Dart to fight West Bay women

| 02/09/2013

CNS): The Grand Court has agreed that the islands’ largest developer can join a group of government defendants against an action filed by four women from West Bay who are attempting to put an end to a deal relating to the closure of the West Bay Road. Justice Alex Henderson said  Dart Realty (Cayman) Ltd could join proceedings filed by the ladies as a result of what he said was a risk to the developer’s legal rights. The women filed their legal challenge to the legality of the deal known as the NRA Agreementagainst government, not Dart, based on constitutional issues. Meanwhile, government has remained silent regarding the current status of negotiations on the agreement since talks stalled ahead of the general election.

In their fight to stop the agreement completely, the four West Bay women did not cite Dart in their suit as it is the actions of government they are concerned about.

However, despite applying to join the action and defend their own corner, some six months after Alice Mae Coe, Betty Ebanks Annie Multon, and Ezmie Smith filed their writ, the judge allowed the application as he found that Dart’s legal rights under the NRA Agreement are at risk because the women claim the deal as it stands should be declared void.

The women fought the application because the trial is now only three months away and the developer has had since February to apply to join. Plus, with the exception of the easement rights, the plaintiffs say it is constitutional principles that are in question, and the lawyer representing the women said that the Attorney General‘s Chambers is more than capable of defending the suit.

“We feel and still feel that the proceedings are going to be 'clogged up' by Dart’s intervention as a defendant at this late stage and extra costs will be incurred all round,” local attorney Irvin Banks said in the wake of the decision. However, despite the size of the developer’s pockets, he said the women were not discouraged and were happy to take on Dart as well as the government agencies.

“Now that the deed is done, we welcome the opportunity to get to grips with the authors of the NRA Agreement and have the Court finally decide whether the rights of passage and beach easements claimed by the Plaintiffs and others for generations, and the procedure followed by government intaking away those rights of passage and beach easements from the Plaintiffs are legitimate complaints and can be dealt with by the Courts under the Constitution,” he added

During the hearing on Friday, Justice Henderson had warned the developer’s legal team that they should not be attempting to take over the entire defence from government, and that they must instead limit themselves to defending their own interests under the agreement.

The trial is set down for three days starting on 11 December, when the four women will argue that government was wrong to transfer the crown land, consisting of well over 4000 feet of the West Bay Road to Dart as part of a controversial swap surrounding the proposed development of a new 5-star resort on the site of the former Courtyard Marriott.

The agreement itself, however, still remains in abeyance. A part of the West Bay Road has already been closed and is now buried under a sand-like substance as part of the plans to create a new public recreation area, set back from the original public beach. However, the government has not yet gazetted the remaining stretch of the road that Dart wants to close, from Raleigh Quay to the new junction at Yacht Drive. 

Talks between the developer and the previous minority government stalled following the revelations by PricewaterhouseCoopers that there were some question marks over the value for money the public purse was getting in the swap. As the PNA government attempted to renegotiate the deal, the talks collapsed and the can was kicked down the road to the new government.

At the recent PPM National Council Meeting, Planning Minister Kurt Tibbetts revealed that, while the strip of closed road was a fait accompli, the government was back in talks with a particular focus in removing a ten year 50% tax gift that the UDP government had given the developer for any property it developed or acquired over the next thirty years.

The government had said it was hoping to be able to make an announcement soon afterwards but enquiries regarding the issue by CNS have not yet been answered.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

Comments (93)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    If Dart was so concerned about losing money, why have they built Camana Bay? that thing is an economic nonsense….more likely nothing more than a tax-write off or some other financial trickery that's way beyond my understanding..or maybe just an insane monument to a reclusive plastic heir…dart isnt joining a lawsuit for the money, and the hotel will be a qualified success whether there's a road there or not….Dart is probably being advised by one of its many highly-paid attorneys that they can delay or at least give themselves mroe time to start building things that cannot be reversed by throwing more legal hurdles at this case……this case by the way that is really a fools errand, the ladies are highly unlikely going to win………$50M losses? Dart could care less…these guys have more money than sense, as is evident in so many of the things they do here……but long may they continue, because that road is awesome and Camana Bay is a cool place to hand out! Here's to crazy recluses with money to burn!!

    • Anonymous says:

      09.02 some people will just never get it..you are one of them sad to say.

    • Anonymous says:

      Let me complete that last sentence for you.  "With money to burn and countries to buy."  Dart will not be happy till he has total control of Cayman!

    • Anonymous says:

      Crazy recuses: helping make the world go round!

  2. Anonymous says:

    My personal gripe in this entire matter is Dart's insistence in squeezing tens of millions of dollars in duty concessions along with an eternity of room tax revenue out of the public purse while all the while proclaiming his eternal love for cayman (doesn't that remind you of someone), just because he's the 'man wid the money' and has been shown he can do it and get away with it. This is NOT love for Cayman or our people, Cayman. This is sucking the lifeblood from our vains very simply because he has been shown by none other than our own precious government that he can do so. The best Caymanians will get out of this is a lifetime of more enslavement competing with expatriates for Mr. Dart's measley dollar to keep his hotel rooms clean and maintain his billion dollar money machine. This is the very clearest  indication of what Mr Dart's REAL intentions are for Cayman and where our people will be at the hands of Mr Dart if we continue to allow him free reign in our beloved country. Wake up Cayman.  

    • anonymous says:

      Yes Wake up Caymanians….yes wake up, from the wild dream of that poster 7.10

      Dart doesnt need to put his money here. He is being invited to do so by way of concessions of our government so that we can HAVE SOME MONEY IN OUR ECONOMY!!!.  What most seem to miss is the point that all countries are providing similar concessions to get some inward flow of capital. WE SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY LOCALLY TO KEEP THIS COUNTRY OPERATIONAL.

      You can add all the money the Fosters, the kirkconnells, the Merrens etc have and it will not run this country for a day….simple fact is we need outside investors….and in these times we have to sweeten the pot for them to come here and not go somewhere else. 

      • Anonymous says:

        Hope you're enjoying the kool aid, my friend.

      • Anonymous says:

        There is one tiny little, not so obvious problem with that, my friend. Dart is pocketing the money he is supposed to be injecting into the economy.

      • Anonymous says:

        Facts please.

      • Anonymous says:

        if he doesn't need to put his money here, why is he? is it that love of cayman story again ?(weeps 1 tiny emotional tear)

        • Anonymous says:

          Very obviously because he has more to gain from putting it here than anywhere else. All the "Love for Cayman and our people", and the "For Cayman", and the "Only Dart can save Cayman" baloney are the bullshit keys that have unlocked the door for Mr. Dart, thanks to the ignorant crap mongers among us.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Mindblowing all the obviously biased uneducated comments on this issue.  If a contract is deemed to be illegal and the foundation of the so called agreement based on the fact that there was no legal right of transfer in the first place others rights cannot be quashed. And these nut cases still expect there will be some kind of money due back?  Bizzaro world is calling. 

    I can just see the writ to the magistrate now:

    Dear Magistrate,

    "I the undersigned destroyer would like to protect my interests in my illegally gotten gains even if they have been deemed to have been acquired illegally."

    Anywhere else in the world assets would be seized and the perpetrator made to make reparations and right the wrong.  This is the exact thing so called overseas territories have been under fire for on the world strage and somehow there is supposed to be some sort of seperate serruptitious standard for a domestic issue?

    Twighlight Zone stuff for sure.

    • Confused&Bemused says:

      Along the same line of logic then, if the deal is deemed illegal does that mean the new road will need to be torn up? By your logic, of course, because it's 'illegal gotten gains' for the government? The decision shouldn't favour either party if the deal is deemed illegal right?

      Which would mean if the goverment would like to keep the road they would need to pay the developer for it right? Because then it would be a new deal between Dart and the Goverment simply to build the road. If they do not want the road who will be responsible for the road's destruction?

      Also who would pay for the old road being reinstated? If the deal is illegal both parties would be liable as both signed, so why would it be an action item for one rather than both.

      In my opinion, the ladies winning this case means Cayman loses one way or another. Losing the case means the developer continues the work and creates more jobs.

    • Anonymous says:

      Obviously you have no understanding of the law of contracts.    (And this is just a nuisance lawsuit).    

  4. Anonymous says:

    Dart has always used the political means to make his money, the rest of it was inherited.

    • Anonymous says:

      Dart was actually one of the founding members of the Dart Container Company, he made his money through inovation and grew his money through many other means.

      • Anonymous says:

        Please do not forget how he filled up the land fill worldwide with his Dart Containers.  He is pretty much responsible for a lot of the garbage at Mount Thrashmore.!!  Need I say more?

        • Anonymous says:

          you underestimate the degree of his legacy.  Look WORLDWIDE for his piles of good works!

          Mount Trashmore is but a tiny fart in the gigandenormous pile of crap now covering this earth!

      • Anonymous says:

        Mainly political and inheritance

      • Anonymous says:

        Get your facts straight.

        "Dart Manufacturing Company was founded in 1937 by William F. Dart as a machine shop, manufacturing key rings, steel tape measures, and dog tags for the Department of Defense.[3] When his son, William A. Dart, came out of the University of Michigan with three degrees (metallurgy, mathematics, and engineering), he worked for DuPont for a bit, then joined the family business in the late 1950s. He experimented with and perfected an expandable polystyrene (EPS) molding process, and shipped their first insulated foam cups in April 1960.[3] Dart Container Corporation was incorporated in 1960.[4]"

        Ken Dart was born in 1955.  That does not jive with your comments.

        • Anonymous says:

          And now I might add, the world is up to our knees in non-biodegradable sandwich wrappers!

  5. Anonymous says:

    On a separate point, the trees have been allowed to grow covering my daily view of mt. Trashmore. This is my cultural heritage that I am being deprived of even though I can still smell it, I feel my human rights have been breached.

     

  6. Chris says:

    Amazing to see how many posts seem to be of the opinion that if we have one road then we must close the other.

    While there is nothing wrong with the new bypass, the West Bay road pre Dart was also perfectly fine.

    Why not keep both roads open?

     

    • Anonymous says:

      Because if you do, how will the goverment pay Dart for the Bypass? They can't even afford their bills, or do you want it for free?

    • Anonymous says:

      Because you cant build a 4-5 star resort with a road running between the swimming pool and a tiny sliver of a beach.   The previous hotel failed primarily on the site.  That is the whole point, a movement of the road.  

  7. Anonymous says:

    Alice Mae Coe, Betty Ebanks Annie Multon, and Ezmie Smith

     I want to know why weren't you three complaining back in the 70's,80's when all the condos and hotels were being built on the beach side of SMB road taking your view away from you. Oh I know because you could see the sea because of the bush. In fact I drove up the little strip you want to save and guess what you can't see the f…in beach there is no view because of the bush.

    When it comes to Mr Dart and his company everyone has their personal options liking or disliking him and what he is doing, the one thing I know is when he does something it is done well and everyone from all classes are welcome. So you know when he starts on this part of the beach it is going to be done right and believe me you will probably have walkways on the beach side for families and be able to see the sea, much better than now.

    I do have one question which hopefully a lawyer can answer who reads this.

    can I file a law suite on the ladies for not looking out for the best interest of us caymanians? Or file a suite on them because I want dart to build this? Stupid question yes, but if I could I would file something against them and make them spend theirs dollars. Oh and by the way I can afford to pay a lawyer for years to keep them in court wasting their money like they are wasting our government funds right now.

    • Anonymous says:

      You are a Dartian. Your ship is waiting for you to fly away. Now take off!!

      • Anonymous says:

        Cant take the ship, it wrecked in the Bac moons ago and moved to WB about 100yrs ago. My ship not leaving anytime unless you can help repair it. Oh, i dont work for dart and never would. I will stick to what i say, these three woman are wasting Gov funds and to be honest if they loose the case they should be made to pay back every single cent it has cost us. We have many more pressing issues to address in cayman right now, all the child abuses crime, education, health and unemployment.

    • Hoping for better days says:

      Amen! You said it!

    • Anonymous says:

      And one of those ladies made her living working at condominiums built by a developer who almost single handedly blocked half the beach view along Seven Mile Beach with condominiums!

  8. Whodatis says:

    Re: Dart's interest / potential for losses

    Typically, I try to ensure all i's are dotted and t's are crossed whenever I invest $50m.

    Otherwise, when things happen to fall apart in the future – I must accept some degree of personal responsibility.

    After all, we should all remember that;

    "The wise man built his house upon the rock, but the foolish man built his house upon the sand!"

    One of the first life lessons ever imparted on me way back in kindergarten.

    Just sayin …

    • Anonymous says:

      Says the man who built nothing but hatred for the motherland…

      • Whodatis says:
        1. Totally misguided and irrelevant comment
        2. To what "motherland" do you refer?
        • Anonymous says:

          And your comment was relevant? Hahahahahahahaha…best one I heard for a while..

  9. Anonymous says:

     

     

    Contract frustrated by the FFR…no longer binding

  10. Anonymous says:

    I guess my main concern is that these women actually believe they are doing something positive!  The road that they are trying to protect because it was so scenic (insert sarcasm) should have been protected when their generation was selling it off to condo developers in the 1st place!  Condos do not equate to a lot of tourism dollars, but those buildingsdefinitely blight the scenic view there once was!

    The new road is wonderful.  When the new road into WB opens up, that too will be wonderful.  Public Beach is great except for our own people leaving it a pig sty every weekend.  Parking…a new park…I am NOT put off by any of it!

    Should this come down to the people of the Cayman Islands having to payback Dart, that will be another sad day in this country.  

    • Anonymous says:

      EXACTLY……………

    • Anonymous says:

      Dart owe this country! An apology for getting into bed with Bill Bush and trying to pull a fast one. Time to wake up from your dream. 

    • Anonymous says:

      You are capable of having "concerns"? People with your ungrateful attitude should have to "payback" Durt, as if there was any justification for it given the Value for Money report proved he is pulling one over the people of Cayman by 20 Million minimum.   The rest of us just want justice and if soon enough come too.  HaHaHa!  Just can't get over you hating ignoramus money workshipers that hate justice or compromise.  Here is an idea YOU pay Durt whatever you want since you are so worried about it.  Start warming up the crow you all are going to be eating for every supper.

      • Anonymous says:

        06.22 you obviously wrote before coffee time…Caymanians signed that deal too, so who is bamboozling who? So convenient just to blame one party…the party you should be suing, if proven true, is the UDP and its leaders…seize their assets!! Get a life…

      • SSM345 says:

        06:22, PwC did a report on DART:

        "The economic benefits to the country from the first SMB hotel alone were calculated at $755 million over 20 years, and PwC estimated value to the country of more than $2.4 billion if Dart proceeds with planned additional developments."

        Yep, Cayman has absolutely nothing to gain from DART, absolutely nothing at all.

      • Hoping for better days says:

        I would venture to say you are perhaps quite ignorant; meaning lacking education.

        Everyone is entitled to their opinion and yet people like you come on here and take offence to what people's views are. GROW UP!

        With all the serious issues we are faced with today in the Cayman Islands, is it not wasted energy these women are putting into this? We have children being molested everyday, children starving because they have worthless parents 'dragging them up'. Education is a MESS! Immigration is a MESS! etc. One 1/4 mile of road they DEMAND was TAKEN from us! REALLY????

        Get your head out the sand please and stop supporting this ridiculous scheme. Things like this is why people look down at us, things like this is why people CLASS us as IGNORANT.

        I can't wait to see the final product if they ever allow the man to finish what he started, you know why? Because I embrace change, i move with the currents, you should too!

         

        Indigenous Caymanian

  11. Anonymous says:

    Just so I understand this, if these ladies win, they get to keep a small piece of road that benefits almost no one, but everyone else looses the bypass, the public beach remodel, and a 4-5 star resort? At a minimum, the public purse would have to reimburse Dart for the millions he invested, but still loose the long term benefits of the resort that he will be unable to build b/c of the road. 

    Thanks ladies, this is noble work you are doing here! I hope you lose this case and are forced to pay legal fees too. 

     

    • Anonymous says:

      I love the new road too, but not at the cost of allowing government to circumvent procedures and  certainly not at the expense of the people.  This is not a case of the ends justifying the means.  It is about abinding by the law and it includes those elected to power.

      • Anonymous says:

        What cost to the people? What has it cost you?

        • Anonymous says:

          Please read the post again.  It clearly states the cost is circumvention of procedure and that is what democracy is about my friend.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thank you. Well put. Concise. Level headed. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Democracy. That's what you left out. You get democrat in action if they win….. if you care. 

      Maybe you could stop coming from fear

  12. Anonymous says:

     Again, I drove WBR and what go you see at 40mph — bush on one side and bush and condos/apts on the other — I do agree an emergency road should be built — just incase– but I really like the new road — and I feel that this is a case of personalites more than shutting down the section of scenic road ???? The more I drive the new road the more I like it — just wish they would open the last segment–

    • Anonymous says:

      I thought that hurricane Ivan was the largest catastrophy that ever hit Grand Cayman but Ivan will look like a tropical wave when Dart get through with us.  

  13. Anonymous says:

    I am surprised that Dart used a "sand-like" substance to cover the road…couldn't they afford real sand???

    • Anonymous says:

      That's CNS-speak for non-Caymanian or "expat" sand.  Why are we allowing that into the country when there is so much unemployed local sand that is suitably qualified?

      • Anonymous says:

        Most hilarious comment I have seen in a while! that made my day!!! XD

      • Anonymous says:

        The local sand didn't like the long hours and wanted higher pay.

    • Anonymous says:

      Synthetic sand is cheaper, its made from schredded styrofoam, Dart has tons of this stuff that way it didn't cost them anything to use this to cover the road.

    • Anonymous says:

      That is sand..it is out of some river. It is not as white and pretty as the beach sand, but i see nothing wrong with it.

      Not too long ago that area was all mangrove and then fill with marl. Whats all the fuss about?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Dart isn't fighting these women, he is basically protecting his own rights because if this deal is voided it will be no fault of his own and someone will owe him a lot of money for all the work he already did to live up to his part of the deal. And you can best believe he will file a civil suite to collect it aggresively. I don;y blame him fornot trust the CIG to handle this correctly, they already got what they wanted.

  15. Anonymous says:

    sorry, Whodatis, your post is not understandable.

     

    Just blame everything on the Queen and her corgis as usual.

    • Whodatis says:

      I doubt you would have taken the time from your busy schedule to personally reply if my post was truly not understandable.

      Nice try though.

      By the way, what is a Corgi? Is that a hamburger similar to the Le Royale?

      • Anonymous says:

        Like the Royale, but eaten raw, and only after Labor Day. 

        • Whodatis says:

          Didn't realize the Queen celebrated Labor (Labour!) Day … is that something new??

          🙂

          • Anonymous says:

            It's left-over from her child bearing years you insensetive mutt!  

          • Anonymous says:

            I guess I should stop sending her 'Happy Fourth of July' telegrams as well.

  16. Anonymous says:

    As a family that enjoys cycling, we are glad that part of west bay road has been diverted, and have been enjoying the express cycle route to Morgan's Harbour.  It's a beautiful road.

    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed.  And people should look at all the bike and walking trails that are planned.   Much better than a stupid strip of road.    Lets move on with this already!

  17. Kato says:

    What a waste! BIG money is and will always win, good luck ladies. I wish you my best.

  18. Judean People's Front says:

    This should be done in a cage on public beach.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Brings to mind the great tennis match up between Billie Jean King and Bobby Rigg. Game on!

    • Anonymous says:

      Right, and if Billie Jean wins, she somehow has to come up with the $48 million Dart incurred so far in agreeing to be bound by a signed legal document.   Blows me away how the government doesnt honor an agreement it signed.   Its the people of Cayman that will have to pay restitution (and enjoy a half completed new public beach, and stare at the barricades for the new road extensions).   Pure amatuerism.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not that there is an issue in this case, but should government be bound by an agreement that is illegal or based on corruption? Having established that there are exceptions, how can you make such a blanket statement? Let the court decide.

        • Anonymous says:

          Of course CIG is bound, it was the legally elected representative of the Cayman people…now Cayman want to hold certain people responsible and cease whatever assets they have to help pay for damages and teach future politicians a lesson..but lets be realistic, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

        • Anonymous says:

          So what you're hoping is that the court will force West Bay Road to reopen and we get to keep the new Road while owing nothing to Dart for building it, because the CIG shouldn't be bound by an agreement they made. Wow you people really do want something for nothing. News cast buddy even if the government makes an deal that is considered unconstitutional they are still liable to pay for what they purchased in this case a new road, and if it's not paid for with that stretch of road it will need to be paid for in Cash.. And if this deal is reversed you can best believe the CIG will be paying Dart for every penny he invested, or you just might see the name Dartland go up. The one thing you can expect is that you won't see Dart putting up anymore up front money to help Cayman dig itself out of this ditch. I wouldn't be surprised if he just decides to gate off Cayman Bay and isolate it from the growing Crime Wave that no one seems to be paying attention to..

          • Anonymous says:

            I'll tell you what I want. I want fair and honest dealings. Not sneak thieves in the night. That's what I want. Pretty road, no road, condos, palm trees,  doesn't matter.  I just want people to be honest.  Not my lawyers can make me look honest. Just plain honest. Know what I mean?

  20. Anonymous says:

    Best headline ever!

  21. Whodatis says:

    Interesting.

    So, a thrid party (Dart) whose interest only arose as a subsequence to the developments / transfers concerned in the original complaint is given the right to "defend" itself against said complaint?

    Doesn't that sorta defeat the purpose of the action in the first place? If not defeat it, it does appear somewhat immaterial … to the issue directly at hand.

    • Anonymous says:

      I have no clue what you are talking about.   Huh?

      • Whodatis says:

        You should've just kept it movin' then buddy.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well hello mr. Willfully ignorant. 

        • Whodatis says:

          Yes poster, you hit the nail on the head.

          Unfotunately, there are many like him here on CNS.

          For example, they can be identified by the number of "troll" votes I receive. Actual trolling is easily identifiable, however many abuse the button at times of no recourse or simple disdain for the poster in question.

          Regardless, the valid point(s) that their target has made stands strong.

    • Anonymous says:

      So, it's actually "third", not "thrid" and Dart's interest didn't arise as a consequence (or subsequence) to the developments.  Dart IS the developer who has a valid agreement with Government and as the learned judged ruled, has a definite place in helping defend against the Plaintiffs.

    • Anonymous says:

      The issue is that Dart clearly has the most to lose, and they will not take it laying down and just write off 48 million..Someone will have to pay them back and it will be each and every person here..

      • Chris says:

        Sure….pay Dart back in duty concessions.

        Dart seems ot like such concessions and that way no cash comes out of govt's pocket and the people get their road back.

        Simple!

      • Anonymous says:

        NO! STOP! You are wrong. Sooo wrong. Dart loves Cayman. Give him a chance. He will not hurt us! Don't you even know what love is?!

    • Whodatis says:

      I wonder if my respondents truly believe they have advanced the debate with their posts?

      My initial question(s) still stands … unna donkeys!!