George Town Port EIA

| 13/11/2009

One of the aims of the Young Progressives is to educate the youth of the Cayman Islands, and the community as a whole on national issues currently faced by our country. One of the issues that we have been keeping ourselves educated on is the topic of the newly proposed berthing facility.

The recent CNS article, dated 11 November 2009, titled "Port EIA Radically Reduced" has motivated us to respond to this issue publicly. As young Caymanians, and the future of this country, we have serious concerns regarding the short and long term effects the construction of this berthing facility will have on the delicate ecosystem of the Cayman Islands. While we realize that the building of this berthing facility is something that has been in discussion for some time, we are shocked by the blatant disregard for the Cayman environment, as evidenced by the current administration’s decision to abandon the all encompassing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that was proposed by the PPM administration.

Additionally, we have concerns regarding the method in which the contract for a development such as this was awarded and the uncertainty that now exists with this issue. Since the Auditor General has announced his review of the project to date, we now hear that no contract was awarded but that instead the government has signed an MOU with DECCO. There seems to be more questions than answers. We feel strongly that the contract for this project should have been awarded through the Central Tendering Committee, without any political interference. In a capitalist society, nothing is free; and with the Florida Caribbean Cruise Association and/or individual cruise lines funding a project of this magnitude, we have insufficient guarantees that the Caymanians working within the tourism sector will benefit from this alliance.

During the PPM administration, the previous Minister of Tourism, Mr. Charles Clifford made the decision to NOT proceed with any port developments until a comprehensive EIA could be completed. The purpose of the EIA was to ensure that decision makers had the scientific information needed to decide whether this project was a viable option for the Cayman Islands and if it was, whether adjustments needed to be made to the design and/or construction methodology to mitigate any potential impact on our natural and built environment. Once the results of the EIA were received, and assuming the project was determined to have only minimal effect on our ecosystem, all stakeholders would be able to receive information on how the construction of this facility could, for example, affect our marine life, create changes in the direction and/or strengths in currents, and changes in the clarity of our water and what actions were proposed to mitigate or eliminate those risks. We feel that it is important for the Caymanian public to know that under the proposals made by the PPM administration in regards to the building of this facility, the EIA would have been completed by now and the choice to abandon the PPM’s plans by the current administration has caused further delays, perhaps as much as a year, with this project.

Tourism flourishes on our island because of its natural beauty: Crystal clear waters that mimic polished glass; white sand beaches with grains so fine that it’s more smooth than rough to the touch; lush, green vegetation, home to countless species of natural wildlife. Previous failures to complete adequate EIAs have left a generation of people saying "we should have" instead of saying "we’re glad we did".

To engage in a development such as a port expansion in the George Town Harbour without an EIA for the sake of tourism is ludicrous, counterproductive and ironically puts at significant risk the very thing that we should be trying to protect, our tourism industry! Our ecosystem is unstable due to rapid development in a short period of time, and should it receive any more abuse from the hands of developers, what will the state of our beautiful Cayman Islands be once this development is completed? Will the tourists still come to disembark on the new berthing facilities when our water is no longer clear? When the currents are too strong to swim in? When the reefs have withered and died?

We therefore urge the current administration to review their present Terms of Reference and ask that they include a comprehensive EIA as was originally proposed by the PPM government. Our environment is not, and should never be, a bargaining chip for the sake of money. It is irreplaceable, and it is our God given duty to take care of this island and ensure that its environment continues to flourish for generations to come. The Caymanian people have the right to be informed about the effects this development will have on our ecosystem and the environment on a whole. We therefore challenge the current administration to reconsider their position on this project, thus making a step that is truly for the betterment of the Caymanian people and these three beautiful Cayman Islands.


The Young Progressives are the youth branch of the People’s Progressive Movement.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

About the Author ()

Comments (37)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed


    Cayman we need to think critically here.  Sometimes the messenger isn’t as important as the message.  The concerns expressed in this piece are very very real and everyone should pay attention to that rather than worrying about if it is a PPM agenda or not.  If we destroy our natural resources whatelse does Cayman have?

    Do you know how many people rely on the health of our environment?   This isn’t just some political game Cayman because real people will loose if we destroy our natural resources.  People like Alvin Marvin, who take tourist out on snorkeling trips like his famous father Captain Marvin did.  People that run taxis and work in hotels or on dive boats.  Pilots that fly tourist to our shores.   Fishermen that provide for their family by fishing our waters.  And people who may not work directly in our tourist industry but just enjoy Seven Mile Beach on a Sunday or a nice fish run down from time to time.

    One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that the Financial Industry is also reliant on the health of our environment.  People come here because it is a safe and attractive place to shelter their money and conversely it is also a nice place to live and make money too.

    Cayman is paradise.  I know that may be difficult to accept if you have spent most of your life living here, but just ask any expatriate coming from Jamaica or England and if they’re honest they will tell you that there are very few places nicer to live than Cayman.  

    Even our Caribbean neighbors do not have it so good in terms of infrastructure and beauty.  Although Jamaica has beautiful mountains and rivers one has to drive for hours just to get to a decent (clean) beach if you live in Kingston.   Most of us, just hop in our cars and in 15 minutes we are rolling in clean and beautiful sand looking out at crystal clear water.   Cayman that is a free luxury that we all have access to.  What if we were to loose that?

    I had a friend from Puerto Rico come and visit a few years ago. While we were having a drink on Seven Mile beach he looked at me wistfully and asked if I knew how lucky I was.  He said long ago Puerto Rico used to have beaches like this but not anymore.

    If you don’t understand the dangers of the Port development or the need for a complete EIA ask someone who does.  Speak to someone like Peter Milburn or Gina Petrie at DoE.  Actually anyone at DoE should be able to offer you some insight into why a complete EIA is necessary.  Then speak to your local politicians who are proposing to move this development through without a complete EIA.  Or speak to someone from the the Port Authority.  When you have gained all the insight you think you possibly can then way all the arguments up critically and make your decision about where you stand.   Even if you disagree with some of the things I’ve written, you will have at least done your own homework.

    Ask questions Cayman and get the facts.  Do not be swayed by the marl road, political rhetoric, or scare tactics.  Also do not be distracted by the messenger. Always, always focus first on the heart of the issue at hand. 


  2. Anonymous says:

    I hope that the YP takes over the PPM – that is the only hope for the survival of the party.

    YP please ask the PPM Executive and their past political representatives:

    When the PPM was in power and had the ideal opportunity why did you not enact the long promised Development Plan and the National Conservation Law?  

    If both of these had been enacted in a form that was good for the country (not just giving destructive blank checks to developers) then any following Government would have a standard by which to measure their performance.  Without these good government plans and laws then the current government can be as destructive as it pleases and at the same time do no wrong!

    The government is not obligated to do any Environmental Impact Assessment or follow the guidance of the Department of Environment or follow any overall development plan for the Cayman Islands.  It is sad that the PPM set the stage for the current destructive UDP regime. 

    Under the UDP Government we will never see a Development Plan nor a National Conservation Law enacted for the long term good of the Cayman Islands.

    Hey, how about if the Young UDP and the Young Progressives worked together to form that talked about third party – to give our Islands the Cayman Islands centered political representation it so desperately needs!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Congratulations to the Young Progressives for an articulate article on an important subject. Please keep contributing for the betterment of Cayman.

    • Anonymous says:

      Using our impressionable young people to further our own political agenda is despicable.  Connect the dots they are not hard to find or see.

      • Old Caymanian says:

        You are seeing dots?  You should see someone about that.

        • Anonymous says:

          As the original poster on this line – let me say that i do not support any particular political party and i absolutelky support having the EIA for a project of this magnitude.  To the young people in both political parties – careful that you are not used for political purposes. And, I look forward to hearing what you will stand up for next. 

      • Impressionable youth says:

        That is what the church has been doing all along, so why not the PPM?

      • anonymous says:

        You are making an assumption that the Young Progressives are not aware of the issues. What makes you think that they are being "used"? As I understand it, the members of the Young Progressives sought out the PPM. How about you collect more facts before connecting the dots?

      • Anonymous says:

        Huh? This article was not about the UDP or the PPM for that matter. It was about doing what is right for Cayman. One thing about dots, if you see enough of them you can make any pattern you want and the pattern you see says more about you than whoever created the dots.

      • Anonymous says:

        why are you stupid udp followers so hypocritical? Why did you not speak out when the young udp were formed & were very public about their pro-udp views? You are so pathetic, it is only when the Young Progressives take a stance against your udp that you get upset & speak out. Do you realise how ignorant & stupid you sound? But that is to be expected, afterall, you support the udp!

      • Anonymous says:

        your comments are DESPICABLE! These young persons have come forward voluntarily to voice their concerns about the future of their country. For you to suggest that they are being used "to further our own political agenda" is an insult to these young Caymanians, and it is despicable people like you that will always try to descourage them from getting involved! SHAME ON YOU!

        • Anonymous says:

          The truth hurts. As PPM supporters why did they not lobby to have EIA’s mandatory for large projects from years ago? The law to do this sat on the former PPM minsters desk for 41/2 years!!!!  Not politically motivated – give me a break.

          Both PPM and UDP said they are going to build this monstrosity, the issue now is who is gonna get it built and take the credit.  Its that simple folks. Sour grapes.

          XXXXXX But i agree they should do the EIA.

  4. Selkirk Watler, Public Relations Officer says:

    On behalf of the Young Progressives, I would like to say thank you all for your kind comments and support.  As young Caymanians we feel that it is very important for us to voice our opinions on important national issues such as this one. We each would like the best for Cayman’s future and have a genuine concern for our islands. Therefore, we are cognizant that constructive criticism is necessary for positive growth as individuals and as a group. We will continue to be an active voice for the youth and our community.

    Once again thank you all!

  5. dave miller says:

    I say again ! Why haven’t we had any EIA on the destruction of the reefs including Eden Rock, Balboa, Cali, Soto’s reef central and south. Lets not forget where the  cruise ship  "Rhadsody"  ran aground for 66 days. If the youth of today are going to do the right thing. Then lets talk about the history of cruise ship anchoring, hitting reefs , why they hit reefs, why decisions are made to anchor either georgetown harbor or Spotts. Why do ships numbers go down if they don’t have proper anchoring or docking? Who has the ultimate decision making , if a ship can anchor in georgetown? 

                   Then after we do that information gathering lets look at aftermath of hurricane ivan how did businesses recover so rapidly? Did stay over or cruise ship business impact the foreigners or caymanians? Who benefitted? So are we getting this yet?

                     It doesn’t matter! It never mattered! It just matters to certain people. If we were concerned with reef and beaches we would be making plans to get sand to add to the beach. Global warming is going to happen no matter what. Water is rising on the pacific side. So are we planning to move? Then we need to plan for that. This will impact the youth. How about the beach? Do the youth with its growing population have enough beach? I think not. You need to make a plan . How about the south sound area or frank sound? how about 3-4 miles of boardwalks on a beach to walk in the moonlight with some old time fry fish and fritters or mom and pop type caymanian rest. That’s what the youth would be benefitting from in the future. What happen to Bodden town ? What a great place to put board walks with shady areas with that nice breeze blowing from the southeast. No matter what the EIA says it will be necessary to build a dock or docks somewhere on this island and it will be some kind of impact to something or somebody. It is our necessary evil to maintain our standard of living for shops and Watersports or Transportation industries etc.


    • K-man to da bone says:

      Mr Miller, please lets be real. Will there be any harm in doing the EIA just to make sure that our Tourism product is not destroyed because when it is, there is no way in bringing it back – all the Cayman people is asking, is for the Committee that is making the decision, not to think of their pockets but of the future of our Tourism Industry and to "be safe, not sorry"!

    • K-man to da bone says:

      Peoples, if there is a berthing facility constructed, the downtown restaurants and bars will be complaining as all the tourists off the ships will just walk right back on the ships when they are hungry or thirsty as they will get it free on the ship as it comes in a package – more unhappy people!

  6. Berth of a Nation says:

    The concerns the Young Progressives have made are true, and I hope there isn’t a political agenda behind them.  That may not be the case.  But it seems the biggest obstacle this government or any government faces when deciding something of this nature is how the decision making process is seen to take place. The concerns right now are revolving around not only how the project will go forward, and the financing involved, with whatever arrangements have been made with the corporations involved.  Those are valid but more concern about why a watered-down version of an impact assessment has been decided upon in a sensitive area. The ocean is sensitive to disruption, dredging, etc.  Beneath all this is the more basic problem government should be made aware of.  That is in order to gain more support for this or any project the decision making process should be seen as not coming from the top down. When people see that they naturally become suspicious. That isn’t entirely their fault, as many decisions in the past have been made that way. Not all of them the correct ones or at best beneficial to only a few.

    This project was not part of a political platform, but it can become another political football.  That, and suspicions, can be prevented.. easily  …if the project and the decisions taken show that the present government wants to reverse an age-old process: 

    That, in a project of this nature and the impact it will have on the island, decisions be made from the bottom up.  This would be a refreshing change in allowing people to become pro-active instead of re-active. And I believe the people behind the project would see that. Then the necessary public support, if deserved, will be made available.


    • Anonymous says:


    • Anonymous says:


      we have gone from 1.9million

      we have gone from 1.9million cruise people to 1.5 and counting. all of us in tours and taxis  and downtown stores and restaurants are DYING a painful death.  All this began before the so-called economic crisis also, when in we had that first 30% or so drop in one year.  Less people coming on ships is disaster for local businesses even when the economy is ok, but to have a bad times and less and less people coming on ships is a perfect storm.  

      We have  people still coming on the ships but they are tighter with their money for tours and shopping, but at least they are still coming!!! People who have no money are not taking cruises, someone loosing their house in the USA is not taking a cruise. the point is that travelers of all kinds have some moneny to spend and we all can get some of it when they are here if we do a good job. if they never come, we dont get anything. dont people understand this???

      we have allinvested in our businesses and so also  in this country to serve this part of our tourist business, but we have been left behind in the wake of the cruise ships that have been passingour country because we didnt  keep up with the times and have a proper port.  it is stupid and childish to think that the ships will always come here, it is stupid to think we should just tell them they have to come every day of the week so we dont get too many people on one day. who do you people think you are?  this is business for them. we are not entitled to the ships coming here, we have to be a place they want to go.  if they say they want a pier or they wont come, they we have two choices. no pier means less and less ships, anyone who thinks different is a fool. 

      we need a pier, so how do we get one?  we are beyond broke.  if you want something and dont have any money, what do you do? you borrow money which we cant, you steal which we probably cant, you go without which would begin the slow painful death of all our hard-earned businesses or……you get someone to buy if for you. so if the darts can do that for us we should all rejoice that there is a good honest way out for this problem.  all of us that have to work with the cruise people know what a mess the Royal watler is from hearing from them about no shades or rain shelter, it is ugly, the taxis have no where to go, it is dirty, the lines are very long and that is what the goverment built. we would be lucky to have something nice like camana bay on the dock for the people to see first and last when they visit here


      nothing is free and we should know that, but if  darts have to get paid back and that is from the moeny the ships would pay to use the dock then that should be no problem.  anyone who says how much money the goverment is loosing from that is not understanding that this moeny wont come if there isnt a dock and if they could pay for the dock they could have that moeny but since they cant they have to have someone else pay for it and those people have to get paid back somehow.   same thing, no ships no people, no business in Cayman for all of us and no cruise line money tp pay for anything. more ships, more people, more business for all of us and more cruise line money to pay.   how do we get more ships and stop the loosing of more and more money? you get a dock for cayman and the ships stop leaving, more will start coming, more people will come into the island from each ships, more ships will come back to cayman and they will all pay the fees that will pay back the darts for building the dock we must have and we cant afford to build ourselves.   

      • Parp says:

        Perhaps if the taxi fares on this island were reasonable you may find yourself with an increase in local customers. I sense that most of your potential fares would rather drive home drunk than pay your extortionate rates……

  7. Anonymous says:

    Great article !

  8. Anonymous says:

    In order for any individual or group to grow and development, they must be criticized (i.e. their thoughts and suggestions critically analyzed and challenged not justnitpicked to death by jealous nay-sayers) in order to grow. The true test for the Young Progressives and the Young UDP (as a group and as individuals) will be their ability to use criticism to grow and mature. The way they react to such criticism (will they tit-for-tat, will they develop the fine art of diplomacy?) will determine how seriously I for one will take them. 

    In Cayman we oscillate between patting young people on the head and saying "Darling, you will understand when you’re older" and praising them profusely for mediocre slap-dash work, neither of which reflects any sort of respect for the intelligence or abilities of our young people because it refuses to challenge them and as a result, sets them up for failure (or a harsh reality check). 

    I congratulate the Young Progressives and the UDP for contributing to any public discussions and offering an alternative view point. Now get ready to take your licks and grow from it. 

    See yourselves not as the leaders of some elusive "tomorrow" (an opportunity you may never be afforded) but as the powerful change makers of "today". 

  9. Anonymous says:

    I have enquired about the Young Progressives after I found out they had been formed. I subsequently found out that the Young Progressives were originally formed before the 2005 elections but were not active and now a group of young CAYMANIANS have revitalised them and from what I have seen and heard about the "New" Young Progressives, Cayman is in good hands. The Young Progressives are comprised of a group of intelligent young people and I can only look forward to a bright future for The Cayman Islands when we have such a dedicated group who have Love and Interest in their Country.

  10. Anonymous says:

    I have faith again!

    The Young Progressives are like a "breath of fresh air"! I can breathe again. Thank you YP’s!

    It gives me hope again, after reading your wonderful editorial. Very well done, and I only hope & pray that the relevant authorities are listening.

    The youth are our future, and our future looks bright with the Young Progressives! The udp have to accept that they MUST govern with the future in mind, they cannot make decisions today that will affect us negatively tomorrow. Thank you Young Progressives, and please do not get discouraged because you all are the light at the end of this very dark tunnel. "I’m singing in the rain, singing in the rain" because I once again have HOPE!

  11. Anonymous says:

    McDinejad needs to understand that it is the young people of this country that will not sit idly by and allow him and his greed to destroy our beautiful and natural environment.

    Great commentary by The Young Progressives !!!

    • Anonymous says:

      I had truly lost faith in the future of Cayman after the elections especially since what has been taking place, but after reading the Viewpoint by The Young Progressives I am beginning to feel alive and growing hope that Cayman does have a BRIGHT FUTURE! It is so Refreshing to hear a group of Young and Intelligent people taking an interest in the future of their Country, which by the way is All of our Country aswell! The only negative I can say is that there will obviously some McKeevaites who will find some fault with the Young Progressives, but I am begging The Young Progressives to ignore these "small-minded" people and for the sake of OUR and YOUR Countrys future stay together and get stronger and keep up the Excellent work you are doing!

    • Anonymous says:

      It is always encouraging to see the youth getting involved in our countrys affairs, & as a long time supporter of the PPM I am very proud of the Young Progressives.

    • Anonymous says:

      "McDinejad needs to understand that it is the young people of this country that will not sit idly by and allow him and his greed to destroy our beautiful and natural environment."


      I hope you prove otherwise but I believe you will sit idly by. What has changed from the Ritz or any other enviorentaly destroying project.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Well done YP! It is heart warming to hear our young people’s views, all is not lost in our Cayman Islands as we have you all to continue to carry the mantle.

    The points raised are indeed very important, and I too challenge the current Administration to please do an EIA study.

    I listened to Cline Glidden on Crosstalk and he said one would be done, but it was clear to me how detail it would be done. 

    Yours for a peaceful Cayman

  13. Anonymous says:

    Clearly you are either misguided or misguiding! Neither one is helpful.

    For clarity, an EIA is a decision making tool. Each project as it is envisioned has its own UNIQUE EIA. That is to say if you plan to do a cruise dock in the North Sound it would look a lot different than the one where you already have existing berthing and anchoring. This is a fundamental point that your ‘essay’ seems to overlook. The PPM/Atlantic Star MOU envisioned a cargo port to the north of the existing location in virgin territory. Obviously, it would look at different issues than where this one is proposed.

    Noise in the neighborhood is one factor that this one does not need to be considered because this project does not put cargo and buses near to the residential homes of North Church Street. It does not need to study the impact on the existing retail stores as they remain in the vicinity, and I could go on. There is no such thing as a “Complete EIA”. Do not mislead the public nor be misled. Each EIA is developed based on the proposed project and its proposed site.

    Also there is this constant discussion of having the EIA done BEFORE the project is designed. You need a design FIRST then you can have something to study its IMPACT on the environment. Only when you have a Design can you then review and do an EIA. The result will allow decision making. It can allow a model for mitigating damage based on a revised design, methodology, etc.

    Even if the EIA shows catastrophic damage to the environment, such as a dam’s EIA usually does,a country may consider it important to proceed with its building as China did with the Three Gorges Dam. They saw its national needed for electricity so important that it displaced over 2 million persons and their homes to build it and flooded ancient villages and archaeological sites. Our country may decide that even if the piers damages Cheeseburger reef for instance, that that is a reasonable trade off for the economic investment into the economy at this time of global recession. During boom times, it may not be worth it.

    So at the end of the day it is just a decision making tool. Both the PPM and the UDP have said, thank God, that that there is “a bridge too far”, the damage of the Seven Mile Beach, and we see that this EIA is studying that. We need to review what is being studied when it is published but not be misled for political purposes.

    That is how an EIA works, that is how it is used. Do some research before you write your next Viewpoint. This one sounds too political and unfortunately one without relevant research or knowledge.

    Do not be misled nor do not mislead.

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh my, more negative udp complaints. To the Young Progressive members & supporters: there will always be the 1 or 2 negative udp complainers, who love to criticize others but just simply cannot take criticism themselves, it comes from the very top down, it runs in their blood, and they just cannot handle criticism. Your group has made some very valid points, and made some very valiant suggestions, so we therefore know that you will get the 1 or 2 udp complainers criticizing your comments, but that is proof enough that you hit the nail on the head. I have always been keenly interested in what happens in my country but I have never been political. I am a little elderly now, & I know I cannot join the "Young" Progressives, but you can believe me that I surely intend to join the PPM so as to be able to help the Young Progressives in any way I can! Congratulations, & good luck

      • Hugh Stephenson says:

        Wait a minute. I’m just as happy as anyone else that there are young individuals (and groups, in this case) who are willing to stand up and be heard. However, that hardly means they should not expect a response, even when that response is one counter to their own arguments.

        The comment you are referring to is oviously from a person who disagrees and seems to know something about this isssue. It would be beneficial for both us and the Young Progressives if they engaged his or her argument. Just because we’re young doesn’t mean we should be treated with kid gloves, doing so makes you just as patronizing as the folks who don’t even want to hear us in the first place.

        • Anonymous says:

          Mr. Stephenson, yes, "constructive" criticism is acceptable & welcomed, but that negative article that tore into the YP’s for writing an article outlining their opinions was not constructive, it was destructive! To suggest that the Yp’s are wrong to suggest that an EIA should be done, & to be so condesending in tone to a group of young Caymanians who have shown a love & caring for their country is totally uncalled for & rude, & comes across as being very udp-ish! If that person does not agree with the suggestions of the YP’s that is all well & good, but please try to avoid the insults & tearing down of others who have a different opinion than yours! It is only a dictator or dictatorship that does not at least listen to opposing views, & I’m becoming very suspicious of what we now have!

          • anonymous says:

            I wrote that initial response and I find it hard to see why you think it was “destructive’ because I say that before someone puts something in the public domain it should be researched and accurate. If that is done then no one can say your article is “Political”. In this case there are a lot of misleading statements and the article shows a general lack of understanding of what and EIA does and how it’s ToR is created.

            Saying “decision to abandon the all encompassing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that was proposed by the PPM administration” is clearly either a misleading statement or someone misled the author. Either way it is clearly political. Even a few minutes on the Internet will show that each project has a unique EIA.

            As I am neither UDP nor PPM it is unfortunate that your response sought to make this political. Please take another 5 minutes and reread my post and I think you will see Mr. Stephenson’s point. By making every discussion on this media a PPM or UDP issue, nothing will be achieved. While I realize the organization YP is a political one, to gain in stature and respect, it needs to do research first, then put out a thought provoking essay based on FACTS. Otherwise it simply remains a political mouthpiece. At no point did I say an EIA should not be done…far from it… but there are so many inaccurate and emotive statements flying around about this EIA that I sought to clarify it. Not condescending but from a position of first hand knowledge.

            This is a great forum for discourse but it must be used properly. Posting anti-UDP or anti-PPM propaganda is not helpful and it diminishes the value of your contribution to mush. In fact I now tend to skip over blogs that have either letters in its content.

            And as I said originally, Do not mislead nor be misled…not sure which is worst. Enjoy your blogging.

        • OntarioWatching says:

          I wholeheartedly agree.

          This is precisely the time when the younger generation should be included in the discussion surrounding the future of their islands.  Debate is something that should be championed and welcomed and not attacked.  As Mr. Stephenson suggests, lets not make this a finger pointing argument and instead, for once, put all heads together to co-operate for the most rational and future enhancing outcome.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I applaud your viewpoint, and I urge you to take it a step further and try to gather signatures to begin a referendum for this matter. Let’s add some bite to our bark to show the current administration we are utterly serious about preserving our environmental, and thereby economic, future by only developing in a responsible manner.

  15. anonymous says:

    Very well said!

    Hopefully the powers that be will consider listening and then doing the proper "comprehensive EIA"!