      Now this! There are plans underway to destroy the North Sound by dredging a channel to accomodate a few rich foreigners? Who will benefit from this, apart from those few rich foreigners & those who have allowed it? Certainly not Caymanians! We will eventually lose our Sand Bar & Stingray city (believe me, it will happen), which is not only a favourite weekend hangout for locals, but is also a world famous tourist attraction. We have already lost our world famous Turtle Farm (now it is only a failing attraction), & now the UDP are proposing to put Stingray city & the sandbar’s existence in jeopardy by dredging in the North Sound? Are they mad? Cayman people, it is time to stand up for what is ours! Talk is cheap & they do not listen. We cannot allow them to destroy what is not theirs, just for personal gain! NO! It is not theirs to destroy. It is time for action.

  7. Anonymous says:

    This is so typical. The majority of the world is catching on to the fact that they have to proctect their natural resources and that going "green" as much as possible is the way to go. Of course, this ignorant government is only concerned with stuffing the pockets of a few and are happily destroying everything "green", all in the name of development.

    Just wondering, how much more will it take until Caymanians finally snap out of their usual laid-back attitude and take control over their Island? No use to be crying over crap afterwards…………

  8. Hmm... says:

    You have no idea how much I hate to speculate about things like this, but this post comes across very much like an expat developer trying to incite the teeming masses to revolt  but lacking the respect for his minions to do even the most basic research.

    There are very few Caymanian developers no matter when they were minted who would not be aware that the DOE is almost entirely Caymanian (whenever they were minted) from the top of its head to the tips of its toes. The non-Caymanian 30%, I believe are generally found somewhere in the neighbourhood of the gut, groin and upper thighs.

    Next time you want to bend the hoi polloi to your will, talk a little to your Caymanian fronter so you can more convincingly display local colour.

    Makes me wonder about various other scaremongering postings I’ve seen here claiming cultural affiliation but showing little or no cultural knowledge.

    Not that I’m at all suspicious by nature.

  9. caymanian overseas says:

    The North Sound is an extraordinary, significant natural resource for the people of the Cayman Islands. Not only is it one of the largest semi-enclosed natural lagoons in the western hemisphere, it has very complex processes (erosion, accretion, currents, wave dampening effects etc) that we will never fully understand even if a comprehensive EIA is performed.

    I am not a fan of the dolphin attractions that have sprung up recently but when we become enlightened enough to realize that they are just cruel, they can be shut down. However, dredging of the North Sound is utterly permanent. There would be no turning back. Once it becomes apparent that the effects of the dredging have caused such huge environmental damage, it will be too late.

    We should fight tooth an nail to prevent the dredging of the north sound for a few big boats that we have no guarantee of attracting. Talk about putting our eggs in one basket – mega yachts!

    If we are looking for ways to shore up our ailing tourism, apart from re Caymanising the industry, we should be promoting the Islands as a foodie paradise. Cayman has some of the best restaurants in the world.

  10. Mat says:

    It is no secret:

    It doesn’t make sense to cry anymore when tears dry up and we see no change in the direction in which the world of capitalism and is going. There is no more generousity, charity, and selflessly serving family and community anymore. Everything is from a capitalistic model, reward me and I reward you – forget the consequences and those who can’t cope with or adapt to the money-system!

    Out of self-centeredness, greed, ill-will against other people, ignorance, and a thirst for power & profit, mankind will end up destroying Mother Nature and themselves! 

    The same here in the Cayman Islands – Over-development for the love of comforts, pride, and money will ruin us. Some locals are so in comfortable and coozy positions that the ground they walk on must have a red carpet! They have no time to appreciate the Caymanian soil and sand. When it is all gone by houses, paved driveways, and imported palm trees, and there is less rain, less moist environment, less shaddy trees, and no grounds to plant even a crop… then whose fault will it be?  what will we leave for our children – yes the ones we like to ignore for our own entertainment???

    We need to understand that money, self, and possessions are not everything when you don’t have God in your life to keep you a humble person, sensitive, loving, and open to reality. 

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree with everything you say and will defend it to the upmost!  I believe in humility, a humbleness to plants and living things. But I don’t necessarily think that you need a "concept of God" in order to be humble. People just need to "open their eyes" and see what they are doing to themselves and to our environment.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I think you have misunderstood just what this law is proposing to protect, it is not about preventing Caymanians from building their own homes, it is about preventing the systematic rape of what is left of these beautiful islands natural habitat and sadlymost of the damage has been perpetrated by a few greedy individuals, who have no respect for their fellow countrymen, only their very deep pockets !

    Think of your children’s future and what they will inherit, if you don’t do something to protect their heritage, they will end up ashamed of their parent’s lack of foresight and living on a polluted concrete slab in the Caribbean, devoid of all flora and fauna……is that what you really want for them?

    • Cayman Patriot says:

      I am very concerned about our children’s future. Not being able to afford to go to college, not being able to find work in their own country, not being able to afford to buy a piece of land or build a home.

      Balance is what is needed, not environmental extremisim.

      • Anonymous says:

        What do you mean?????!!!

        For the small Island we call Cayman Islands boss man,  we need to extremely careful on how we treat our environment!  Don’t let no one fool you in thinking that it is easily replacible, because it’s not!!!

        We can always lose a house and rebuild another one, but to lose aspects of our own environment, especially the marine environment – is more than a 100 years loss.

        We need to build into Nature, not against Nature!

      • Anonymouse says:

        Oh, good, then you wont be worried about the Natioonal Conservation Law then. The new Law, as I read it, will not

        1) raise the cost of college

        2) reduce the number of jobs (conversely, better environmental protection should increase, or at least protect, the number of tourism jobs)

        3) increase the price of land (unless its next to one of the new protected areas because, as any real estate agent will tell you, people pay more for a house near to a park or other natural area)

        4) or materially effect the cost of building a home.

        • Anonymous says:

          Read the Bill instead of simply letting someone tell you what is in it.

          If you have read it, do it again, this time with your eyes open and you will see this covers every single piece of property in cayman including house lots, not just "Protected Areas" as the department of environment would have you believe.

          • Anonymouse says:

             

            And the problem with it covering every single piece of Cayman is …?
             
            As I said I have read the Bill. I find nothing objectionable in it or in the idea that a National law should cover every part of the nation.  Anything less that would be absurdity.  (This iguana is protected here but not over there.)
             
            What’s your problem?
  12. Green Hornet says:

    Oh please, CNS, this government and its leader have absolutely no intention whatsover of protecting the ecosystems which have made Cayman what it used to be. I would say what it is today, but that is laughable, for the damage is almost too extensive already for a recovery process to take place. For this to happen, development as we know it (sub-division after subdivision, road after road, hotels/condosafter hotels/condos) would have to cease. A moratorium, then, followed by an all-out effort to restore what we have destroyed, rehabilitate that which has been ground under fill, and establish a philosophy of real sustainability.

    For an imaginative, creative and forward thinking government this could represent a challenge and a way of making "green jobs" – of boosting economic growth of a different kind, not reliant on the destruction of our natural resources but their protection and enhancement. We could become a model for the Caribbean…but I doubt we have a politician alive right now that has the foresight and guts to put such a plan into action, let alone accept its plausibility.

  13. peter milburn says:

    I guess I am not surprised at this article coming out at this time.Let me say this very PLAINLY and CLEARLY this Govt.is the worst conservation minded bunch we have ever had in office.On one hand we hear about environmental tourism and then on the other hand we hear our Premier saying that HE is going to dredge a huge channel through the north sound.On top of all this HE is then planning to put in a huge dock system to bring in the mega ships which will only add to the total  mess in GT with about 15-20,000 people all milling around. coming off the ship at one time.

           Lets talk about the channel in the NS.If this done then we may very well lose the sand bar and all the sand to the east of this proposed venture.Due to the prevailing winds and currents it will fill back in over time and where will all that fill in come from?You guessed it the sand bar.In other words we will be losing the very thing that the cruisers come here to see.To what end is this going to help the people of the Cayman Islands?The folks that run the many north sound snorkle trips will end up losing work on a regular basis.Remember the deeper this channel is the more current and rougher seas it will encourage.Believe me HE will not stop with just one channel!!!!Every Tom Dick and Harry with a big yacht will want to get access to this area and gradually you will see how much the north sound will change for the worst.If the north sound was meant to be deeper than it is then NATURE would have designed it that way.Nature will find a way to bite our MLAs in the ass and she will leave some serious marks.

            The cruise ship dock proposal will be another huge mess if they go ahead and take out so much of that coral in GT harbour.Mr.Premier has been told by some lack of knowlege advisor(s) that the reefs are dead so no problem with taking it out.NEWS FLASH Mr.BUSH the reefs are alive and well.Maybe not as great as they were before previous Govts allowed the ships to drop anchors all over the place but if you go ahead with this scheme of yours you will destroy the very thing that thousands of  cruisers come here to see..OUR REEFS.Where are you going to send them after this is all gone?Further up the west bay beach area in front of the places that are owned and rented by our vital stay over visitors?Have any of you stopped to think how you are going to handle ships while the new dock is being built?Oh I know lets anchor them further down the beach and lets see how much more damage we can do.

                I think you all need to take a serious look in the mirror in the mornings and ask yourselves are we really doing the right thing for this country?Just to make sure people know that I am not against cruise ships but we can only handle so many per day before it gets way out of control and we will more than likely damage the reputation of the Cayman Islands beyond repair.I promise you that your families will not be immune to this situation so go ahead and sleep well if you can.

              North sound trippers be aware of the potential damage to your livelyhoods so get up and speak your minds before its TOO LATE.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks for your comments, Mr. Milburn. You’ve said a great deal about the North Sound, but what say you about the proposed cargo port in East End for which NO environmental study is proposed at all? 

      • peter milburn says:

        Thanks for your question and I did not talk about East End as I did not want to make my comments too long.I am totally against ANY form of construction at E/E for the purpose of a new cargo handling dock.First of all E/E has some of the most pristine reefs left in these fair islands and to decide to dig up or dredge anywhere in this area WILL be a total environmental disaster.As you may well know the currents up there head further south on average so this will further damage other areas like has happened in the GT /7 mile beach.areas.A minor point here is that this will drive the cost of materials food etc.up to a  higher level.The cost of living here is prohibitive now w/out making it any worse.

                  In my mind the best place to have this dock is right where it is right now.When the powers that be decide to go ahead with the cruise dock make it BOTH a cruise ship dock and cargo ship dock as well.This can easily done with a few changes in their plans for the cruise dock by strengthning it to handle the extra wgt.It can be used exactly the way it is today at night and this will save the island millions of $’s in the long run.I am sure that people will dis-agree with me on this but with the proper management skills and scheduling I honestly believe it can be done.Make a new cargo receiving area a little bit further  away from GT and move everything at night.I would also suggest that we limit the cruise ships to a maximum of 4 PERIOD.and this wll help alleviate the congestion in GT.I know exactly what this Govt wants to do and that is have 4 ships at the dock and then allow a couple more to anchor further north of the present anchorage areas.This will further destroy the west bay beach area and probably chase away whats left of our precious stay over tourism.I might add that we will more than likely lose a portion of the 7 mile beach when all this dredging is done.We cannot afford to lose our dive industry just because a few politicians(with little or NO knowledge)of the environmental destruction it will bring.Some ask how do you know this will happen?Common sense for one thing but when it has been DONE there is no FIXING it.It will be permanent.

        • Anonymous says:

          Thank you sir for your sharing the benefit of knowledge, experience and having the courage to do so openly. Caymanians listen to the man! God bless. 

  14. Anonymous says:

    Hopefully this law will never see the LA.  If you think Cayman has financial troubles, wait until this is passed!  the young Caymanian getting out of college won’t be able to afford to go through the extra dozen layers of red tape much less build a house!

     

    SAY NO to this bill! Don’t let caymanbe over taken by a few expats in DOE!

    • peter milburn says:

      afraid to publish your name?

    • GR says:

      Don’t let cayman be over taken by a few expats in DOE!"  One of the most offensive and xenophobic comments I’ve ever read on CNS!

      • Anonymous says:

        But probably not written by a Caymanian who would be aware that almost all of DOE are Caymanians. 

    • Mat says:

      Also, in the next 20 years of too much DEVELOPMENT and wealthy people buying out and putting NO-tresspassing signs on beach front properties – you have to seriously ask yourself the question:  Will my son or daughter have a place of solitude or a place along the beach to hang out and de-stress themselves from the noisy and combustible society we are becoming?  What will be the "vent" to lower crime?

    • Rick James says:

      We can’t afford to build houses already. We can’t afford anything on this island. Unless you come from a well off family and are fortunate to have a hand-me-down plot of land, you can forget about it. It is frustrating as hell for young Caymanians.

      • Anonymous says:

        Welcome to the real world mate.

        You sound like most europeans and a growing number of Americans that cannot afford to get on the housing ladder and spend their lives paying somebody elses mortgage by renting.

        At least Caymanians here get preferential treatment so they can get jobs they wouldn’t get elsewhere for lack of qualifications. Elsewhere in the world you only get the job your qualifications allow AND you can’t afford a house.

        • Anonymous says:

          "At least Caymanians here get preferential treatment so they can get jobs they wouldn’t get elsewhere for lack of qualifications".

           That applies to both some expats and some Caymanians.

    • Cayman Patriot says:

      Well said. The vocal minority – mainly expat – who want to control Cayman in the name of environmental protection could care less about the local people that depend directly and indirectly on development. Their only concern is maintaining their idea of what Cayman should be. The development that made this country a good place for them to live, (good communication, electricity, the subdivisions they live in), and a good place for them to make a living is all great. However, now that they are happy no one else should benefit from development.

      I agree with environmental protection, but any clear thinking individual who reads this bill in detail will see that it goes far beyond protection to total control. This is not a conservation bill with the idea of balance and more environmentally friendly development; this is an environmental extremist bill of stop as much development as possible.

      As was stated by one of its supporters on the radio a few weeks ago – If we had this Law a few years ago then we would not have had all the development as this Law would have stopped it.  The National Trust Chairman quickly jumped it to try to smooth this extremist statement over by saying that we would have the development but it would have been more environmentally friendly.

      Environmentally friendly development is something we all can support however this bill is designed by the extremist who can pack up and leave when the economy fails or are financially secure to the point that it does not matter. 

      It is the development of this that has allowed a new generation of Caymanians to afford university education, the ability to own a business and a financial future. This bill will take us back to the days of smoke pots and National Bulk.

      Before this bill is presented to the House it needs some major re-writing.

      • tired says:

         

        Please look at what happened in the GULF coast because of "DEVELOPMENT" progress and greed. This development dependency that Cayman has been thrust into is a dangerous catch 22. Most people, (even those conniving, money hiding, tax evading financial charlatans), who move/visit these islands want to come somewhere beautiful and clean. they want a break from the concrete jungles and muddy polluted water  of their homelands.
        If Cayman is solely dependant on ANY single industry we will not thrive when that industry collapses we must diversify in an environmentally friendly and saavy manner so that if all else fails we still have pristine eco system for people to visit.
        I vote yes for any law that moves us in that direction!