Emerald Sound development

| 28/07/2011

When the PPM were the elected government in 2007 the proposed Emerald Sound development complete with canals, relocation of the South Sound Road, dredging of the marine replenishment zone in the South Sound, and development of single family homes and apartments was proposed and a meeting was held in the South Sound community center at which Mr Burns Connolly gave an outline of the proposal.

The meeting was attended by about 80 concerned residents many of whom spoke passionately against this proposal objecting to the whole concept of a canal that would breach the natural storm ridges along South Sound and leave both the inland residents and the marine environment in South Sound vulnerable to flooding and pollution.

Since then Caymanian residents island wide have continued their objections stating many reasons for these objections. These reasons have been recently outlined in the DoE report of July 2011, in letters to the CPA, letters to the newspaper and concerned residents voicing their objections on the radio.

These reasons include but are not limited to:

  • Risk of flooding
  • Damage to the marine replenishment zone
  • Pollution of the South Sound water with swamp water and sewage flowing into South Sound
  • The setting of a dangerous precedent
  • The moving of scenic coastline road solely for a developers benefit
  • No benefit to the Cayman Islands except the very short term gain
  • Concerns about water circulation and waste management, with particular reference to the outflows and problems in Randyke Gardens
  • The inability of all professionals consulted to date to come up with a consistent view of the the true impact a development of this sort would have on the land and marine environment
  • Loss of property value for current property owners
  • Lossof the use of South Sound for all who swim, fish or just enjoy the unpolluted beauty of the waters
  • Lack of a cost benefit analysis to establish net benefit to the country as a whole

It appears that our objections are not being listened to. This is borne out by the fact that the CPA has chosen not to change the date of the hearing for this proposal despite repeated requests by the objectors asking for a date only four weeks later than the August 3rd hearing in order to allow for people away on vacation to be present. Surely in a democracy all sides should have the chance for a fair hearing. As it stands the CPA is clearly favoring the developer by refusing to change the hearing date so that more concerned people can attend.

Please listen to your concerned people, please listen to your elders who have already objected to this, please do not ignore the need for democracy and a free and open hearing for all concerned.

There is a public meeting Thursday evening (28 July) at 7pm at the South Sound Community Centre to discuss the Emerald Sound Development.


Category: Viewpoint

Comments (56)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Scanning through the comments – I see a couple of the pro development lot arguing that there will not be flooding because the properties will be raised….that just demonstrated shortsightedness and inability to see the consequences…

    Yes the new properties will not flood…..but the water will runoff to nearby lower ground – the older properties that are not raised…that means that it is likely to cause flooding to properties that may not have experienced it before.

    • Anonymous says:

      You fail to realise that regardless of whether the development is raised or not, South Sound is prone to flooding PERIOD.

  2. O'Really says:


    The new Walkers office building ( well not so new now ) has been standing empty I would guess for going on 2 years. Agreement on whether it is beautiful or ugly is hard to achieve but it's my view that everyone would agree that if the architects, contractors, engineers etc. had been asked before construction started whether it would be unfit for occupation on completion, they would have said with absolute certainty it could not happen and that it would be occupied on schedule. They would have been 100% wrong and this illustrates nicely the difference between planning and real world outcomes. 


    I have read many of Mr. Connolly's responses to the concerns raised over the ES development and I am reminded of the Walker's building. Mr. Connolly can be no more certain at this stage than the Walker's professionals were that, if allowed to go ahead, the canal development will turn out as hoped and the consequences as planned. There is a major difference however. With the Walker's building, the primary consequences of failure ( ignoring reputations and bruised egos ) are pretty much all financial and are presumably being shared around the owners/designers/contractors; the wider public in Cayman is not impacted. With the ES development, the consequences of any failure to correctly assess the real world impact of dredging a channel and canals are not born by the developer, but by the residents of Grand Cayman generally and the residents of South Sound in particular. 


    These risks include:


    Damage to the Sound itself, both as a replenishment zone and an area of aesthetic beauty, through the process of digging  both the canal system and the channel required to give access to the canals;

    Increased pollution of the Sound through the leaching of swamp water into the canal system on a scale far in excess of current levels;

    The increased risk of significant traffic dislocation associated with the need for a bridge and an elevated roadway, both of which present potential problems not associated with the existing road.


    These are real risks which Mr. Connolly can try to mitigate, but he cannot in all honesty dismiss as non-issues.


    The developer is obviously motivated by the desire to turn a profit, with which I have no issue. But when significant  risks associated with a project are not borne by the developer but by others, I have to ask myself, why would the Cayman population take on these essentially non-quantifiable risks? The answer has to be that in these difficult times, the prospect of work in construction and revenue for government is hugely appealing and more immediate than environmental concerns for Cayman or the possible dislocation of everyday life for everyone who uses South Sound road. Those who take this view need to reflect on the nature of this project. It is perfectly possible to develop the land side subdivisions without the canal. In fact, if the supporters of this project are basing their position on the overall good for the economy, I would suggest that a project which omits the canals and therefore has less spent on site preparation and infrastructure ( ie digging canals and building retaining walls, which is specialist work ) and more spent on building houses and apartments ( because of higher density building ), is likely to produce more benefit for Caymanian labourers, skilled and semi-skilled tradesmen, contractors and sub-contractors. When the developer bought the land, it was almost certainly priced to reflect development on the land side only, so requiring him to develop it in this way now is no restriction whatsoever of the entrepreneurial spirit which first attracted him to the project. 


    Those who persistently categorise the objections of opponents as NIMBY  in nature  seem to overlook the fact that it is the canal and channel, not the land side development without the canal, to which the main objections are raised. I note that in a response on CNS, Mr. Connolly stated that “ The best return for the developer is to completely fill the land to 4 feet or more above sea level ( required by planning),and built a combination of apartments and duplexes.” If this is so the issue is easily resolved; take out the canals, forget the channel, leave the road alone, take the higher profit on the land based development, generate more jobs and income for Caymanians involved in the building trade and leave South Sound to deal with the greater levels of population density and traffic flow. 


    The environmental risks have been discussed at length here, so I'm not going over them again, except to add that they are what I call Humpty Dumpty issues. If the developer is wrong ( remember Walker's building ) the damage is done, it's permanent and it can't be put back together again. One risk area to which little attention has been paid on CNS is the need for a bridge and the related need to elevate the road to get to it. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the NRA report on the development will note that the bridge is a potential choke point, reducing as it does the overall road width right of way from 50 feet to 44 feet and precluding the possibility of further road widening in the future, should circumstances require it. My concerns though are centered on the increased vulnerability of a bridge and elevated road and how important South Sound road is for the many people who use it daily. If you live east of Old Crewe road and drive into town on a regular basis, or take your kids to school, or live in the South Sound area and want to get to Hurley's or further east, you almost certainly use South Sound road regularly. I suspect that most users of South Sound road don't live in the area.


    It goes without saying that a bridge is vulnerable to collision in way that the existing road is not. If a truck leaves the road and runs into a ditch, the road itself is not affected. If a truck plows into the retaining walls of a bridge, the integrity of the structure is endangered. If the bridge has to be closed, the road is closed and everyone who uses it is inconvenienced. The NRA has  specified that it is not equipped to inspect nor maintain a bridge and the issue of who should be financially responsible for maintenance and repair has not, to my knowledge, been decided, so any problem is likely to be much more difficult and time consuming to resolve than simply filling a few potholes with tarmac.  Further, given that the bridge is the mechanism by which boats will be allowed to access the development, there is the additional risk of collision between a boat and the bridge such that again, structural damage causes the bridge to be closed and South Sound road rendered impassable. If you are reading this and thinking that this all seems a bit far fetched, stop and ask yourself why should the users ( note – users, not residents ) of South Sound road take this risk? Mr. Connolly has already said that the developer can make as much, if not more profit from a higher density land side development, there is probably more work for Caymanians generally in a higher density land side development, so someone explain to me why should the public take any risk of recurring and probably long lasting traffic dislocation?


    In a number of replies, Mr.Connolly has explained that ES does not increase the risk of flooding during a storm and in so doing acknowledges what we all know, that at some point ES will have to deal with storm surge and waves. My view is that a bridge and the elevated roads required to access the bridge  increase the danger that damage to South Sound road will be much more challenging to repair.  Everyone who went through Ivan should be in no doubt that any structure such as a bridge would be hard put to survive. Clearing South Sound road after Ivan was difficult but could be done with conventional heavy equipment so that the road was passable within a relatively short period of time. Having to rebuild a bridge and elevate roads which would almost certainly be swept away is a much more challenging and again, longer term project, during which all who would seek to use South Sound road would suffer. I have not seen the plans for the road elevation, but I am guessing that it is not intended to build a concrete seawall to protect the seaward side of the elevated road. If this is the case I would simply add that we do not have to suffer the nuclear option of an Ivan for waves to impact South Sound road. If my memory serves me correctly, both Mitch in the 1990's and Dean in 2007 had waves crossing South Sound road, so the danger of the elevated sections being undermined by wave action and the road being rendered impassable arises with sufficient regularity for this to be a real issue.


    It is Mr. Connolly's job to put the developer's position in the best light and he has done a good job so far. But you would be foolish to think that means giving the public a complete picture. Remember and I mean no disrespect whatsoever when I write this, but Mr. Connolly is on the developer's team and has a vested interest. I do not believe in win/win situations. In my experience a win/win is a situation where one party wins and the other doesn't know he's lost. 


    Apologies for the length of this post, but if it was painful to read, just think what typing it was like!

    • Jack N Meoph says:

      Perhaps one of the most well thought out, rationalized arguements to date on this issue…

      Indeed, I would almost go as far as to say this is perhaps one of the best counterpoint posts I have read.

      O'Really, I don't always agree with your posts or points of view.  But you have certainly earned the top of my respect on this one.  Not often Istick out reading a post that long and come away not thinking I just wasted 5 minutes of my life I will never get back.

      Good on you.  Other than Rene and Burns, I cannot think of anyone who could put a thumbs down on you – and even they should think twice before they do (but someone else didn't so far!!!)


    • Anonymous says:

      OK so we should completely shut up shop then? Just  becasue there are no certainities? Are there ever any certainities in life – no -. Will any one project please everyone – no. Will ever project benfit everyone – no.  Are there advantages and disadvanatges to very project  – yes. In other words I really do not get your point!

  3. Anonymous says:

    'loss of property value for the current owners'…….thats where the issue is for the nimbys…

    everything else is a smokescreen

  4. Anonymous says:

    Let's get the party started.  Looking forward to those bike/walking paths and amusement park for my kids!!! 

  5. Anonymous says:

     At the end, developers get what they want, if not immediately, then once the board has changed its members. Also, the board has no teeth and is getting probably A LOT of pressure from certain elected members.

    It is such a shame – once again, Cayman is lighyears behind. Where everywhere else is moving to preservation, embracing and respecting nature, in Cayman, we are not going to rest until everyhing has been "man made" and put into concrete! Other tropical Islands (not just in the in our area, but also South Pacific etc) have HUGE amounts of land which can not be developed. That is the reason a lot of people move there.

    Cayman is not Cayman anymore and hasn't been for a long time. We are so desperately trying to be like the USA it is pathetic. Look at 7 mile beach and how ugly it is now compared to years ago when you only had three story condo development there……..

  6. Like It Is says:

    We all know the number one reason for the objection:

    "Loss of property value for current property owners"

    It always is and always will be the main driver for planning NIMBYs.  Here is the rub.  iIf you buy land with a big patch of undeveloped sections nearby, someone is going to build on it.

  7. nauticalone says:

    I agree with the DoE and objectors of is project! Canals are not needed in South Sound.

    It makes no sense to make a "Replenishment Zone" where "the people" are arrested/convicted for taking a conch….then turn around and approve dredging so Rich Developers can futher enrich themselves while destroying the very same "Replenishment Zone/Environment"!

    This sort of socio/economic activity sends a clear message to "the people" (including our impressionable youth) that the laws are only for some. Such is NOT ethical….and will strongly undermine any possible long term benefit to our society.


  8. Anonymous says:

    I think some of the south sound residents have lost the right to complain.  Some of the more wealthy amongst them; pillars in the legal and financial industry have still to repair their houses after Ivan.  There are still a handful of homes abandoned and doing great harm to the surrounding property values.  Their owners simply bought or built a new house and left the old one to rot.  The owner would rather sell the land one day and make it someone else's problem. 

  9. Anonymous says:

    With all the empty properties around, and prices and rents falling like rocks, I can't fathom why anybody should be building anything.  The population is not increasing, it is shrinking as business in Cayman contracts!  Who on earth needs more housing in Cayman?

  10. Anonymous says:

    A develper must ask whathis underlying motivation is, – if ego satisfaction and greed he should reconsider. An objector must also ask what their underlying motivation is, – if selfishness and greed, they should also reconsider. If such a project really betters the community and environment neither will suffer as long as both aren't hampered with their vision. Both should question themselves and re-evaluate their true conditions to find a compatable compromise.  

  11. Jack N Meoph says:


    This cannot be allowed to go ahead.  

    Before the pitch-fork mob of anti-Dart-ites come out wailing that the proposals for Seven Mile Beach road changes are already setting a precedent to allow this, let me ask a couple of questions…

    1, Where is Rene putting the public beach and park in his development for use by ALL Caymanians?  I assume he is guaranteeing a continued right of way on the form of walking and biking paths along the existing road footprint, even if they fall into Mr-Millionaire's front lawn…

    2, I assume he will be funding and constructing the proposed arterial roads currently shown in the street atlas from Walkers' Road through to the Grand Harbour round about, and asides, and as an added gesture, will contribute to the east-west artery further out from Hirst Road – after all, the buyers of his Savannah developments deserve a better traffic flow…

    3, How many hotel rooms will he have in the development that will attract tourism dollars and recurring revenue for government and the country as a whole?

    4, Has he decided where he will locate his proposed school in the development?  You know, the school on the land that he is givving Government (read, you the PEOPLE of Cayman) for the added value he gets by moving the road…

    5, Can Mr Rene show me where the Dart proposals have included any canal systemsoriginating from any area OTHER than the North Sound, more specifically, along the Seven Mile Beach corridor?

    6, If allowed to go ahead, will Mr Rene please get all of his team and himself together to swear an affadavit that if future developments wish to carve canal access from points other than the North Sound, they will not only not object, but fully support such ventures?  Specifically, I assume he, and they, will have no problem when a certain land owner adjacent to his house decides to apply to put a canal across South Church Street, (and a bridge to not disturb the traffic flow) so the potential developer might then be allowed to build a small, super exclusive, canal community in the Webster's Estate area.  I am sure Mr Rene would not object to a proposed development of condos on said canal basin.  Indeed, as I see it, since this possible venture would not require fill, he could use it to make up for the defecit of fill in his plan, and since the canal would enter off the west coast, it would be sufficiently deep to avoid the need for a grant to excavate the ocean floor.

    I suspect question 6 will highlight just how NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) Mr Rene and his team are – there is no way on God's green earth he would allow this by his house.  Why should anyone else???

    But you, fellow South Sounders, YOU, that will be right next door, are subject to the whims and power of the rainbow team…

    You do know, a rainbow is located at the edge of the earth and the bucket of gold at the end of it is never found – seems the team wants us to go over the edge looking and know the only ones to walk away with a pot'o'gold, are they themsleves!!!

    Step Up and OBJECT.  This is not just a South Sound issue – time to march on the great green mansion and let them know, we AIN'T ON BOARD.

    • Soldier Crab says:

      I am against this proposed project all the way but it is you and people like you who have set the precedent. The South Sound which I knew as a child has been turned into some kind of South Beach wanna-be elitist crap. I have to pay for you because what you have already done kills the possibility of a moral high ground necessary to win this battle. This whole island is nothing like it used to be and it is pompous people in addition to people like the developer and architect of destruction who are the problem. Anyone who supports Dart is against the Cayman Islands, no matter which way you slice it. Anyone who voted for McKeeva Bush and his minions are against the Cayman Islands, and this situation is the proof of such. You have destroyed what was once paradise and are rendering it devoid of life and it is your hypocrisy which has sealed the deal. The anti-environment crowd of ignorant and worthless morons have identified this and, once again, it is Cayman that suffers. You all suck.

      • Jack N Meoph says:

        And you epitomise the crab mentality I hate in my fellow Caymanians.  Back in the bucket!!!

        Sounds like you would rather make thatch rope wearing whompers around the smoke pot…

        There is development as part of progress and development for greed.

        I do not agree with all the changes in Cayman over the past 50 years, and clearly most Caymanians and those speaking out against this project, the seaport/quarry and oil refinery agree.  We cannot change the past, but we can temper the future.

        For the sake of Cayman's future generations, it is time to take a long hard look at how much more we can develop when there is plenty of existing areas that have already been written off to past developers.  Let's use up all the existing canal front property, apartments at all economic levels and home sites before we go creating more!!!

  12. Anonymous says:

    The reason they didn't go through the the iron forest, is because Mr. Arden Mclean is a man for the people. Do you see any of the current government for the people?

    • Libertarian says:

      I haven't heard him speak yet for South Sounders.  I think he is a man for his own district.

      • Anonymous says:

        Think again,he had better find another district.Because he is not one of us,he is a judas,there is no political bridge for him  to try to pass over like the east dock saga.Ha ha want to past that bridge forget  about laying down in front of bulldozers.Better grow some wings or invest in helicopter.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Before this part of South Sound was developed, there was nothing but vegetation along the coast which prevented coastal flooding to a certain extent. It was a lovely peaceful place. However, one of the most interesting places in the area was Tarpon Lake.

    One could cautiously walk out to the end of the old rickety jetty, and watch the silver tarpons rolling over in the lake. It was said that the lake had an underground outlet to the sea. In the sixties the whole area was reclaimed. The tarpons habitat is gone. There must have been numerous animals that lived there. All were wiped out to facilitate the big houses you all now live in.

    Of course, once you purchased the land, it was yours to build on, and no one objected. Now someone next doors wants to fill in a bit of swamp land, and build more homes. Why are they being harrassed by people, who possibly live on top of an area, where the worst ecological disaster ever perpetrated by humans in the Cayman Islands took place?


    The coastal vegetation has long been replaced by huge houses. Nothing was said. Tennis courts were built, a rugby field, and numerous other houses where this beautiful lake used to be. Still nothing was said. I find it quite entertaining, people now are willing to take it upon themselves to attack this project next doors. Maybe most of you have never even heard of Tarpon Lake. Of course, you can utilize the now popular phrase in Cayman: NIMBY. What about the tarpons back yard, where your foundations now sit on?

    • Anonymous9 says:

      I'm so so sorry to hear this and if it had been going on today, you should believe that we would try to prevent that from happening too.

      However, that was back in the day when Cayman more eager than they are now to sell out. Development was the name of the game.

      It takes education to realize what you lose when you sell out. Education by life experience and past events doesn't seem to work around here. Caymanians have short memories and we all know it.

      So don't blame the Rugby Club, Tennis Club and all of those lovely homes.

      Come on now. Have you seen the horrific trophy statues in front of the new condo!!!???

      Shocking! There goes the neighborhood.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why do you assume that the objectors ALL live in South Sound in big houses? Most of them don't, they just care about Cayman. Yes, the sound was dredged 3 decades ago, we can't change that now but we can learn from it and never allow it to happen again.

  14. Burns Conolly AIA says:

    I am reminding everyone of the public presentation this evening at 7pm in the South Sound Community hall where I will present this project. Objectors and supporters alike welcome.


    We in fact have listened very carefully to the objectors comments and will show you the updated presentation tonight that addresses those concerns. We have done the same with the DOE concerns.


    I believe after seeing the research work we have done you will easily see all of the listed 'reasons' above are mere myth rather than actually having any basis in fact. You will be able to ask questions after the presentation as well. See you there.



    • Anonymous says:

      Why, with this project, do you repeatedly send out notices during times of the year when most people are on vacation?  Why do you not agree with postponing the meeting in question when its only four weeks later?  XXXX

      • Burns Conolly AIA says:

        Just for clarity we did not set the meeting date nor did we send out notices for it. That was the planning department. After waiting 18 months we simply asked the planning department to put it in front of the CPA. We received notice at the same time as the objectors, infact the client had to rearrange his travel as well.

        Why not agree to change it? The next available date would have been in October and even then we had no way of guaranteeing that all objectors would be on island. Given the fact that all objector’s letters are in front of the CPA anyway and they will see them, having the objectors show up at the CPA is more a visual protest than actually having any impact on whether this project meets the Planning Laws & Regulations. So I am comfortable that the CPA will have both sides of this project whether we show up next week or not.

        However I do think you all should agree that 18 months for a CPA hearing is a wait too long in the first place. it is almost as long as the four years that DOE and the ministry have taken to review the coastal works application! It took me 8 months just to get the DOE’s report from the ministry however it seems the media and objectors achieved that within a week. So I think all should recognize the patience that this developer has shown.

        • Anonymous says:

          Taking this into consideration, the timing the CPA chose itself where extremely suspect and odd.  It presents a very aggresive attitude for your company, and creates vexation.

          • xyz says:

            23rd Dec 2009 – Emerald Sound submits plans to CPA


            1st week of July 2011 – Emerald Sound re-submits plans to CPA


            Anything sound fishy about these dates to you???

            • Anonymous says:

              how do these dates seem fishy?

              • anonymous says:

                23rd December – hopes to catch people unaware or away as busy with christmas and new years holidays 


                Requesting to go before the board in early July – pretty much guaranteed that the meeting will take place in August sometime when it is know that many people in the area will be away

        • Anonymous says:

          To paraphrase the email from the CPA:

          "Regrettably, the applicant has informed the Department that they are unable to change the Central Planning Authority’s meeting date noted below for a later date in September."

          Something is amiss


    • Libertarian says:

      Dear Mr. Conolly

      The project sounds ambitious; and of course, I have no doubt that it will entail the creation of some jobs. The positives are there. However, regarding the Emerald Sound Development, the crux of the matter is, not so much as to "what" you do, but "how" you do it and how you relate with other people and their environment. Sadly, we live in a world where what people do matters more than how they do it or live their lives. Ethics is a component part of business that we should never do business without. Question:  Will the developer continue with the project if he sees more than 1/2 of the immediate South Sound community objecting to the project?  Will there be at least a special survey done paid by the developer to see a census as to who supports this development and who opposes it?  I believe it is ethical to "honor" the democratic rights of the South Sound community.

      Kind Regards

  15. Anonymous says:

    Let's get this project going!!! It looks beautiful!!!!

  16. Anonymous says:

    FURTHER: The ministers, specifically in George Town need to grow some balls and start the damn project!  and stop appeasing the couple of selfish people continually opposing everything.

    I'm sick and tired to watch this country development projects being hijakced by political obstructionists and selfish anti-development hogs (which of course already have THEIR property developed).  We are in economical downturns yet we have a bunch of eco freaks and  self absorbed politicians ready to throw themselves in front of bulldozers to stop any economical growth (not in their watch).


    I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of this website continually giving those idiots preference through ridiculously biased reporting.


  17. Anonymous says:

    Ok, I'm getting sick and tires of hearing these prophets of doom continually trashing development based on LIES and absolute extreme ECO wackyness nut jobs.  Or those who are simply motivated by selfishness and hogging greed.   Willing to kill job, prosperity for others for their own DAMN selfish interests! 


    • Risk of flooding
    • *** FALSE – The risk of flooding is the same during severe weather.  Flooding has to do with the storm surge and the level of the propery.  Proximity to a canal does not increase flooding, in fact it lowers the time of water retention in the event of a flood.  This notion keep being pedalled for anti-development reasons, and it utter rubbish.  Same goes for beach erosion.  Development does NOT cause beach erosion, currents do.
    • Damage to the marine replenishment zone
    • *** BS: Development does NOT injure marine life. If you live in cayman you'll know where to go catch lobsters.  In the man made dredges.  In south Florida, we catch fish and lobsters around man-made bridges.  the notion that is constantly mongered by anti-development nut cases that man is somehow out of synch with nature is utter BS!
    • Pollution of the South Sound water with swamp water and sewage flowing into South Sound
    • *** FALSE PREMISE: the swamp as been and is continually being flushed into the south sound!  The water is not contained within the swamp!  This is true for all of the dykes on the Islands, not just south sound!  the entire north sounds swamp is continually flowing into the sound.  The reef are fine and will continue to be irrespective of dredging.  This is utter political non-sense or simply driven by selfish people who live in the sound that don't want any other persons to develop there.
    • The setting of a dangerous precedent
    • *** BS: the premises of the arguments are non-sense and false
    • The moving of scenic coastline road solely for a developers benefit
    • *** SUBJECTIVE: and of course maily by those who already live there.  Instead of buying the property for themselves, they simply want to block anyone from developing.
    • No benefit to the Cayman Islands except the very short term gain
    • *** TOTAL BS: this development will inject more than 25 million into the local economy as JOBS not including the long term real estate increase in value
    • Concerns about water circulation and waste management, with particular reference to the outflows and problems in Randyke Gardens
    • *** MIND BOGGLING BS:  the creation of canals hel water flow, this is WHY THEY CREATE DYKES
    • The inability of all professionals consulted to date to come up with a consistent view of the the true impact a development of this sort would have on the land and marine environment
    • *** The environment impact studies are GUESSES by people who are going to rack up a multi-million dollar study which will conclude nothing more than basic common sense will.  suckers!
    • Loss of property value for current property owners
    • Loss of the use of South Sound for all who swim, fish or just enjoy the unpolluted beauty of the waters
    • *** The swamp is and has always dumped into the sound and its actually healthy for marine life.  This is why you have SNOOK in Cayman and the DOE is too stupid to even know about them or mention them as part of Cayman marine life, never mind protect them.
    • Lack of a cost benefit analysis to establish net benefit to the country as a whole
    • *** Utter Rubbish
    • Anonymous says:

      You sound really smart.  I especially like the use of block capitals to make your point.  Very authoritative. However someone of your obvious brainpower and command of CAPSLOCK should try to better understand the points they argue against.

      >Risk of flooding

      >Obviously will be an issue.  If you go to South Sound you will see there is currently a natural berm or levee that runds along the coast.  The canal would create a breach in this natural storm wall and mean that even small storms could have an impact.  You are right that the canal will provide a means for water drainage.  This is good as there will be more frequent flooding.

      As far as erosion it is certainly caused by development.  The backhoes will 'erode' a rather large gouge in the beach.  Then the natural processes that prevent or mitigate erosion such as longshore drift of sediment will be interrupted by the new gap.  Lastly the wakes from the boat traffic (that is what canals are for) will erode either side of the canal just like they do everywhere else. 

      >Damage to marie replenishment Zone

      >Silt from the dredging of the channel and from the digging of the canal may damage the coral.  Leaching of the organic matter from the peat layer under the marl could create alge blooms etc.  I say could bcause I would not presume to knoe exactly what would happen.  However is it worth a gamble without more study?

      >Swamp Pollution

      >False assumption.  Very little swamp drains into south sound at present.  Apart from some of the ladies at the rugby club there are no dykes in south sound anyway.


      >Obviously if it can be done once it can and will likely be done again and again.  That is the defintion of a precedent.  You cant just say BS if you cant refute an argument.

      > Changing of coastline

      >When you buy property it is zoned a certian way.  If people want to change the way land is used after you buy of course you have a right to object.

      >No long term benefit

      >undetermined but I cant see how increasing the supply of real estate in an overstaurated market will raise prices

      >concerns over water poluttion

      >Yes thats why they create dykes but they do it to fix a problem of which there is none here

      >Loss of property value

      > maybe, maybe not.  More supply = more competition when time to sell so jury is still out.

      >Snook on Island

      >DOE failed to mention Snook? Shock horror.  I didnt know there was an exhaustive census done on marine life.   We must get on this problem right away.


      Oops its 5 gotta go.



  18. Libertarian says:

    They should have a law in place that all proposed developments of this sort, should be supported by at least 50% of the registered people of a community that would be effected by the projects. If more than 50% oppose it, the developer would be unable to propose such a development again until after 10 years recess. Come on Cayman!  We have to ensure that people are represented and voices heard in their communities. You can't have 80 residents opposing a project versus 1 man, and at the end of the day that 1 man, gets what he wants. Money should not be over the people! 

    • Anonymous says:

      And compensate them for any devaluation of their property due to their development

    • B.B.L. Brown says:

      Sounds like a good law.  If the people in the area don't want a change, FOR ANY REASON, they should not be trod upon by greedy people standing to gain from the change.  Isn't that what democracy really is all about?

  19. Durrrr says:

    Excellent. The vocal minority have finally listed their grounds of objection. Lets go through the list:

    • Risk of flooding

    South Sound is already at the risk of flooding. This development will be filled higher than the existing road berm, so the risk of flooding will be reduced.

    • Damage to the marine replenishment zone

    What damage? If anything this may improve the water quality of the replenishment zone, as it will reduce the amount of swamp water which already flows under the road after heavy rain.

    • Pollution of the South Sound water with swamp water and sewage flowing into South Sound

    See above. This development will reduce the amount of swamp in South Sound – therefore less swamp water. The sewage claim is plainly nonsense.

    • The setting of a dangerous precedent

    What precedent? And why is it dangerous? There are already dozens of canals in Cayman, so the precedent has already been set. There is possibly room for one other canal in South Sound.

    • The moving of scenic coastline road solely for a developers benefit

    There is no scenic coastline at the site of the proposed development. It is swamp on the north and bush (and a house) on the South.Another myth.

    • No benefit to the Cayman Islands except the very short term gain

    Providing a boost to the construction industry is a clear benefit to Cayman. I would also say that reduced swap = less mosquitoes, a definite long term benefit.

    • Concerns about water circulation and waste management, with particular reference to the outflows and problems in Randyke Gardens

    Randyke has been a problem for years. Are we really saying that people should not be able to develop their property because a (relatively) distant neighbour has built without properly filling or providing adequate drainage on their property? Now that would be a dangerous precedent.

    • The inability of all professionals consulted to date to come up with a consistent view of the the true impact a development of this sort would have on the land and marine environment

    Who are these professionals? The answer of course is that the 'true impact' will be minimal.

    • Loss of property value for current property owners

    On what basis is this claim made? Surely the removal of neighbouring swampland will increase property values.

    • Loss of the use of South Sound for all who swim, fish or just enjoy the unpolluted beauty of the waters

    More absolute nonsense. Please explain how this development will result in the 'loss of use of South Sound'.

    • Lack of a cost benefit analysis to establish net benefit to the country as a whole

    Is this a requirement under the planning laws? Didn't think so.

  20. Stiffed-Necked Fool says:

    I remember when PPM were the Government, The Hon Arden McLean was planning to build a road through the Iron Forest, but with the objections from the Cayman people Mr McLean scraped the plan. He listened to the voice of the people.

    There is a large outcry by Caymanians all over the Island, against this development so why can't the Planning Department, Government, the Architect and the Developer all listen to the voice of the people?

    Put the almighty Dollar aside and think of Cayman first for a change!

    Mrs Walker, please keep up the good fight with the rest of the South Sound residents as we are behind you.

    • Durrrr says:

      I really wish unna would stop claiming to speak for the rest of South Sound residents. I know many South Sounders who support this development, or at the very least do not care either way.

      • Katrina Jurn says:

        I have gone door to door in South Sound over the last week along with 6 other people. We've spoken to hundreds of people. Everyone who was home. 


        Of these hundreds of people:


        – One person (who was not from or living in South Sound) supported the project. He was in construction and hoped to get work from the project.


        – Two others were on the fence.


        EVERYONE else expressed that they either were very strongly OPPOSED or were very concerned about it or did not support the project.


        Durrr – do you you really live in South Sound? Have you really been talking to South Sounders who support this project?

        Note that not one person who claims to support the project has given their name, with the exception of the developer's spokesperson. And one gentleman from East End who called into Radio Cayman last week .

      • Stiffed-Necked Fool says:

        Durrrr, yea right!

        I live there and I have not heard ONE resident in agreement so stop being mischievous!

      • Anonymous says:

        I call Bullsxxt on this statement.

        You unna don't know 'many' South Sound residents who support this because most of them don't. unna

  21. Anonymous says:

    Although I agree with the author,  the people can come back from vacation and attend that meeting.    Unless their vacation is more important than the future of South Sound.

    I mean it is all relative.


    • Anonymous says:

      Yes Sir, I was just about to say the very same thing.  CPA is unwilling to change the date, then you change yours – simple as that.  Unless attending that meeting is not all that important…

    • South Sound Resident says:

      In an ideal world where money is no obstacle yes. 


      Do you expect hundreds of people + possibly 2, 3 or 4 children to fly back from Europe or Asia or wherever they may be?


      Clearly it would be more reasonable to change the date which would only require changing travel plans (and some small change of date fee) for the applicant's team of 2, 3, maybe 4 people 

      • Anonymous says:

        "hundreds of people + possibly 2, 3 or 4 children to fly back from Europe or Asia"

        So the 2, 3 or 4 children are not people?

        I don't know who this "South Sound Resident" is, but they certainly don't truely seem like an actual south sound resident.

        As I understand from the compass/cns articles these notices were sent out 3 weeks before the meeting, if that is the case, why could these people AFFLUENT enough to GO to europe or asia (where most true caymanians have never been because of cost) not adjust their travel plans to appear before the CPA if this was truely so important to them.

        And for what it is worth there seems to be quite enough fuss about the place about this project without the "hundreds of people in asia"

        • Anonymous says:

          I guess you don't know any TRUE Caymanian who is taking their kid up to college in the UK for the first time and certainly can't afford to change there ticket. There are quite a few of us you know.