Residents challenge Planning over Emerald Sound

| 02/09/2011

(CNS): A number of South Sound residents have put the planning department on notice that they will be formally challenging the Central Planning Authority’s decision to give a controversial development planning permission. On 3 August the CPA approved the inland component of Emerald Sound, which does not yet have a costal works license for the second element of the development which covers the creation of a channel into the inland area and dredging of the seabed. The residents are also appealing to Cabinet, in whose hands the costal works license application lies, not to allow the project to go ahead.

‘Protect South Sound’, the organizers of the campaign against the development, have vowed not to give up despite the recent decision by the CPA. They argue that the project will not only put the entire South Sound community at risk, but allowing a developer to dredge a channel from the South Sound into the interior would also set a dangerous precedent.

Protect South Sound is also collecting signatures on the petition they re-started following 3 August decision, which now includes the appeal to Cabinet to deny approval of the Coastal Works License.

“We are not opposed to land based development but we are categorically opposed to a canal, the related dredging of South Sound, the 20 feet high bridge and the re-location of the South Sound road,” a spokesperson for the group stated, adding that ‘Protect South Sound’ would be at various locations in the upcoming weeks to collect signatures and ensure the public are fully informed about the proposed development and its potential impacts on area. 

Once the appeal is launched the Planning Appeals Tribunal will need to hear the application within six months, when organizers hope that they will be able to reverse the decision.

A significant number of objections were submitted to planning by residents in the area as well as a petition against the project.  The Department of Environment, the NRA and the Water Authority had all also raised serious concerns about the project but the CPA was not swayed.

According to the minutes a submission made by local attorney Anthony Akiwumi on behalf of the objectors that the CPA meeting be rescheduled as it was unlawful was denied.

Akiwumi argued that the CPA should not consider the application on 3 August, in the absence of a Cabinet decision on the coastal works license. However, the CPA said it did not take its “instructions from Cabinet” and dismissed the request, suggesting it was anattempt to “kick the can further down the road.”

During the presentation the CPA also took the view that despite the number of objections it was “not a situation where the more objections you have the better the case,” as it said it would determine the application on the Development Plan, the Law and the Regulations.

The lawyer for the developers of Emerald Sound argued that the CPA could only reject the application if it could be proved that the project would cause harm.  “They need evidence that this development will cause harm,” Samuel Jackson said. “Any objection must be factual and provable or CPA must reject it.”

He added that in law there was no need for the applicant to demonstrate a need or demand for the development and argued there was no good cause, “despite the emotive objections,” to refuse the application.

Although the authority listed a number of conditions that must be met before work can start, planning permission was granted for the development.

The public can follow the progress of Protect South Sound to fight the development and sign the petition at various on line locations:

Online petition:

See CPA meeting minutes here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Science and Nature

About the Author ()

Comments (64)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    As usual, foreigners can come in and can do any development project and get away with it and the Caymanians who are able to try something are going to have a hard time getting anything approved. (Matalon-Dart-Ryan) ….and by the way, the few objections that came up back them too were supposed to ruin the North Sound forever if we let them dredge out the mangroves!)

    We just don't want to see our own kind succeed.

    I hope this goes through so I can convince Burns to extend the canal up behind The Avenue so I can have a canal lot and access to the sea too. Why can't we all enjoy a piece of the paradise pie!

  2. Libertarian says:

    I believe Dart and McKeeva is just waiting for the Emerald Sound dredging to be approved. That will give them the green light to dredge the North Sound. Don't be stupid, people!  The MLA's are sleeping on this one, but it is sending the wrong precedent and the majority of the people in and around South Sound community by the hundreds oppose it – law or no law, CPA regulation or no regulation!  The people should be respected.


    • Anonymous says:

      Your posts are extremely hard to read as they are ladenwith inaccuracies and spitful opinion.  You were FOR the dart deal with West Bay and AGAINST Emerald Sound saying the dart deal was just adjusting the road and not touching the coastline.  Now that it has come to light the new project will include an elaborate canal system.

      I plead with you and all objectors to support the dart deal and any other big projects that can get this island on even keel.  We are very soon going to come to a griding halt and we NEED to get the lower and middle class working (which is predominantly in construction) so that it does not continue to escalate violence.



      • Libertarian says:

        For your information, we are coming to a "grinding halt," because this government refuses to lower its fees, duties, permits, licenses, and fails to remove immigration policies and laws that are anti-business.  Development is good, but government interferes and start giving concessions to Dart and big names – that is not good for a competitive market. Hurting small local businesses for the big fish fries, is not how you're going to better the economy.

        Now the Emerald Sound Development, is a huge project that entails dredging a canal. It sounds good and dandy… but we have over a thousand signatures against this project. Doesn't that hit a nerve?

        My friend, it is either you are for the people or for making money that will only benefit a few people when the construction is done.


  3. Anonymous says:

    You are out of your mind if you think the people have anything to do with these type of decisions or making the law. the people are subjects of the CIG weather you like it or not….

  4. Burns Conolly AIA says:

    I actually urge all commentors here to download the CPA minutes and go through our presentation which has been buried in it. Its a powerpoint, all visual and goes over many the objections that continue to be made here and responds to them. CNS has made it easy to do so. I am happy to narrate that personally if you wish- just call the office.


    We have laid out clear reasons why all of the objections are invalid in it and go through them point for point. 


    1. Only one house lot off shore being deepened to 6 feet. Canal entrance protected by breakwater higher than existing land in area-actually increases the protection to area.


    2. Canal or no canal, South Sound will flood in a major hurricane. Did so in Ivan and it will again. In fact SS, will under 5 feet of water everywhere before water can come out of ES canals. In Ivan some of the water actually came from Tropical gardens and filled up the backlands.


    3. Low density development proposed. Less than 50% of potential persons and buildings.


    4. There is only marl in the ES lands. Canals will not let out red stained water like the drainage ditch does now.


    5. Bridge will be done to AASHTO standards. In major hurricane maybe one of the last solid structures in SS.


    6. You can decide on the boating issue from the presentation yourself. DOE has certainly found a way to go fast in the sound!


    7. My house is just down the road. I will leave you to figure out if I really thought or had any indication that this would do the things being said if I would be foolish to risk my own largest investment.


    Its obvious that the infromation being distributed by the objectors is incorrect. They have not provided any proof of the varied allegations made. No scientific proof of the claims while we have methodically responded to each concern in detail. I am still awaiting Ms Melanie's & "Protect Sound Sound" copy of "two independent reports" indicating damages from ES. 


    Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to the so many that have come to me outside of the spotlight showing support for this project. Even many who signed the petition but did not support or read it but did so to get rid of an objector or to continue with their saturday shopping. Thanks for being on the side of logic and reason.


    To those still objecting, I totally support your right to do so, don't have an issue with it (some remain good personal friends actually) however try to not spread incorrect information on this project. It does not make your case any stronger. 

    • Libertarian says:

      Burns, with all due respect, it is not a matter of whether the objectors are right and you are wrong. Rather, the number of objectors opposing this project in the South Sound area surpasses the number of those who favor it. And dredging this canal (which make storm surge easier access) will justify Dart and McKeeva Bush dredging the North Sound and other areas.

      I have a suggestion, why don't you and the developers come together and do yourself a petition of those supporting this project. And if the supporters surpass the objectors, I and the many thousands behind me will support it too. Other than that, you declaring right from wrong, leaves you still in the wrong. Because you fail to undermine a major project opposed by the people of the SS community. You can't put people on the back-burner for business and money making.


      • Anonymous says:

        hahha…so u now admit the objectors have no valid argument but because of their numbers they should get their way?????……..

        welcome to wonderland………..

    • Anonymous says:

      Burns – Please name ONE person who has come out insupport of this project. 

      Apart from you, the developer, his family members, business partners and the few others who will directly make some money off of this development – 

      there has been not ONE person to come out and publically support this project – not to the two public meetings you have held, not in the Compass, not in CNS, not on the TV news, not on the various radio talk shows (apart from the ONE man, a known 'UDP agitator' I am told, from East End who hopes to get work out of the project and violently disturbed the meeting at the SS community centre and similarly violently screamed on Talk Today). 

      Anonymous comments on CNS do not count as members of the public coming out in support of your project. I value the freedom of speech allowed by the anonymous discussion  on CNS – however it is very easy to manipulate these anonymous blogs and if no one is willing to put thier name to these, they do not count for much. The few comments in support of your project on CNS sound like they are all coming from 2 or 3 people. If someone was to analysise the style of writing and wording etc I am quite sure it would show that it is coming from the same 2 or 3 people. 


      And more importantly your so called answers to the objectors concerns do NOT answer the objectors concerns and not NOT offer any real evidence which would prove thier concerns wrong. 



      • Sheryl says:

        LOL forensic readers are now needed for CNS

      • Burns Conolly AIA says:

        I am comfortable to know the level of support I have seen in the public. However my role is not to 'promote' this project. My role is to 'present' the project through the permitting process. In that role I try to ensure that the correct information is in the public domain or at the boards. That is what I amdoing.


        I am comfortable that the information that has been presented is backed up with research and scientific evidence. Can you show me one instance, just one instance, where the objectors have proven that what I am saying is incorrect?  I am open to debate on any of the topics.


        We have done studies and gathered reports on South Sound over the last 3 years that prove what I have said.  At one stage there was a big objection on the supposedly 18 foot deep swamp there. Well we went in and did tests all along the canal system and proved that to be incorrect. An so forth….


        Show me one report, some scientific evidence or test that supports the objectors and I will review it. Otherwise the objection is not valid. Simple.

        • Libertarian says:

          Burns, I don't know what you mean that your role is not to promote this project. What do you think coming on this site is all about???  I think no one is interested about your scientific evidence.  The people have spoken. There are more objectors than supporters. The people do not want this project in their community.  To deny the people, is to be like any other mere politician. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Facts mean nothing in the face of "we don't want nutten dat is not only fo me" mentality. You are trying to fight the force that is Cayman.  It will keep Cayman Cayman.

  5. Libertarian says:

    "During the presentation the CPA also took the view that despite the number of objections it was 'not a situation where the more objections you have the better the case,' as it said it would determine the application on the Development Plan, the Law and the Regulations."

    Well… Cabinet better wake-up and the CPA better relax of that view, because it is the People who make the Law and Regulations, and it is the people who can hire and fire. Respect the people and you will have it easy in life. Disregard the people and you will always live looking over your shoulder in public.

    • Burns Conolly AIA says:

      The Chairman was absolutely correct. Surely you do not advocate "mob rule" and that if the mob is "big" then boards don't have to follow the laws here. One can easily find yourself on the wrong side of the 'mob' and then wish for some laws. If the people want no more development, then yes, the people can tell their politicians that and we can put a moratorium on all construction. However, until then we need to follow our laws that allow this development, and those laws that allow the right to appeal CPA decisions as well.


      Chairman was correct one this one. One good reason for objection is all that is needed. None were presented that I could hear other than "we dont want it to happen and we are 1/56th of the population". 




      • Libertarian says:

        So when the people rule and go out their way to oppose a development, its all of a sudden, a "mob."  Thank you, Burns. We clearly see how you see and value people here. McKeeva has the same view in alliance with Dart. Just forget about the people and push on with development. Money and profit matter more than direct democracy. I am sorry but you are still on the wrong side.

        • Anonymous says:


          Try this on for size, it's a personal encounter I've had (albeit on a small scale).

          I bought a one acre parcel (with mine and my wife's saved salary) that was in an area already developed (one side house, two sides apartment complex).  I applied for planning permission for a 6 unit apartment complex for me and my wife, 3 kids, in laws, and one to rent out.

          To make a long story short for some reason or another the majority of the occupants/owners for the apartment complexes that neighboured my acre objected.  If we were to use your consensus rules logic I would not have got my apartment complex approved.  This was a long and stressful fight for me and my family, but I'm happy to say it was approved and I should be moving in to the complex my mid October.

          If we extrapolated your line of thought we wouldn't need elected officials, we would just need a very sophisticated online voting pole to determine what would get approved from what would not.  It's clear not much would get approved if all you had to do was get the majority to vote against it.

          Seriously, who wouldn't prefer to have an undeveloped woodland behind them versus a house or apartment?

          Get real.

          • Anonymous says:

            don't worry about lib….. he has no logic….

          • Anonymous says:

            oh pleaseeee…. i don't think libertarian is talking about a small apartment complex like yours. Emerald Sound development is not one mere 6-unit apartment. And yes people should have a say on what happens to their community… are you suggesting they shouldn't have any say?

      • Homer J. Simpson says:

        Once again, reeking of desperation. 1/56th of the population is a considerable amount more than you and many other candidates received of the 2009 vote.

      • Anonymous says:

        So in the next election when Mac is not re-elected he can choose to stay in office because the "mob" does not have to be listened to?????  Is that what you are saying, Burns? 

        • Burns Conolly AIA says:

          Read my forth line above again…not sure I was speaking about "Mac" or any elections but a simple principle of civility.


          If there is a law, the people ( all of the people) should follow it. Just because a certain number of people do not like the law gives them the right to ignore it or object to concepts under that law.


          For instance there is a law against putting up signs without Planning permission. It is clear that the objectors in South Sound are now breaking that law and in some cases forcing pedestrians into the street. Just because 1 or 1,000 or 10,000  persons do something does not mean its legal or even right.


          So what I am saying is….. if the people do not like the law have it changed..legally. The alternative can look like Libya.

          • Libertarian says:

            You say, "a certain number of people…"  So you must really think that you one can match-up to 1000, 5000, or 10,000 people opposing you. So they are a small group of people, you say. And the law is higher than them, and they MUST abide by your laws. Sorry, you are not sounding like the real Burns Conolly.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is why nothing good will be done on Cayman.  Laws and rules can not stand in the way of the Caymanian mind set.  But it will be a place anyone can visit who wants underdeveloped uncroweded with a slightly third world air about it.  This will be Caymans place in the world.  Too bad it comes with so much crime and victemization but that is the price that needs to be payed.

    • anonymous says:

      Why didn't they prepare the petition in proper form? Perhaps it wont matter what form it is in really, but do it right, na?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Please object, appeal, South Sounders, take whatever means necessary within the law to stop this foolish dredging of SS to destroy not only the area but  beyond.  If this dredging happens in SS next it will be the North Sound and I believe ultimately the EE channel will be back on the drawing board again, if the SS dredging is given the green light.

  7. AnonymousSick and Tired of the B...S... says:

    I am personally utterly opposed to the ES development, if only, at the least, because it is based purely on short term profit – not because it is needed. Destruction of another area of natural habitat would also be a reason. However, in the context of the present proposals, there does seem to be an element of “pots calling kettles black”. A number of the protesting residents live in houses built on land reclaimed when the enormous Tarpon lake in South Sound was filled, 35+ years ago, with sand suction dredged from the Sound itself. Perhaps the old cliche’ – “what goes around, comes around”, might have some relevance.

  8. Like It Is says:

    "Please please listen to our ever more hysterical lists of reasons why this plan is bad because we need it cancelled since otherwsie the values of our properties will go down and that is why we are all so keen to stop other people having more choice on the housing market"

  9. Anonymous says:

    Check out our Constitution, Part 1 Section 18 "Protection of the Environment"

    • Libertarian says:

      Constitution?  What Constitution that does not have any provisions in protecting the people from developers ransacking their neighborhoods???  Here, we have little democracy and the Governor and them all trying to make it look like we have lots!  What a joke!

    • Anonymous says:



      Adding Cathy Church's letter to the paper on this that was in the Compass yesterday:

      'There are dozens of valid reasons for opposing the dredging required for the Emerald Sound Development. My concern involves the difference in owning a boat on a canal that opens onto South Sound compared to North Sound. There are so many problems that the developer will soon want to expand the dredging and the channel and the cut. Even if he signed a document promising not to ask for more, we know that money talks, (on this Island lately, money yells) and soon every South Sound development, (who will also want canals) will all want channels to the cut and the South Sound will die.

      Why will they want more channels dredged? South Sound is not fit for boating. I use my private boat on occasion for photo student charters. This sometimes requires that I load at the South Sound Dock. Many areas in South Sound are too shallow for my boat and I have run aground even as I tie up to the dock.

      In North sound, if a boat owner wants to go boating on Sunday, he can zoom out of his canal and if the weather is bad he can enjoy boating in North Sound. He can go to Stingray City, or snorkel inside the barrier reef and the family can enjoy a lovely outing.

      Picture 80 boat owners in Emerald Sound. It is a normal summer breezy day and waves are crashing at the cut. Boaters cannot stay in South Sound. They must get through that one opening or don’t go boating at all. They have no choice. During Nor’westers, when the south is the calm side of the Island, it is windy and chilly and then most people don’t want to go boating.

      Those of us who have to take our tourists diving regardless of a Nor’wester, take advantage of the relatively calm side on the south and dozens of boats moor in South Sound to service their guests.

      I am not saying that the cut is bad for most boat operators, but remember that these rich folks are often going to have large boats and little experience.

      My point is this: There will be massive pressure to extend the dredging and expand the cut. Make the developer sign an iron-clad promise that he will not apply for further dredging for his complaining home buyer/boat owners. But we all know that money rules this Island. We need to nip this in the bud and oppose the whole thing, because we have lost trust in our Government’s promises to do the right thing. The developer could make a lot of promises, but we know that they may not be kept.

      We also know that when the door is opened to canals on South Sound, as more land is developed with canals, South Sound will now be subject to even more environmental degradation, more leaching of effluent into the South Sound. Many of us remember when South Sound was full of life and fish, far more than we see today. But it is not yet dead. It will be soon if we keep up this destruction.


      Cathy Church


      • Sheryl says:


        "I draw a foot more than most other dive boats and it is hard to avoid running aground in the erratic depths of South Sound."… "and I have run aground even as I tie up to the dock." – – Cathy Church


        Cathy Church should not be telling Caymanians they can't use South Sound when she admits to ramming her dive boat on our South Sound's fragile bottom…this is blatent disregard to our enviroment.  If your dive boat scores the bottom and you're such an environmentalists why don't you refrain from taking your boat or any other boat in to the South Sound?

        Just calling it as I see it, if you're black, don't call the pot anything.


        • Anonymous says:

          Who on earth are you? 

          Cathy Church has done SO much for the preservation of our natural environment in Cayman.  


  10. Red Flag says:

    Dear God, I hope and pray that this project DOES NOT go through and that all the objectors do not have to use it.

  11. Water says:

    if you dig it, I will come.

  12. Anonymous says:

    It will be interesting to see how much political weight the South Sounders can throw to derail the development. Certainly they can get Ezzard as he will gladly join anything against the government. Beyond that who knows?

    • Libertarian says:

      From the beginning – where is Ezzard?  where is Alden?  No where to be found!  They are silent!  And whose district is South Sound's?  Is it not Alden Mclaughlin's district?  And where is the UDP?  It seems to me that Cayman's politicians supports this development, but any day you hear of something happening behind their backyards, you will not hear the end of it!  All like Alden better mind that his silence doesn't back fire on him being elected in 2013. I am Independent and I say, this is a total shame to see how our politicians are taking the proposals for this project!  I have nothing about responsible development within a community that supports it, but dredging a canal and removing Australian Pine Needle trees to cause more storm surge inland, is not a good idea; especially, when over 1000 people oppose it!  The CPA has the gall to say that they will just be following orders and the rules –  I THINK THEY AND OUR MLA'S BETTER FOLLOW AND LISTEN TO THE OVER 1000 PEOPLE OPPOSING THIS PROJECT!

      • Anonymous says:

        "removing Australian Pine Needle trees to cause more storm surge inland"

        LOLOLOL you need a serious lesson in history, clearly you've only moved here (or been born) in the last 20 years.

        Casuarina Trees are relatively new to Cayman and have an extremely shallow root system (thus they get toppled every storm).  They were brought here about 50 years ago and have been a very invasive species.  They have drowned out much of our coastal seagrape and numerous other flora on the coastline.  And to say they stop storm surge is naivety in its purest sense.

        I suppose in 20 years your equivalent of the day will be out campaigning to save "Green Iguanas" that God has so richely blessed us with to adorn our every street corner!

  13. Natalia says:

    Would be nice for one project to get through for once – you know just to mix it up a bit!! At least give a glimmer of hope to any future investors that thye might stand a chance of getting something done on Cayman

  14. Anonymous says:

    This is a good project that has had the rich NIMBYs of SS against it for some time. The CPA was correct with what they said- You need ONE good planning reason to object successfully not hordes of people with no good reason. And the SS folks do not have even one good reason that Connolly has not dispensed to date.  Shame these folks are so persistent because we sure need the work.


    Anyhow grant them effort, they are now putting their money where there mouth is as the Appeal process might cost them significantly now that the tribunal will assign costs.  


    • Libertarian says:

      My friend, dont be foolish!  If you want work and to better the economy, ask your MLA's to reduce the cost of living, reduce fees and permits, and allow small businesses to aspire and create more jobs. Don't encourage them to benefit a well-off few and developers who just want to control the market with little competition and exploit workers. UDP's method is not how you will get decent jobs in Cayman! 

      • Economist 101 says:

        How can any government reduce the fees if we are not producing development or having people here to eat, drink and be merry. You need the construction industry back to be able to reduce the other fees. If not, can you tell me where the money to feed our government and give us the services we demand coming from?? It does not grow on mangroves for sure.


        Its the "greedy" developers that create jobs and construction work to pay the government so they dont have to taxt us directly. The developers have not been here for 3 years and this is why you feel the pain.


        The option of no development is a potential but you must conciously choose to go to direct taxation, less services and taking less home in the future. Your choise.


        Economy 101

        • Anonymous says:

          Funny Economist 101 – you and Mr Conolly share a very similar analysis (most recently expressed by him at the SS community hall meeting) of our current dependency on development / government dependency on development and alternative being direct taxation. 

          And therefore we should just go ahead with business as usual (develop the whole island) instead of trying to evolve our national business model in to something more sustainable for the future. 


          I am pretty sure there are better options. Which do not have to involve direct taxation. Yes it will take some good and slighltly visionary leadership (and business leaders willing to support the evolution) – but this is what we need anyway!

          Not developers paving the whole island until we run out space to develop and then wondering what the heck we are going to do next. 

          • Burns Conolly AIA says:

            Just for clarity………… If you were in the South Sound Hall meeting, or even on the Rooster Radio the following Monday morning you would have also heard me go on to say that what is needed is an "alternative solution and plan to take the Cayman Islands off this unsustainable path". I also said that "there is no immediate option to take us off the development treadmill for next ten years" which I think is the phrase you are misinterpreting. 


            Our entire tax system is based on Consumption (import duty, etc) and Development (import duty, planning fees, stamp duty tax, etc). This is a fact. Until a "third leg" is formed in our economy we are tied to those two revenue sources OR an alternative of direct taxation and property Taxes. This has been said before and has recently been echoed by FCO economists.


            I do not believe that those are the ONLY two options however. But our choice is very limited here. BTW, What are your suggestions to stop the development and how will our government replace its revenue to operate??

            • Libertarian says:

              The FCO????  I feel they will destroy our financial industry if they had a chance!  You should try reading the Miller's Report. You will learn a different economics 101

    • Anonymous says:

      "Hordes of people with no good reason"  With the no good reason being "we are Caymanian and they are not"  Explains everything "Cayman"  go with the flow or be prepared to fight the mass might of "the way".  This will keep Cayman from ever being over developed, and give lots of criminals a home they always wanted.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Lets put all our energies into protesting against real estate projects.

    Never mind the increase in crime, increase in unemployment, electricity bills greater than some mortgages, increasing closures of business, less cruise ships, political corruption, and poor educational standards. 

    How frivolous can one society get? 



  16. Anonymous says:

    Why are none of these folk worried about the West Bay Road closure and the dredging Dart is applying for?

    Why hasn't CNS picked up the story about the dredging being applied for by Dart?  Seems like a lot of people are sleeping on this one.

    Certainly the island derives more benefit from the North Sound (sand bar).  Shouldn't these protectors be equally as voiceful on that?

    • Anonymous says:

      What North Sound Dredging is Dart applying for ?

      • Anonymous says:

        He has applied for a coastal works permit to dredge into northsound some for the access to the Salt Creek area.  I do not have the details.

      • Anonymous says:

        Do you not read the paper?  Notice was given a month ago in the paper for Crymble Land Holdings Ltd.

        It would be great if DoE can shed some light on this.

        • Libertarian says:

          It could be that Dart and McKeeva is just waiting for the Emerald Sound dredging to be approved. That will give them the green light to dredge the North Sound. Don't be stupid, people!  The MLA's are sleeping on this one, but it is sending the wrong precedent and we need to wake them up!

    • Anonymous says:

      All of the groups are working together to protect and preserve the Cayman Islands from further destruction to benefit a few politicians and their associates.

      Yes, the fight to preserve the West Bay Rd. is moving forward. 

      Please come to West Bay, John Cumber school hall tonight from 5:30 PM to sign the preserve the West Bay Rd. petition.

      Together we can win.


      A Concerned Caymanian


    • Eating Mangrove Steak says:

      Probably because these small dredges to access canals are of minimum or no environmental impact. Emerald sound is only half an acre and a few feet deep I believe and everyone knows these cuts which have been ongoing since ever do nothing. The biggest issue is not the cut anyhow but what might flow outinto the sound and that is now controlled by Planning and DOE.  Folks, relax and find something real to do.

      • Libertarian says:

        That little acre you are talking about, I recall, was a mountain of broken Pine Trees after Hurricane Ivan struck nearest to the island, South Sound. If it wasn't for those Pine Trees, the storm surge would have easily advanced across the island into the North Sound. Think of the homes that would have been damaged if the sea had no wall of trees and reef to contend with…  Lol… I can see you are not from here!  God had these Pine Trees in the South Sound for a reason. 

        • Anonymous says:

          Dear friend you obviously didn't live in SS or was not on the island . 9ft. of sea water went across from SS through Crewe rd. through the airport onto north sound. Nothing stopped this surge. If we didn' t have concrete houses we would have looked like Japan. The sea crossed from the south side of Cayman to the north side of the island . From meagre bay swamp area (Central mangrove) on the south side straight across 4-5 miles through the north sound. Anywhere there was swamp or low land the sea went through it. Thats why all the projects that are across the street from the South Sound Cemetery should be up higher by at least 8 feet.  But for some reason none of the protesters decided to stop them . Wait till the next hurricane you will see the damage in that area.

          • Ivan Gelical says:

            The water at the airport came from the North Sound. I watched it from my window, washing cars, boats, trees, etc towards South Sound. It’s actually not really relevant in any case, no two hurricanes will ever produce identical flooding patterns.
            For the record, I do not support this project, it is foolish at best, if for no other reason than the complete lack of necessity for it. It’s not about anything more than money, as usual.

        • annon says:

          @ Libertarian

          " God had these Pine Trees in the South Sound for a reason."


          Brush up on your Caymanian history before making comments like this. I think you will find that the "god" to whom you should actually give credit for these particular trees is the dear departed founder of Vigoro Nursery, who surprisingly was a member of the South Sound Community for many years

        • Chris Johnson says:

          Check the history of the Cayman Islands. Australian Pines are not indigenous to the Cayman Islands. They are comparative newcomers. Old shots of Seven Mile Beach show no pines.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Dear god I hope and pray that this project goes through and that all the objectors can't use it