Safehaven captains evicted

| 27/08/2012

IMG-20120825-00224 (221x300).jpg(CNS): The Port Authority has now issued an eviction notice effective from Friday evening (24 August) to the remaining boat captains and tour operators who still have boats moored at the Safehaven site, as developer Michael Ryan begins work on a new marina. Although several captains have raised concerns about the temporary location, the legality of the deal between Ryan and government, as well as the size of the new facility now being constructed, the Port Authority posted notices on cars and around the old site on Friday telling the captains they must move their boats or face legal action.

Several captains had remained at the site since a notice was posted in the local press and on atthe old marina by the developer as they had a number of concerns.

In the first instance, they believed that the temporary site would not be able to accommodate all of the boats and the turning circle is too small for some vessels.

Secondly, there are concerns that there are no guarantees that the developer will complete the new public marina as promised, leaving them with nowhere to dock.

Thirdly, the original deal with the developer was between Fujigmo Ltd & Cesar Hotelco (Cayman) Ltd and the Port Authority. The captains say that the first company does not appear to be registered in Cayman and that Cesar is now owned by receivers as it was one of the firms owned by Ryan involved in the development of the Ritz-Carlton.

As a result, the captains question the legality of the entire deal, which was related to Ryan’s proposed development of Dragon Bay that involved government giving Ryan’s companies fill from the site, the excavation of canals for the hotel access and land swaps on Port Authority property in return for the development of a replacement public marina in which local operators could moor their vessels.

The majority of the local captains say they have been concerned that the marina would never materialise and if it does, based on the current plans, it would not be suitable.

However, last week Ryan began work at the site while several of the operators were still moored there and before the captains had received notice from the port. A number of captains did however choose to sign new licence agreements with Ryan and move to the temporary site.

On Friday the port issue a notice to those remaining captains stating that their concerns had been addressed and that there was still room at one of two temporary sites where the captains could move their vessels.

“The Authority believes that the current arrangements address the perceived concerns of those water sports operators who believe they may be negatively affected by the construction of the Proposed Marina, after having explored the legally remaining options with DBL. The Authority believes that all reasonable concerns have now been dealt with,” port officials said in a notice of eviction.

The port also believes that the deal is legal as Fujigmo Limited is now Dragon Bay Limited, which is a registered company of good standing and the company which is leasing the Port Authority land. The officials said the remaining boat operators needed to leave as they were now an impediment to the development of the new marina.

“With appropriate notifications having been posted on the Old Site since 13 August and published in the local newspaper, construction on the Proposed Marina is already underway, with major earthworks, including the use of demolitions to excavate the marina basin, scheduled to commence imminently,” the port stated.

“However, the continued presence of the remaining vessels on the Old Site, which now comprises property held by DBL … but also Authority property, have become an unlawful impediment to DBL's performance of its obligations under the Agreement resulting in considerable delay to the further progress of the Proposed Marina. Further, the Authority is becoming increasingly concerned for the safety of the public, including the visitors to the Island being catered to by the remaining tour operators who are being loaded and unloaded in what is becoming a hazardous construction site.”

Port officials added that owners of the boats still at the old site must move them to the interim sites provided or elsewhere, otherwise it would be considering all remedies available including legal proceedings.

After the notice was posted around the old Safehaven marina on Friday, North Side MLA Ezzard Miller encouraged the captains to remain at the old site until the legal issues and other problems were addressed as he still had real concerns about their rights. He said that he had approached the Attorney General’s Chambers for assistance in relation to the problems and had been asked to submit his concerns in writing, which he said he intended to do.

“The problem is that the process is not being properly followed here and the captains have a right to be concerned as there are no guarantees for their future and their livelihood is at stake,” he added.

On Saturday seven of the operators who have been using the site for more than 20 years remained at the old Safehaven dock. After contractors at the site cemented the gate closed and advised by their lawyer to stay, one of the captains told CNS that they would now have to swim to get to their boats.

See notice issued to captains below.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (20)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    To Anonymous 8:54: the fact is that Micheal Ryan is not and never has been under any legal obligation to pay the government six million dollars. According to the information that we’ve seen to date, one of the development companies that built the Ritz (of which he is a shareholder) that is now in receivership, owes that money and by all accounts government has really not tried to collect it to date (Maybe you should do an FOI to the Financial secretary to find out what the true position is on that). And by the way: Have you ever heard of the doctrine of separate legal personality? It’s the doctrine that states that a company has a separate legal personality, and consequently, separate liability, from its shareholders, even where there is only one shareholder. The entire concept of separate liability of companies is the basis on which we (the entire world) do business on a daily basis. And, the fact is that Mike Ryan no longer has control over the company that owes those funds, and the reason for that is under litigation and has yet to be determined by the Courts. So, maybe you should be more careful with your “facts” before you get sued for libel. (I’m surprised he hasnt done that already)
    BTW: under our Penal Code, libel is a criminal offence in this jurisdiction, so it is simply amazing that some people get away with committing it on here on a daily basis.

  2. Anonymous says:

    If you read the attached letter/notice from the PortAuthority, some of the questions raised here would be answered already. The Port Authority is obviously of the view that the is a legitimate deal, even though it was signed by a different board, under a different administration. There’s an important point that seems to have been missed here too, whichis that this new facility will serve the entire public, for example with a public boat ramp to the north sound, which is badly needed in the area. Obviously, “capt” Bryan and the Kelly boys, would gladly scuttle this project, and deprive the public of this facility, since they are not going to be given the keys to it. This takes the concept of illegitimate expectations to a whole new level folks. Not only do they want a guaranteed berthing facility for their commercial activities for free, at the public’s expense, but they actually believe the whole facility should be all for them, and to hell with us.
    And they say that their reason for remaining is that they are not satisfied that Michael Ryan can or will build this facility, so they are going to deliberately prevent him from building it!? Does that make sense?
    The fact is that Dragon Bay is under a legal obligation to build this facility, as it is part of its government-approved master plan that was approved by the PPM government (including Ezzard’s ally Arden) and subsequently approved by the CPA, and so is an integral part of the Dragon Bay project, so Mike Ryan, or whoever might buy the project, would have to build it anyway, so theirs is not a valid argument.
    Yet, the media, and Ezzard (who understandably, but misguidedly, is looking for some political points here), is still given them tacit support. Am I missing something here?
    Let’s face the facts. These aren’t poor homeless folks who are being kicked out from under a bridge so the government can tear it down. These are businessmen who own multiple commercial vessels who have been getting a free lunch at our expense all these years, and because it seems like the gravy train maybe drying up, they are protesting. I hope that the Port Authority makes a note and refuses them berthing spaces in the new PUBLIC marina.

    • Anonymous says:

      "The fact is that Dragon Bay is under a legal obligation to build this facility,"

      The fact is the same developer Mike Ryan is under legal obligation to pay government six million dollars.  So are we to rudt thisd man who hides behind multi level companies to protyect his wallet while not fulfillling his "legal" obligations?

      • Anonymous says:

        I think you will find Mr Ryan does not owe one cent. You need to understand the concept of limited liability companies.

        • Anonymous says:

          The company of which Michael Ryan is a shareholder owes the money, government should put an injunction on this company and all its assets and then we will see how limited liability works.  Caymanians need to take this to the UK and let them deal with it like they did in TCI.  Then and only then will we know the real concept of limited liability.   The fact are there in TCI to show how the UK deals with land swaps, payments and other infractions.

          • Anonymous says:

            Completely clueless.  But utter ignorance did not stop anyone on CNS.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Keke strikes again lol!

  4. Thunder Storm says:

    Was this past of the Premier's negoiated plan with his friend Mr. Ryan or was this done under the Dragon Bay negoiations????


    CNS please advise.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The problem is this, too many people in Cayman is underestimating the Premier.  Seriously think, you will all note he is much smarter than you all think. If he takes off the glove and hand you, trust me, no one in LA will know what to do with it.  Expatriates, you do not know it yet, but you have been had.

  6. Anonymous says:

    They should find and pay for their own marina , not expect freebie handouts.

  7. Business is business says:

    Business is business.  The CI Govt does not OWE independent operators a livlihood.  Take your profits from squatting over the past 20 years and buy a piece of land for your private business, period.  

    As a matter of fact, Captains (? Not ONE even has a yachtmaster or USCG six-pack) can apply for a bank loan or go to the DCI and get a loan from the Caribbean Development Bank:,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL



  8. Anonymous says:

    Why the hell do we pander to Michael Ryan. Let the man pay back what he owes us then maybe we can do business. Until then – nadda

    • Anonymous says:


      This has nothing to do with squatters. these boat opperators are making money all year round.

      Why didnt they use their common sense and lease a piece of water way from gov. or some private person, and developed their own marina. they had enough time to do so.  They would rather critize Ryan or any other outsider,  with the brain to do these projects. They could have done the same.Caymaniansneed to look at things with a broader mind.



      By a born Caymanians 

  9. Anonymous says:

    The letter can't be legal as no one has signed it.

    To those who have stayed to fight. The majority is on your side.

    To those who have fled like timid little sheep. Your forefathers must be turning in their graves


  10. Anonymous says:


    What would Bush do?

    • Anonymous says:

      Bush would move and declare it a victory for him.

    • Anonymous says:

      Bush would shred all the documents and say it was not his boat, but he just happened to be on it at the time.