EAB dump review curtailed

| 08/06/2012

dump demo (242x300).jpg(CNS): Board minutes released by the Water Authority following a freedom of information request have revealed that government limited the parameters of an environmental review of the proposed new waste-management site in Bodden Town.  The minutes show that the Environmental Advisory Board set up to assess the proposal for Dart to establish a new landfill in the Midland Acres area must confine itself to examining the proposal and not to what would be the most suitable overall waste management solution for Grand Cayman. The revelation has outraged the members of a local pressure group campaigning to have the George Town dump dealt with on site and not moved to their district.

The Coalition to Keep Bodden town Dump Free made the FOI request for information and were stunned to see that the minutes reveal explicit orders from government ministers to the EAB to limit what it reviews and not to look at alternate sites or consider other solutions but to look solely at the dart proposition.

Although an EAB is not yet a legal requirement in Cayman because of the failure of the government to enact the National Conservation Bill on larger projects, the boards are being established as a matter of good governance. However, in this case the terms of reference have been significantly curtailed to examine the impact on the immediate environment of the first part of the new site the islands’ largest developer has promised to construct in exchange for the current landfill.

Dart proposes to build only phase one — a single cell on what could eventually be a state of the art waste-management centre — if government were to make the rest of necessary investment to set up recycling, reuse, composting or waste to energy solutions. Once Dart has lined the one landfill cell site, it intends to hand that over to the Department of Environmental Health to manage and then it proposes to take over the George Town dump to remediate and cap that site, which is next to its major investment, Camana Bay.

The minutes make it clear that Dart proposes only to develop one landfill cell site and no other elements of the new facility on a 100-acre site. Government has touted the proposal as a modern eco-park but the minutes show Dart is only proposing to create a new lined cell where the DoEH can start a new garbage pile. Any further investment or development of modern waste-management facilities will be in the hands of government.

The coalition continues to be alarmed at the proposal as it says it wants to see government tackle the dump at the present location instead of risking contamination of a new site, especially given its environmentally sensitive location, its proximity to residential communities and that it is a considerable distance from the capital, where the majority of waste is generated.

Campaigners have raised concerned that no research or analysis has been done about the proposed new dump and that government has simply accepted the Dart proposal without properly considering the alternatives, especially after the original Dart bid for the landfill was rejected by the technical committee set up by government when it carried out an RFP for the dump soon after assuming office. The CTC had recommended a waste-to-energy solution on site in GT with a leading American waste firm Wheelabrator, which had partnered with Cayman Waste Management Ltd, a local company.

The coalition has persistently asked government to identify clearly the reasons why it ditched its agreement to tender the waste-to-energy facility to solve the George Town landfill problem where it is, without contaminating a new site.

“Government inexplicably ignored due process, transparency, and the Central Tenders Committee (CTC), which recommended the WTE proposal as its first choice. The CTC rejected Dart’s proposal to move the dump and gave it the lowest marks of any option considered, because of 'grave concern' about the impact of a dump in an 'environmentally sensitive' area,” a coalition spokesperson said this week on receiving the minutes. “Government and Dart have yet to answer a single Coalition question, or produce any of the documents asked for.”

Campaigners received responses to FOI requests last month from both the NRA and the planning department, both of which stated they had no records to release in response to the request by the coalition about meetings with Dart on the proposed new dump.

Flyers placed in Bodden Town post boxes in early February from the ForCayman Investment Alliance stated that "meetings have occurred” between Dart and Government about the proposed new Bodden Town landfill, a claim not supported by either plannnig or the NRA.

Category: FOI

Comments (66)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. furious-btowner says:

    Quite logically furious: 3

    6. The problem of the GT dump and Mount Trashmore must be dealt with urgently, and the right solution is a waste-to-energy facility at the present site, along with mandatory sorting and recycling. Since McKeeva had embraced the WTE solution last year, as recommended by the CTC, we have to assume that required funds must have been available, whether through financing from Wheelabrator or from new revenue streams (tipping fee, sale of electricity and potable water, etc.) or from elsewhere. And, if they weren't, a quick review of money squandered by Government over the years would prove that a WTE facility could already have been paid for. As well, let's factor in the money Dart is already promising to spend to rid itself of the sight and smell of the dump, in addition to the value of their Midland Acres holdings, which they could keep or sell, and we can count on eliminating Mount Trashmore in short order, and on proper future management of the GT landfill. Let's harness Dart's desire and resources to the interests of our country and its environment, rather than the reverse.

  2. furious-btowner says:

    Quite logically furious: 2

    5. Dart purchased the Camana Bay land knowing that the GT dump was there — and probably paid much less for it because of that — with no guarantee whatsoever from anyone that the pile of trash would not get higher. In fact, common sense dictates that it would get higher, and exponentially so as the island develops. Dart now wants the dump "out of its backyard" so that it can proceed with its "future residential project" adjacent to the dump, and is offering Government the "quick fix it needs to "export" the problem elsewhere and avoid its responsibility of solving the problem where it is. But, a dump is never moved; a new site is never contaminated, especially not one where residents and property owners had no prior knowledge of a dump in their backyard; especially not one so far from the source of over 90% of the island's waste; especially not one zoned residential and agricultural; especially not one with no major roadway access; especially not one in a wide open area so vulnurable to wind and natural disasters; especially not one considered environmentally sensitive; especially not one which was not selected by any identified Government entity, through any sort of open, impartial, and consulttative process.

  3. furious-btowner says:

    Quite logically furious:

    1. I wonder whi is missing the "big point". There may, quite regrettably, be no legal requirement at present for an EAB, an EAB review, or even an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). But, to believe that we should be "grateful" for Government granting the restricted EAB review and agreeing to an EIA, is utterly naive.  This feeble move is in response to the public pressure against moving the GT dump to BT, and we in fact should be grateful to those who have had the courage to speak out and oppose this senseless plan.

    2. The EAB review is an attempt to whitewash a scandalous and irresponsible proposal by a government in the pocket of big money — completely out of touch with the people and the interests of our country, a government without the backbone or concern for our environment to enact the National Conservation Bill, and to make such essential reviews mandatory. Rather than accepting the legally unprotected state of our environment, it should be lamented; rather than applauding the "crumbs" being offered, the "big point" is to demand of our elected leaders that they lead, that they set the example, that they act to protect our environment by fixing the landfill problem where it is.

    3. It would be normal that an EAB be ordered to look at the proposed BT dump specifically, if Government had ordered a prior, impartial and public review of solutions to the GT dump problem by a ministry, an environmental department, board or authority, and if it had ordered such a prior review of alternate locations for the dump, if indeed it had to be moved.  The people of these islands still do not know which government entity decided that the dump had to be moved, and that the Midland Acres site is the best. Muzzling the EAB in these circumstances is scandalous, irresponsible and completely unacceptable — an attempt to legitimize a proposal with disastrous potential.

    4. Aside from the fact that it did not respect the framework of the call for tenders as set by Government itself, the CTC rejected the Dart proposal and rated it the worst of all, because of "serious concern" about putting a dump in an "environmentally sensitive area". If indeed there's reason to believe that the GT dump solution should not be limited to the present site, and that the call for tenders was defective, then it's clearly Government's responsibility to reveal the impartial study proving this, and then to call for a new and open tendering process. Or are we simply to ignore due process, transparency and the environmental alarm expressed, and go with the Dart proposal because it didn't respect the tendering conditions?

    • Anonymous says:

      Simmer down man, simmer and get logical. The present site is leaching into north sound, is on main tourist drive and new airport bypass, is too small and when on fire because of poor sorting puts smoke over out seven mile beach. To use the present site it needs government (the people) to pay $50million and take 18 years to sort. In that time the dump will triple in size. Come on guys, it does not take too many brain cells to know that this needs to move. Does it go to Breakers? That’s another question but whether thus needs to move, you really don’t need a PHD to figure that out.

      • Anonymous says:

        Please check your facts, if you're at all interested in the truth.  The space is certainly there since the scrap metal was removed, and Government owns the adjacent land should more be required.  The cost would be much les than the figure you throw out, and the present site could be cleaned up in about two years — less than the time required for the Dart proposal.  In that proposal, Dart would have nothing to do with managing the BT dump, and why would we assume that Government would do a better job than at the GT dump.  However, with Dart involved in fixing the dump where it is, we could rely on their participation to ensure proper future management.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Too bad Mac didn't take the money he used for the re-paving,of his friends driveways, in Brac and the money he gave to HIS church and use that money for a REAL study as to how the dump problem could be solved using recycling and other modern methods.Remember  the money that he so easily gives to his friends belongs to the PEOPLE of Cayman not him. Instead he justs wants to dump on BoddenTown so his pal Lord Dart can get the present dump out of his BACKYARD.When are the Cayman people going to awake and see that Dart and Mac are only looking out for themselves NOT the country of Cayman.

  5. Anonymous says:

    There are other solutions. Privatize recycling! Get state of the art equipment to burn the rest. All this can be done at the present site.

  6. anonymous says:

    You all are missing a BIG point. There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR AN EIA. Nor does the EAB really have any stature or authority.

    You can wish all you want and IMAGINE that the EAB means something and that an EIA should do this or that…it is meaningless- Not required and without authority. We should be gratefull government even asked EAB their opinion.

    • Anonymous says:

      So are you are also implying an EIA is neither an ethical requirement or responsibility in the absence of any stature or responsibility?

      Then again an EIA paid for by Dart would hardly be biased would it. Consultants are typically held to task, screw ethics and write what ever the client wants in the EIA.

  7. furious-btowner says:

    CNS headline is fair, accurate and informative:

    It is certainly not normal — nor acceptable — that the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) be ordered by Government to limit the scope of its work.  In fact, in the present context, instructing the EAB to not review the "most suitable overall waste management solution for Grand Cayman", and "not to examine alternatives for the location of the WMF in Bodden Town" is scandalous. Restricting the EAB review to a specific site and design might be normal if the public knew which government entity or environmental body did decide that the GT dump had to be moved, and which one selected BT as the best alternate site.  After all, such studies, deliberations and decisions on an issue so crucial to the environment of the entire island can't possibly be trusted to a private company with a distinct interest in the matter, or to their hired "experts".  It's essential that such decisions be made openly and impartially, by entities responsable to the people, before any curtailed review of a "specific design".  Regrettably, the people have no idea who decided these fundamental questions, how or when.  All we know is that only Dart can benefit by the senseless contamination of a second site, by getting the GT dump "out of its backyard".  The EAB should, on the contrary, be ordered to review the Dart proposal, all the more so as it was rejected by the Central Tenders Committee as the worst of all studied options for solving the present landfill problem, one which according to the CTC, raised "serious concerns" for an "environmentally sensitive area".

    • Anonymous says:

      Dear Furious Btowner,

      Why don't you read Anon 13.44 below. He/She is correct. EIAs do only look at specifics being proposed. That is why they are never done BEFORE a project is initiated. That is why they are called IMPACT statements!

      So, okay, we understand you dont want the dump in BT but dont make up stuff to suit your argument. It shows you are more 'furious' than logical- not good.

      BTW, CTC only listed the Dart proposal last because it did not directly answer the call to do something on the existing site- that is all–not that it was technically bad. As they say in Jamaica…simmer down man!

    • SKEPTICAL says:

      Who on Earth could thumbs down this comment – if many more appear, obviously the Dart Night Shift has just clocked- in

  8. Anonymous says:

    CNS, your headline on this story is completely misleading. When environmental reports are being created the reviewing party only looks at a SPECIFIC DESIGN ON A SPECIFIC SITE EXECUTED IN A SPECIFIC MANNER.

    They are never asked to find a global solution for anything. This is standard international practice.

    If the country wants to look at the best solution for solid waste it should create a committee of all interested technical parties and ask them the question.  

    While it does not really matter to me if the dump moves or not, I do think its a disservice to the public to make such a sensational headline that makes it seem that this is a strange scenario. In fact, if they had asked them for anything else I would have been more surprised.

    Lets do a little research next time to get it correct. There is enough hype and spin on both sides of this one that we need to rely on an unbiased press to figure it out. Otherwise you just become another political blog with minimum credibility.

  9. Cayman silent Hypocrites says:

    I like your Style Cow itch that sure made me laugh It speaks of the great hypocrisy of Cayman.Recently a certain so called prominent family who holds regular opposition meetings in dey yard has sold a very large piece of their property to Dart and are now slinking around with his money in their pockets to keep their avarious appetite for the good life and to pay off those enormous debts they acquired on their path to keep up with the Jones. Oh yes quite as a mouse now in their outrage and opposition along with their parties loyalist to what Mr Dart is doing to our little Island so long as i get some of his money to keep up appearances with the well to do at Camana Bay.What a shame some our people have so low morales and principals just to satisfy their materialistic desires. See you in the mall guys your friend Bling

    • anonymous says:

      Just for your information, it was announced yesterday that 1,000 persons now work at Camana Bay and Mr Dart's total investment here has topped $800,000,000. So if you think Mr Dart and Camana bay is not contriuting to this economy and has not since Hurricane Ivan, you need to think again. Less jealosy and more logic please.

      • Anonymous1 says:

        FYI, Cow itchs comment is sarcastic and points at the hypocrisy of some of the Cayman people that hate Dart but love going to Camana Bay. It also points to the people that hate Dart after they sold him thier property.  It again points to the people who have family or friends that work at Camana Bay and also hate Dart even though he has provided the opportunity for employers to expand and employ thier family and friends.

        I like you style Cow Itch, what a bunch of hypocrites.  Talk about biting the hand…..

      • CROSSDRESSED says:

        13:49  I have to agree with you 100 percent.  I do not work because I do not need to, but there is no place I would rather be than here in Cayman.

        I have been here long before Dart, and what I have seen this man contributed to this country is more than words can say.  People critize the Dart Foundation for buying up property, but I have never heard on the radio or read in the paper that he had put a gun to anyone head to sell.  I am not going to sell, but If I wanted to it would be my decision, and it would be to him, because he is not selfish in his contributions..

        As I have listened and watched the progress of Dart Foundation, and very often RUBBED SHOULDERS with the rich and famous at CAYMANA BAY,  I have gathered enough information to realize that the 95% of people against Dart Foundation is not Caymanians.  Thats  very amazing.  Business persons who have MADE  IT BIG in Cayman for over  20 to 40 years  it is time you realize that the pie can be shared.

        These same people who are against Dart is always at Caymana Bay sucking up all the goodness being offered by the Foundation.   How Hipocritical.    13:49, I was here before and after Hurricane Ivan.   Objectors may object, and opposers may  oppose; but the fact is,  as I saw things unfolded before my eyes after the Hurricane IVAN,  if it was not for MR BUSH, and the Dart Foundation this Island would still be struggling.  Of course there are persons who personally do not like these men, and there are  some Caymanians who are being led to slaughter  by following people who do not care about you personally,  but intelligenmt people would consider where we  were then  and consider where we are now.  I continue to read of people complaints but I have never heard one of the complainers or opposers come up with a better solution than is being offered.  

         

  10. Anonymous says:

    Again, Dart is the BIGGEST NIMBY-ist.

     

    It is OBVIOUS that we can deal with the WTE at the current site, that's why six out of seven BETTER bids had plans to do so. We have the technology, we have the avenues to finance it, all we need now is a Government with vertebra, not the worms, crabs, and parasitic bacteria that we have now.

    • anonymous says:

      …but do you have the 18 YEARS and the $50 Million dollars that Arden's plan called for??? That is truly the big question here. If not, the GT site is not even a true option…think about it!

    • Anonymous says:

      Can you spell Dart and Greece?????

  11. Anonymous says:

    Can you believe it? The Minister with responsibility for protecting the Environment is one of those hell-bent on destroying the Bodden Town environment by supporting Dart's proposal to start a new dump in Bodden Town, yeah Bodden Town, the same district that the Minister of Environment was elected to represent. Mel Brooks couldnt come up with this stuff!

    • Anonymous says:

      Yup, the same Minister who promised to push the Environment Bill through too – it'd be funny if it wasn't so serious.

    • anonymous says:

      Mel Brooks whould say, "It's GOOD TO BE DA KING!!"…

    • Firedup says:

      09:39   Since you do not approve of this being put in Bodden Town.  Will you please give some valuable suggestions.

      That is the problem with you opposers, you oppose and oppose, but I do not hear one good  solution, that'w what every one is saying.

  12. Anonymous says:

    So what say all you who kept saying its ALL being paid for by Dart and won't cost the government (or should I say us) anything?  What ya got to say now?  Is Dart's proposal still better than those who were already accepted in the previous proper tendering process?

  13. Anonymous says:

    This is whole situation is ridiculous, moving the dump to satisfy one man when so many people are against it – seriously where are we living that we allow this to be pushed down our throats, stand up cayman. And if you people who don’t care about Bodden Town think this decision won’t affect you – think again!

    • anonymous says:

      There are actually 6,000 voters and 20,000 people other than Dart living in GT…..how about satisfying them??

  14. The Reviewer says:

    There are two issues here (at least).

     

    1) Should this Impact Review have focused on more than just the one site (and technology). Maybe, maybe not. As someone else said a review of the impact of a project is usually fairly site specific. However, it also usually includes an opinion on the 'if the project isn't done' option, which helps the reviewers (and the public) understand the 'lost opertunity costs', etc., of not proceeding with the project. It also often includes a review of alternate sites; because an impact can often be mitigated by moving it. (The same goes for alternate technologies; there is often more than one way to construct a building or to esing around a problem, or to deal with waste.) Remember, the impact report is to help the regulators (Government, and the public who they act on behalf of) and to a lesser extent the proposers decide if a project is in the best interest of the country as a whole, and if there is sme way to minimise the 'costs' while maximising the 'benefits' (this is where the proposers' interests come in).  So we don't have enough information in this article to realy deide if limiting the review was a wrong decision or not. It could go either way depending on the reasoning. Especialy if there were previous reviews of technology and location before this stage of the discussion. (Whether you accept that stage of the reivew is up to you.) Similarly, other limitations, such as the impact only on the 'immediate environment', etc. The more the review is focused the less use it is to planners who will have to take in to account the broader implications and effects of the new dump.

     

    2) Has the information being put forward to the public been accurate. Looking at the plans shown and the statements made, this would appear to not be the case. The plans allways show a completed project. What is being built is not a completed project. (Unless Government's 12/13 budget blows our socks off when its presented before the new budget year starts.) This also leads to the issue of the remediation of the existing site. Or the 'capping' as it is sometimes noticeably carefully referred to. What, exactly, will be done with the existing site when Govt. hands it over (in return for a lined site ~1/6 the size they will eventually need, without any of the ancillary buildings they now have at the existing site much less that they need to make the proposed new site match the artists renderings). And, of course, that leads one to wonder if the current impact assessment has been curtailed to not include the current site's 'capping', or if that too needs its own assessment process. Again, that could go either way depeding on your view of the overall project. (Discrete steps each with its own assessment, or one super-project.)

     

    So, to be fair to the proposal, this EIA needs to be reviewed along with one or two others. The initial site (and technology) selection reviews and the review of the remediation plans for the current site. If these do not exist (unfortunately I do not see the former on the FCIA website) or were inadequate in some way (such as the CTC report when they were revieweing bids based on a RFP for a different solution, not a general 'most apropriate solution' assessment) then it is not unreasonable to expect that they either be redone or included in a 'super-review' of the entire scope of the plan. Not just the proposal to build a single hole in the ground to dump garbage in. So, whether this limitation was a fair one or not depends on your point of view. If the porpoal is selected should be based on the weight of all of the assessments, or the assessment of all of the issues, not just on the impact of a single part of the overall slution / problem.

  15. Anonymous says:

    not a fan of the udp but there is no scandal here……. it makes perfect sense for the eab to review the impact of the choosen location and not all other options…..

    this type of story gives the media a bad name…… but panders nicely to cave/nimby people…

    • Anonymous says:

      The only NIMBY on this occasion, is DART

      • Anonymous says:

        or 80% of the island population…..  

        only a 'cave' man would advocate the dump remining in its current position…

  16. Anonymous says:

    Of course the review was restricted to a specific site – surelythat's how the process works? A site is selected for a variety of reasons and then is subjected to an environmental review to see whether that impact outweighs the benefits of the other selection criteria. It's not the environmental review team's job to select a site, it's their job to review the site that's already been chosen. 

     

     

    • Anonymous says:

      And its no ones job in Government to make sure the people of Cayman have any benifits over  Government.  I guess its the Government they deserve.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well, that is all well and good, but where is the assessment of the BEST place for a landfill? Pick a place and then try to manipulate everything to make it seem like it is the right location, same thing with the cruise ship berthing facility. Government should have developed a strategic plan to identify the most suitable location for all such facilities (landfill, seaport, airport, etc.). I guess the strategy is "he who pays the piper calls the tune"!

      • Anonymous says:

        Well, I remember Rolston saying that if there was sufficient space in West Bay, he would support reloacting the landfill to West Bay.

         

        maybe we should start looking where in West Bay may be suitable. I KNOW! How about all that land just off / south of Batabano, y'know, where Dart has that nursery…, how about down there?? Rollie? Rollie.., where u goin.., ROLLIE?? Wait!

        • Anonymous says:

          Moving it to WB is a good idea.  But please, lets move it to McKeeva yard.

          • Firedup says:

            I have always observed the people of West Bay to be very conscious of their walk and talk and I really cannot believe the idel talk of 16:39 is comming from a West Bayer.  They are more intelligent than that.

            Apparently the people of West Bay do not want the dump in WEST BAY.  A few residents in  Bodden Town says they do not want it.   Has anyone considered all the wasted land in the back of East End and North Side.  Why dont the Government put it up there.  If not then pleas give me a sensible intelligent solution.  I am so tired of people judging Caymanians by the foolishness they speak.  Be positive.

          • Anonymous also says:

            His yard already has a green chian link fence around it paid for by the people and making the neighbour hood look cheap.

    • Anonymous says:

      You are exactly right!  So, where is the "other selection criteria" reports to compare the ERB review to?  Nowhere, according to the other associated departments of the Government.  All of a sudden, the FOI employees in these departments have been told not to release any information on this sugject.  No one knows what happened to all of the data gathered that said "CHOOSE BODDEN TOWN" as the new location for a dump. Or, choose anywhere; West Bay, 7-Mile Beach, South Sound, Savannah, Lower Valley, Breakers, Frank Sound, East End, North Side, Rum Point, Kai Bo for that matter!  Not. It's another convenient way to cr*p all over the Caymanian people.  Compare?  FOI?  What a joke! 

  17. SKEPTICAL says:

    Well not a whole hell of a surprise – just another example of Government trying to manipulate the processes in an attempt to get the minimum done, that will get Dart off their back over the Mount Trashmore ” Not in my back yard ” problem.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I believe the Dart foundation should approach the residence of Cumber Avenue  in Bodden Town.  Buy out all the homes and use that area for a dump, because it would seem the residence of that area will always be under water no matter which Government takes over.  I feel sorry for those poor people, and as I have heard complaints it has been so for the past seven years. Residents have even lost all of their furniture and appliances, and I wonder if they will be assisted to buy them back.

    • Cow Itch says:

      Dear Kenneth

      I hate your guts…

      I know everytime you see me at Camana Bay through your camaras,

      eating your icecream, licking your popsicles, and playing in your water,

      you just cant stand me!

      FYI, my 1.5 million dollar house in Cumber Avenue is not for sale, Kenneth!

      So pleaseeeee you better dont buy it !!!

      I DARE YOU!  I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

      DON'T BUY MY HOUSE!

      Cow Itch

       

       

      • Anonymous says:

        Cow itch you have mental issues totally unrelated to Dart please seek help.

    • noname says:

      Right!  Put the new dump in a flood zone.  Only a fool would build a house there which would explain your post.

      • my my says:

        The area is historic and never flooded until the Lookout Acres road /dam was built. This is the type of thing a real planning department would have foreseen.

        • Ethelred says:

          You seem to have found a new meaning for "historic".  Apparently it just now means somewhere someone has lived for a bit longer than most areas.

          • Twyla Vargas says:

            Ethelred I believe  when the commenter spoke of Historic  in the Cumber avenue area, they are really referring to the following sites:

            PLEASE NOTE BELOW AND CONSIDER IF THESE ARE GOOD ENOUGH REASONS FOR  ANY GOVERNMENT TO WANT TO PRESERVE THIS PLACE.

             

            (1)  FIRST WELL, (a government owned well on Government property Had to be used back the to drink bathe and cook).

            (2)  THE OLDSLAVE WALL, which was built by slaves back then to separate the Town from the back land.

            (3)  THE OLD MISSION HOUSE,  (built by slaves, and used as resident for the Church pastor).

            (4)  BIG ROCK HILL, ( a gathering place for the men back then.)

            (5)  GRASS PIECE.  (land used by residents back then to cultivate  food kind)

            (6)  GUN SQUARE  (Historic site with the  Cannons)

            (7) PAH  NAISBERRY TREE  ( This tree is over 200 years old, Now privately owned, was the area of the first bakery and grocery story, also the gathering place for Men back then,

            (8)  CUMBER PARK  (well kept, owned by government)

            (9)  HARRY McCOY PARK  well kept owned by Government

            (10) MS. JOSIE SENIOR CENTRE (well kept attractive centre, museum house, and well used)

            (11) CAPTAIN WATSON BAKERY, ( belonging to Captain Henry Watson back then, building still standing)

            (12) PA TERRY BAKERY ( The first bakery in the Town, Now private owned, belonged to Livingstone Terry back then)

            (13) MS. MYRTLE POND. (Back of the mission house, where residents went to catch Higatee, shoot birds and catch crabs all for food survival.

            (14)  BLOW HOLE (inland blow hole, now covered by Government road in front of Levy's property)

            (15)  PIRATES CAVES ( On Harry McCoy Property close to BIG ROCK now  they are private owned and has been covered up for personal use.

            (16) TAMARIND TREE: (Netty Levy Crescent, home of Granny Back yard, the longest living resident who died at age 106.

            This Now Flooded area is my home town.  I have lived here all of my life.  No one ever had their homes flooded in the many years I have live there.  This only began a few  years ago because roads were allowed to be built around this area, and homes built on top of the wet lands, by the Lookout Gardens area blocking the run off of water into the wetlands.  I am well versed in my history of this Town.

            Considering all of the above HISTORIC SITES, I love Cumber Avenue, because there are no areas of the Bodden Town district which can boast of more historic sites.

            I think recognizing all of the history of this area alone,  is a good enough reason why Any and all, Governments, the National Trust, and maybe even Dart Foundation,  or other private foundations,  would like to assist in preserving the Histor of Cumber Avenue..

            I do hope all readers are comfortable with the many reasons I have given why Cumber Avenue  Area should be a place of Interest.  We thank any orginzation, Private or Government,  of interest who would like to preserve one or more of these sites.  Maybe using names for these sites and inviting tourist for attraction to visit and learn about the History of Cumber Avenue. Thanks for your thoughts.

             

             

             

             

             

            • Anonymous says:

              There's a place where soldier crabs used to gather  on my road too, should that be considered historic?

    • Anonymous says:

      Tell them to ask Julie for some of the money wastedon private lot paving in the Brac

    • Incognito says:

       

      And what about the people around them? What will they do with a dump a throw stone away from them..

      Its this one track mind thinking that is dooming us in Cayman.  

      Fix the problem, not just hope someone else will throw money at it to keep people quite.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Bauracratic harrassment I say.  How dare those devil worshippers.

  20. Anonymous says:

    It's ironic that had the PPM passed the Conservation Law while in power the situation would be muchdifferent. Chuckie said that was the greatest regret in his tenure as minister.

    If the PPM get back in power will they pass the Conservation Law, I doubt, it people couldn't cash in then and Ezzard wouldn't support it..

    • Anonymous says:

      The PPM was a political experiment that fail. I think the party and its name should be dissolved and replace for a new one with different faces and for God sake a platform for what the party stand for!

  21. Anonymous says:

    UDP Members is there not one person amongst you who will stand up and be counted? Have each of you lost your integrity? Are you not embarassed by what is happening or have you no shame at all? What is wrong with you guys? Are you ALL compromised? Either take a stand for what is right or resign,because in doing so you just might get back some respect. Believe me your reputation and integrity is worth a lot more than ten grand each month.

     

     

    • Peanuts says:

      To UDP, don't loose faith now, the cohorts have less than 299 day's to carry through their dastardly deeds. With the incompetence and greed they have shown in the past three years, I promise Cayman, that with the Port slipping throught their fingers, Shetty Hospital on the slow boat from China, CEZ a damp squid. Desperation is running high, as pressure builds mistakes willl be made. The opertuinity to hold those accountable will grow day by day.

      By the way have you noticed how quiet the chosen one has been lately! Is it that he is trying to distance him self from West Bay, or is the position of General Secretary vacant?

      Reminds me off Anancy and the Tar Baby.

      Selah.

    • Anonymous says:

      You still have to ask those questions?  You still belive in them?  They are not the fools, you are.

    • SILENT RIVER says:

      21:10  Haven't you heard that Silent rivers run deep.   So I believe the UDP is being silent because they are running deep.  Watch yourself,

  22. Stiffed-Necked Fool says:

    OMG, if the Cayman people cant see the truth now, we might as well just hand everything over to McKeeva and his cronies to do as they please (well actually, that is what has been happening anyway under wraps).

    No way Sir, I am not doing that and I am going to fight to the bitter end to take OUR Cayman back from these wanna-be Dictators!

    • Anonymous says:

      Realize that you will be fighting all those who eat at the trough.  Most of Civil servants and their dependants, all the fat MLA's and their dependants, All of those in the Church of Bush, and China.  Good luck.

      • Anonymous says:

        I could only LOL your post because i didnt agree with all of it. Most civil servants are not eating at the trough

        • anonymous says:

          …they get a fat salary every month with pension and free health whether they are hard working or not…..I would say they are eating at the trough! and the country spends almost $300M a year to keep them at the trough…… If you dont believe its a trough, just try cutting their salaries by 2.5%.

        • anonymous says:

          Civil servants are at the biggest trough in the country…its called the Treasury.

    • SILENT RIVER says:

      Stiff necked fool, now you are talking sence.  Yes we need to hand over to McKeeva, because he is the only person who can reall run this country the correct way. Like itor not.