Port releases Safehaven marina plans

| 24/09/2012

IMG-20120825-00224 (221x300).jpg(CNS):  Following the success of the legal action taken by a group of local boat captains to put a stop to work at the Safehaven Marina before their issues have been sorted out, the Port Authority has finally released a document containing the plans for the re-development of the public marina by the former owner of the Ritz Carlton. Michal Ryan is undertaking a refurbishment as a result of a land swap and fill deal with government relating to the proposed Dragon Bay site. Port officials said Friday that it hoped the delays to the new marina because of the injunction would be kept to a minimum and reminded the public that the site is private property and access was not allowed.

However, the captains still have access following the stay and the actual ownership of the area remains in question. It is still not clear if the land now belongs to Dragon Bay Limited, the current company owned by Ryan or other companies owned by the developer that have been seized by the hotel’s creditor or if the land is still crown land and public property.

The problem for the boat captains, however, is that the temporary site that was designated for the tour operators while the work is underway does not fit their needs. They say that it is too small for some of the vessels used by the captains — which they say is a problem with the planned new marina as well.

While some operators in Safehaven have moved to the temporary site, others won an injunction last week to remain at the Safehaven dock, a place where some of them have been working from for 25 years.

In a statement released Friday evening, the Port Authority stated that the new public marina was being constructed for the authority by Dragon Bay.

“The marina will provide enhanced launching and docking facilities, and ancillary amenities such as public toilets, parking and seating areas, in addition to providing a more attractive access point to the North Sound,” it said. “During the construction process, temporary berthing sites have been designated for the commercial tour operators in the area who will have access to the new marina when it is completed."

In addition to the problems with the temporary and the new site being insufficient for some of the operators' needs, there are concerns that they have no guarantees of continued access to the new marina. They have said that if and when the marina is completed, they feel they could be pushed out, which means they will have nowhere to operate from in future, putting an end to their livelihoods.

Related article:

Captains get stay over Safehaven marina

Release and report from Port Authority below.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Ha. These poor captains think they can stop Mike Ryan, but if it one thing that he has proven is that he is extremely resilient. Sounds like despite the “stay”, the work is still ongoing, with the full blessing of the Port Authority. Must be good to have good friends and business partners in high places…

  2. Anonymous says:

    What do you mean, it is still not clear whether the land is now owned by Dragon Bay? Why don’t you take a trip down to the Land Registry and find out for yourself (although I acknowledge that only seemed to confuse Ezzard)? There is no disputing what is on the Register, is there? And, in any event, we all know that all that Dragon Bay ever “owned” was a long term lease on crown property. While you’re at it, read Section 22 of the Registered Land Law. That explains what a reparcellation is. Simply put, it is a reconfiguration of adjoining parcels. There is no transfer of land, it is just simply that the requisite parcels are reshaped and given new parcel numbers. So you have Dragon Bay (formerly Fujigmo) which owns a leasehold parcel contracting with the Governor in Cabinet and the Port Authority and the owner of the Ritz property agreeing to reconfigure and reshape all of the relevant parcels to create the newly shaped parcels that now exist, one of which is the new Port Authority owned (freehold) parcel on which Dragon Bay is obliged to build a new public marina on for the Port Authority. So there has been no change of ownership, just a change of the shape of the affected parcels. Som there is no story there.
    What we in fact have here is a bunch of selfish, greedy freeloading commercial boat owners who have enjoyed the benefit of the Government’s largess and succor over the years, intervening to stop the new public marina, simply because they don’t want to have to pay to berth their commercial vessels that they make tens of thousands of dollars from each month. And they are supposed to be exalted as local heroes? Give me a fricking break! This is a public project, which the entire project should see the benefit of, not just the Kelly gang and “capt” Bryan. What we are witnessing here is just the typical extortionist obstruction tactics that too many have employed successfully over the years to wring some peculiarly advantage out of many a developer. And it won’t stop until Cayman is literally dead in the water. let’s see how sustainable the economy is then.
    I hope that when the new marina is built, we remember those who obstructed and exacerbated the cost of this badly needed public project, and that, the Port Authority, as a public authority, has the nuts and guts to do the right thing and send them packing, or at the very least charge them extra to recover the costs of them delaying and obstructing this project.

  3. Anonymous says:

    How anyone can be opposed to fixing up the current derelict marina, and replacing with a nicer facility is beyond me.  

    The boat captains have had FREE use of the dock, but the jig is up.  The captains should be THANKFUL for their past free use.  

    • Anonymous says:

      IF the marina is fit for their useand made available to them I would agree but it seems that the Captqains believe otherwise.

    • Anonymous says:

      Since when is anything free (especially here)?

    • Anonymous says:

      CNS I believe your report is not accurate you should double check the court order,.