Law won’t hit property rights

| 25/11/2013

(CNS): The proposed National Conservation Law will not allow government to take people’s land to make protected areas and there is nothing in the bill that gives government the power to prohibit people from developing or using their own land. Following the publication of a direct attack on the law in Monday's edition of Cayman’s only daily newspaper, Environment Minister Wayne Panton has hit back, urging people not to listen “to the lies that are being spread” about the long awaited bill. In a letter to the media written from London, where he is attending an overseas territories meeting, Panton admitted that the bill is a watered down piece of legislation because of11 years of consultation and listening to the views of local people.

In his letter Panton said he was “dismayed” by the editorial in The Caymanian Compass, as he accused the editor of not reading the bill and relying on hearsay and rhetoric.

“There is absolutely nothing in the proposed legislation that lets government take people’s land to make protected areas, not even for private land adjoining government land that gets made into a protected area – none,” Panton writes in a passionate defense of the bill, which has taken more than a decade to reach the table of the Legislative Assembly.

Despite the dire warnings from conservation and environmental experts for years over the threats to many of Cayman’s endemic and unique species, the law has struggled to make it to the country’s parliament because of a very small but powerful lobby, which appears to havenow found support with the local paper.

The vast majority of people in Cayman appear to be in favour of the law. Most public on-line straw polls, including those conducted by the Compass in the past, as well as here on CNS and Cayman27, have all demonstrated significant public support for the legislation. Many conservationists, however, are concerned that this bill has been altered and diluted to such an extent that, given the environmental crisis facing the islands endangered habitats, it won’t go far enough.

Nevertheless, there remains a limited amount of opposition to any form of conservation, so despite Panton’s admission that this legislation is a “watered-down version” because it has taken on board all of the desires of the Caymanian people, the fact that the environment is about to receive any kind of protection is objectionable to those that feel that they should be allowed to continue developing with impunity.

“This legislation is a ghost of the original proposed law, which many considered too Draconian,” the minister wrote.

While there will be some checks and balances on the development process in future, with the environment to be considered alongside the socio-economic issues that have previously been the only things that influence planning decisions, the law does very little to inhibit land use or development.

“There is absolutely nothing in this bill that gives Government the power to prohibit people from altering, developing or using their own land,” Panton wrote and pointed out that the creation of an environmental council is merely an advisory body.

“Members of Cabinet will be the ultimate decision makers and those decisions won’t be made until there has been extensive public consultation,” the minister wrote, as he took aim at the newspaper’s editorial stance that the bill was ill-conceived. The law, Panton also noted, puts no limitations on property owners.

The minister urged people to look at the published bill, which is expected to be tabled in the LA early next month and according to the premier has the full support of both front and back benches and he hopes will also find favour across the floor.

Questioning the past support from the paper for environmental issues, Panton asked, “What happened to the Caymanian Compass that truly cared about the Cayman Islands and its people?” as he pointed to past editorials rallying government to pass the law.

“There are many provisions in the Law for public involvement and Cabinet oversight to make sure that the Law won’t go off the rails,” Panton said to reassure doubters but also pointed to the constitution, the Bill of Rights, the will of the people and their support for the defence and protection of the environment and Cayman’s natural resources.

“This Bill gives us the tools to implement a fundamental principle of sustainable development, i.e. consideration of the consequences of our actions on the environment in our national decision-making processes. It also allows us to address species and habitat conservation in a transparent, holistic, consultative manner. Its effectiveness will be up to us, the public and government, making sure we use the tools in the law appropriately,” the minister stated.

Encouraging those who want to know more about the law or who still have concerns to attend the district public meetings, which begin Monday 2 December, Panton pressed the importance of the future legacy this generation will leave the next without legislation to protect the environment.

The minister was not the only person disturbed by the editorial position of the paper. A spokesperson for Sustainable Cayman, the islands’ latest advocacy group campaigning on environmental issues, said they were very disappointed that the national newspaper had “launched an attack on the NCL rather than objectively analysing and reporting” on the proposed bill.

“The NCL has little effect on private property,” said Katrina Jurn, an environmental expert and one of the founders of the group. “The NCL allows Crown land to be designated as Protected Areas not private land. There is no mechanism in the NCL that will allow private property to be designated a Protected Area and no mechanism that will force a property owner to sell or lease their land to the Government,” she added.

Private land owners will have the option if they want to enter into a management agreement with the government where they can receive financial compensation for agreeing to not develop or alter their land and allowing the council to manage their land, but it is completely voluntarily.

“This legislation has been very carefully crafted to the unique circumstances of the Cayman Islands, to take in to account the significance of the development industry and the need for continued physical development of the island and the strong culture surrounding property rights in the Cayman Islands,” Jurn told CNS in response to the editorial. “Both political parties, developers, landowners, the tourism sector and environmental scientists, hundreds of individuals and all relevant government departments have contributed to the development and refinement of this piece of legislation which is extremely well balanced and desperately needed,” she added.

Vote in the CNS poll: Should the Legislative Assembly pass the National Conservation Bill into law?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Science and Nature

About the Author ()

Comments (81)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    The best to do here is ask yourself what you would do if it were your land that you spent all your money on. Would you be fine with the govenrment just taking it from you. If the CIG wants it for one reason or the other they should pay fair market value for it. If they want to keep someone from developing it, they should buy it. If they want to put a road on it they should pay for it just like anyone else. If the CIG starts forcing people to just relinquish private property that would amount to government corruption and noone would want to buy an inch of land in Cayman

  2. Anonymous says:

    Minister Panton keeps saying that there is NO provision to take peoples land – it is even worse than that.  According to Section 41 (5) the council can direct all decision making bodies in Cayman to prevent you from doing anything on your land (without compensation!)  I'd prefer for them to be able to buy my land from me…after this goes in place it will be worthless anyway.

    • Anonymous says:

      Section 41(5) refers to subsection 41(4) – in the frst line no less – which is the section dealing with causing damage to a protected area. Not private land.

    • Anonymous says:

      41.5 applies to protected areas ONLY. 

      Crown land. Not private land. 

  3. Anonymous says:

    So let me get this straight:

    in The Monday and Tuesday Compass the editor claims the NCL will allow wild abuses of power by Government and goes way too far?

    in the Wednesday Compass the editor now argues that the NCL doesn't go far enough?

    may I suggest that the editor take his or her meds before composing Thursday's editorial?

    • Anonymous says:

      Really the only thing worth reading in that rag is the Notice section at the back.  Thats where the real new is. 

  4. Anonymous says:

    One good thing has come of all this idiocy from the Compass: they have finally revealed (maybe unintentionally) who the money man is behind their recent takeover.  Read today's editorial about a poor beset upon "businessman in East End".

  5. Anonymous says:

    NCL will just end up like every other piece of legislation intended to protect the Cayman Islands and will be selectively enforced depending on who the people breaking the law are, who they know and how much money they have. I'd take this whole debate seriously but for one thing – CIG can't (or won't?) properly use the powers they already have so why should this piece of papermake any difference? 

  6. Otherview says:

    People actually still read The Compass ???????


  7. Castor says:

    I find it amusing that those who post here anonymously haven't written into the Compass in order to vent thier displeasure. Does anyone else find that starm=nge? Just saying. Eh

    • Anonymous says:

      Their comment system is archaic. It takes ages for anything to be posted, if at all. 

      • Anonymous says:

        And its only on the website for a day before it 'drops away'.

        Free Tip to Compass: You need a better 'ongoing discussions' thread than just the showing the last five comments, if you want to generate discussion on your website.

        Of coruse, we need to realise thet the Compass is set up on a different financial system from CNS that doesnt' rely on repeated website views each day from those of us keeping up withthe discussions. I assume that their website is there to drive attention to their print media which probably still make up the bulk of theri revenue.

        I fund it particularly funny that the Law they hate will, if passed, require the regular advertisement of conservation consultations in their newspaper as the Law is so old it still requires 'advertisements in a national public newspaper' which has always ben taken to mean 'a printed paper with a decent circulation'.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why is that strange?  Why would we support those jackasses?

    • Anonymous says:

      It is not strange.  since the Compass is controlled by the "big money" and does not allow anonymous  comments people are afraid to speak up.  Like in the old days when we were afraid of our leaders taking revenge on us.  Now we are afraid , not so mush of Government , but rather factions that now have economic control of our country.

      The Compass knew  exactly what they were doing by stopping the anon posts.  They were shutting down the voice of the underdogs.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Wow!  The Compass has really revealed just how extreme they (and/or their backers) are in their "bulldozer" mentality.  Their thinking is obviously along the lines of: "if I own a piece of land, how dare anyone tell me what I can or cannot do on it!"  The last couple of lines of their editorial today (26th November 2013) are really telling.  Here is what the Compass editor said:

    "What if the landowner wants to bulldoze his property, which happens to be home to the final survivor of a protected species? Will the bill, as proposed, allow him to do that?"

    "For the avoidance of doubt, we are supporters of personal property rights over any incursions by any governmental body on behalf of any species of animal – endangered or not."


    Let's follow the Compass line of logic.  Let;'s say there's a disaster – storm, fire, explosion, chemical spill, whatever – that severely affects the eastern districts and it turns out that there's a parcel of land that happens to be the very last breeding ground of the very last set of Blue Iguanas remaining alive on the island, the last hope of rescuing the species from extinction.  The Compass editor says just let that landowner go ahead and bulldoze the whole thing if he feels like it, regardless of whether that would be the end of the species.  Goodbye forever Blue Iguanas.  But never mind.  The landowner gets to exercise his personal property rights without uncursion by any governmental body, so that trumps everything else.

    Or let's say the property contains a couple of trees that are the last place the Ghost Orchid can be found on the island.  The Compass editor says just go ahead and bulldoze it if you want to.  Goodby forever Ghost Orchids.  But never mind.  The landowner gets to exercise his personal property rights without uncursion by any governmental body, so that trumps everything else.

    Is that really the paragon of "civilized" behaviour, or is it self-centeredness to the extreme?

  9. Anonymous says:

    It seems like this is going to be a dirty debate, but I frown upon Mr. Panton for calling the Compass a liar.  I think both are guilty of telling half truths to get their objectives achieved.  This is a piece of legislation that needs everyone on board, and that just isn't the case with the way it is now.

  10. Anonymous says:

    That editorial was the last time I will look at the Compass.  It is clearly just a mouthpiece now for political views and crazy super-libertarian views at that.

    • Castor says:

      My personal opinion id I think you are incorrect. I believe the quality of the journalism has gone up. At least now, one can read the stories and understand what is being told.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I think "hitting" property rights is a good thing if it is for the greater good.  I thought that made me a good person.

    • Anonymous says:

      If my grandfather when he gets out of hospital wants to go fishing will he need a license?

      • Anonymous says:

        No, because "license" is a verb.

        • Anonymous says:


          1li·cense. noun \\ˈlī-sən(t)s\\. : an official document, card, etc., that gives you permission to do, use, or have something. :.Maybe now you can answer the question asked by the writer.

          • Anonymous says:

            This is not America sweetie-pie.  It is a verb.  Look at the OED which is the one that counts.

        • Anonymous says:

          Ha Ha 

          Shwimmmmmm ????

          What was that that just flew over my head ????:)

          Think you lost him/her at "verb"


        • Anonymous says:

          Here is an Engliish language lesson:

          • In British English, "license" is the verb (or doing word) and "licence" is the noun (or naming word)

          • However, in American English, "license" is the spelling for both the verb and the noun

          If you remember this language rule, it can help you (and/or your children) get an "A" grade,

          In addition, if you support the passing of the National Conservation Law by the Legislative Assembly you wlll deserve more than an A* grade because you wlll be helping to save what is left of Cayman's marine and terrestrial environment both flora and fauna. 


      • Anonymous says:


        But email the DoE, to confirm, as I'm sure someone here won't believe me.

      • Anonymous says:

        A proper and non-discriminatory licensing system would be a positive move forward.

  12. brit says:

    I don't think he is an Editor more a publisher!!!!!!!

  13. Anonymous says:

    Importantly, this Bill proposes to give the DOE access to the sizeable Environmental Protection Fund (created from Travel Departure Taxes and Environmental Protection Fees dating from circa late-1990's).  We've since learned that successive Cabinet administrations have dipped into and allotted these same funds as a discretionary reserve for the core government.  One can only wonder what the impact on core government collateral will be if this capital is redeployed overnight, albeit to where it was intended to go?  If we assume that several tens of millions are left, then we can assume the powers in this bill will be backed with significant capital to transform the DOE from a benign advisory department to a leading regional research group and enforcement agency.  I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing.  I just worry that the ambitions enshrined in this Bill may exceed existing knowledge, manpower, and proportionate scale of operation.  Case in point, pages 64-68 enshrine the protection of a catalog of endemic beetles, slugs, and snails: perhaps we are extending too far in the opposite direction by waging war against our farmers that grow fresh local produce?  I truly don't believe that sparing terrestrial insect pests in a vegetable garden is on the same scale of urgency as protecting marine and wetland animals and habitat.  Should the punishments be the same?  Should farmers be tazed if they won't come quietly and admit to their troding upon a slug?  I agree with a lot of this bill, but perhaps on the first draft we could ratchet this back to something less draconian and get full and complete buy-in from the people?  It won't work otherwise.

    • Anonymous says:

      No. No you don't. You can't show a single part of the bill that you do agree with. So just say you don't like it and move on. Your false-scincerity is sickening.

      • Anonymous says:

        As stated, agree that protection urgently required for marine wetland animals and habitat.  That's 90% of the Bill.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I was warned a while ago that the Compass would be used as a mouthpiece for the Dart organization, and it looks as if the advice was spot on. 

  15. Anonymous says:

    I've read the law, if you don't have time to, just flip to page 52 and therein lies the rub; "the Council may, having regard to all the material considerations in this Law and regulations made under this Law considers that the adverse impact of the proposed action cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by conditions, the Council shall so direct the originating authority and that authority shall refuse to agree to or refuse to proceed with the proposed action."

    • Anonymous says:

      If you did indeed read the law as you say, then surely you would have seen that Section 41 on page 52 has 5 parts – the one you quote only pertains to decisions regarding PROTECTED AREAS. In all other cases the "originating authority" must take the advice of the Council into account. Please stop the selective quotes

  16. Anonymous says:

    Cayman is a jigsaw puzzle of property ownership that cuts across many natural features that cannot  be considered piecemeal. Developers must be constrained where necessary to accomodate the wider long-term interests of the Cayman islands and its natural environment.. This is just obvious, so the question is, 'what mechanism should be used?'

    The Planning Department has a great responsibility in this regard, but appears to make decisions that disregard their own operating regulations as well as common sense. A good example would be the filling-in of 2,000 feet of sandy beach in South Sound, where it looks as if an additional section, approximately 2,000 feet by 50 feet, has been filled in to a depth of nine feet, beyond the old property lines, so that it appears the Planning Department is not only ignoring their own regulations but also failing to enforce the terms of the licences they grant. If I am right in my assessment, can the developers expect a bill from the Palace  for the theft  of 2.5 acres of the "Queen's Bottom?"  If this is allowed to stand, will there be a free-for-all that will change the coastline in Cayman forever? Is this the Cayman we want, with war declared on the landscape of the very island Caymanians call home?

    Since many of us regard the Planning Department as a law unto themselves, then we believe that the Conservation Bill, if passed into law, will help the system work better, and avoid such damaging precedents. For objectors to the bill to focus on scorpions, snails and raw emotion is simply disingenuous smoke, and shows they have not read the 72-page document properly and don't care whether or not this island is "skinned alive," to slightly mis-quote Roosvelt.  No one owns land, they only own the rights that come with the land, whether they like that or not. We hold our land in trust for future generations, and no sane person would wish for  unconstrained development. We have destroyed large parts of Cayman in a brief 40 years. Common sense says it can't go on like this.

    Furthermore, we are in breach of many international treaties that we have signed but ignored. This Conservation Bill  bill will help the Government get back on track in this regard.

  17. lilpressgyal says:

    Seemslike the editor of the Compost needs to take a look at his paper's own ethics policy which states they will "strive to include all sides relevant to a story and not take sides in news coverage"…

    • Diogenes says:

      That does not apply to editorials.  That is entirely consistent with usual press practice – you are meant to read an editorial with the presumption that it will be opionated and not balanced.

  18. Anonymous says:

    It is no secret that the new "owner" of the Compost is completely out of touch with reality. He is looking for Pirates Week to be held at the Ritz and ignorant enough to think that our only natural resources are scorpions and slugs. The publication now has more content about his homeland than ours and he even changed the spelling and grammer to US from English.

    • The Goat says:

      Shall we all ban buying the Caymanian Compass until they reinstate UK English? We are a UK Overseas Territory, the UK English (not US English) is officially taught in our schools and used in our laws.  I double checked – yes I see honor not honour etc in the Compass now.  I believe at the end of the day it is all equal (UK / US English) but surely the media should respect the official language of the land in which we live?

      PS Well done, Minister Panton!



      • Anonymous says:

        I believe Dart speaks US english.  Just saying…..

      • Anonymous says:

        All Commonwealth countries use UK spelling. It's de rigueur in print journalism. But, alas, like American guns, American Webster's spelling is being smuggled over the borders. 

  19. Anonymous says:

    That statement that Government wont take your land is a very tickless statement. I read that draft, no I correct myself some of the 72 pages of insult to the Caymanian Public, especally the people of the eastern district, who are the only survivors of parcels of property. The way I see it the "Council" of this Conservation Law has more authority than Cabinet. Just read with sense and they even have the power to seacrh your house without a warrant. Imagine, this same set of conies along with Planning sat on their flat — over the years and literally destroyed the western side of the island allowing every Johnny just Come to destroy habitat(s) and replace swamp lands with cement structures most without parking facilities and now they are coming with blood in their eyes at the few remaining Caymanian who has inherited their lands from forefathers after forefathers. Do these people know the many hardsdhips these land owners have had over the years and is still having raising their children, and they have never ever thought of selling their inheritance. What next for us poor 4th class Caymanians citizens? And where do we run for help?  Our freedom is crippled, gone are the days we could go to any beach and throw out our lines and catch a grunt, and if a smaller fish is caught it was quickly thrown back in the sea, every living Caymanian from a child we were all thought to put back small fish in the sea. Not now, thanks to Immigration we are having our ocean and land destroyed. Sea crabs, land crabs with or without spawn, fish, sea eggs every thing is being destroyed. I am hearing now the every tree lizards are being caught in buckets. Can this be really true? Leave our lands in the east alone, or there will a day or reckoning. Trust me Caymanian have had enough and they will be a "day of personal justice".

    • Anonymous says:

      Absolutely right. Lets stop them catching the lizards. And not pass the law that would stop them. And … wait a second …

    • Anonymous says:

      This is exactly what the Conservation Bill will do for you, protect your land.  Read it again please.

  20. Anonymous says:

    In these hard times the compost is a waste of a hard earned 50 cents

  21. Weapons Grade Bollocks says:

    So the Compass strategy is now clear. An editorial a day personally aimed at Minister Panton.

    Those who support the NCL must be prepared to rebut these diatribes daily.

    The silent majority must come out in force, otherwise the vocal minority may yet obstruct this legislation.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Q: How would permits work in practice?

    A: Let’s say a developer wanted to build on the habitat which currently represents the only known world-population of the Little Cayman snail (protected in Part 1 of the First Schedule). The developer might see only a financial opportunity. Environmentalists might see only the loss of another species from the planet… How might this situation be resolved? Insensitive development of this area would not be acceptable under the proposed Law, because that would result in the complete extinction of a protected species. Insensitive development is not something that we need, or need to encourage, in the Cayman Islands. Sensitive development of the area might be allowed, for example, if the snail habitat was preserved in the landscaping of the development. Alternatively, if it could be demonstrated that the snail population could successfully be relocated to another suitable natural habitat, or that suitable habitat could be artificially created, then that might facilitate the granting of a permit19. This way, development might proceed while damage to the snail habitat would be mitigated. Section 20(3) allows additional safeguards as the Council may require the developer to post a bond to ensure that mitigation is completed as planned.

    Is this what you call insensitive development ? Are you people going mad? A snail is what you would stop a sale of a property? Count this law as read !!!



  23. Anonymous says:

    From today's editorial

    "What if the landowner wants to bulldoze his property, which happens to be home to the final survivor of a protected species? Will the bill,as proposed, allow him to do that? For the avoidance of doubt, we are supporters of personal property rights over any incursions by any governmental body on behalf of any species of animal – endangered or not."

    Who cares if a species is rendered extinct, especially if there is money to be made out of killing the creature?  Absolute "Tea Party" lunacy.  I am glad most people are not this greedy and selfish as the world would be a horrible place.

  24. Anonymous says:

    No the editor is not wrong. He's right something that we have been fighting for 45 years keeps sneeking in every 10 years. Now they are going to stop development. Why don't you all buy the land then give it to the National Trust ?

    No didn't think so, You are now taking another way of controlling people in the Cayman Islands. Thats right sell the land for nothing keep them poor. Why don't the people who are complaining sell their property for nothing and let the swamp grow back where it was. Instead "OH" we didn't know , sorry no excuse. In fact the law should go through and the next political party should change the council to all the people who loose on this new law. Then we should say that new findings are now saying that all the people who live on the sea side will now have to abandon their homes. According to Mr. Keeley a expert he says sell now. Careful for what you wish for you could be next.

  25. Anonymously says:

    CNS is the best, keep up your good reporting and show them how it's done! Thanks again to the best news organization in Cayman.  Fair and impartial, CNS really shine the light that those in the dark can see.

  26. Anonymous says:

    David Legge wants to pave paradise and put up a parking lot. . . .

  27. Anonymous says:

    The Compass editorial was astonishingly extreme in expressing selfish greedy fundamentalist Republican attitudes.  "Damn you community and environment, I want to do what I want with my property" was it summed up in one sentence.  More accurately, it was saying "I do't want anything to get in the way of my right to make money from my property".   At least by being so transparent in agenda any debate about the political agenda of the new owners has ended.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Wayne didn't pull any punches. It will be interesting to see the response from the Compost.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Bye Bye Compass. The gap between you and the community you are supposed to be serving is too great. Such a shame.

    • SSM345 says:

      The Compass is beyond dead, the crap that is written is so sh*te that News of the World would scoff at their supposed "journalism".

      On any given day, half of it is complete and utter BS, full of lies and  misinformation. Did I miss the job placements for any positions in their Department of BS? Perhaps they coud make their buddeh Mac its CEO?

      I used to love reading that paper, now they should just save everyone and the tress by putting it to rest.

    • Anonymous says:

      You really shouldn't believe a word you read in that newspaper anymore because it's all just propaganda for Cayman's rich, powerful, elite. Notice that the Legges are now driving around in Jags. It must pay well being the mouthpieces of the rich. Say what you will about Brian Uzzell, but Brian genuinely cared about the Cayman Islands and it's people and supported many local causes over the years, including the one I'm involved in. Just try getting any kind of sponsorship support from the puffed-up XXXXX that now own the paper. Unless it's a cause that involves a black tie event full of rich snobs, you don't have a chance.

  30. Garfield says:

    BOOM! BOOM!  A magnificent letter from Minister Panton to the Cayman Compass editor.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Well said Wayne!

  32. Knot S Smart says:

    What was that editorial in the Compass all about today?

    It seems that they are going from worse to worse-er…

  33. Hoowee! says:

    Now that’s hitting the Texas Tea Party right where it hurts!

    Well said sir. Well said.

  34. Anonymous says:

    If you want to undestand why the the compass is against it just look at who the owner is.  

  35. Anonymous says:

    “There is absolutely nothing in this bill that gives Government the power to prohibit people from altering, developing or using their own land,” Panton

    Total, Total, Total Bullsh*t…..if this law has NO EFFECT on private property what is its use?? Why have it?? Government can simply go ahead and protect its own property…No??….Am I missing something here??? hmmmm…..

    Clearly THEY want us to miss the dangers of this law but we woke up!! Dont take us for idiots Panton…."nothing in it gives power to Government"!!??….if that is so just ditch it then!!  Just do what you want with Government lands and leave us alone….. no?? lets me wonder why then you are pushing this!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      You are correct in stating that government can simply go ahead and protect its own property. The purpose of the Conservation Bill is to protect the environment when someone like McKeeva holds the power of government.

  36. Anonymous says:
    I beg all ministers and MLAs to take note as it highlights one of the many questions and far reaching consequences of the National Conservation Bill.  The Minister and the Director of Environment have been reported on the radio and TV as frequently saying the Council will only be offering recommendations and guidance to the CPA and other authorities, but unfortunately this is only a half truth as it fails to recognize the impact of Section 45 subsection (4) and (5).
    Based upon the wide scope of this section the Council will have a veto-like power over a decision of any government entity including the CPA, NRA, DEH and everything else in between.  Whilst this is only in relation to protected land, the provision allowing the Council to exercise their power if the decision in question would indirectly effect protected land or the critical habitat of protected species extends this veto like power FAR beyond protected land.
    To put this in perspective, anyone who owns land nearby any of the already identified protected areas such as the Meagre Bay pond, Colliers Bay Pond, Booby Pond and Rookery or that abuts the sea anywhere on the island will have to get the Council's approval before any decision making body can ever consider any application that they are putting forward.  This includes the properties of hundreds of Cayman Families that have held on to their property for years on end.  The impact is huge.
    Irregardless of the Minister of Environment's interpretation, these facts are black and white in the law and I again urge all Ministers and MLAs to find out the true impact of this legislation before it is rushed through the LA before it is truly understood.
    • Anonymous says:

      Based in some cases on aerial surveys from 1950.

    • Cowitch says:

      Irregardless? I would hesitate to accept the logical reasoning of anyone who would use such an illogical non-word. Regardless =  "without regard",  Ir = "not", therefore "irregardless logically would mean "not without regard", if it were a real word, which it isn't.

    • Anonymous says:

      Wait, what do you want to do to the protected ponds? Now I think I see why we need this law if you don't even want protection for things that are already protected.

  37. Kato says:

    We all know who's interest our national news paper lies. Need not to say anymore. The bill is long overdue so let's get on with it.

  38. Anonymous says:

    The fact that David Legge has Charles Krauthammer and George Will as his syndicated columnists reveals him as a Fox News and Ronald Reagan man.

  39. Anonymous says:

    "Page 26, Section 9.4.b: if the area is not Crown land, whether to recommend to the Cabinet that the area be acquired by the Crown and a protected area order be made, or a conservation agreement be made with the proprietor in the area."

    • Anonymous says:

      And your point? That CABINET can choose to offer to buy (aquire) your land or not? And this is different how, exactly, from what they already do in places like Barkers, where a National Park was recomended years ago (after a public meeting) and Government is slowly buying the land? – Oh, I see, the difference is that right now the land government buys can't actually be protected. So you could go in to the Barkers 'national park' and uproot  endangered plants because you think flowers would look nicer there and they'd have to get you for … tresspassing? In a Park? mmm, nope.

      • Anonymous says:

        There was no opinion expresed, it was verbatim from the pending BIll.  A public service for the many that haven't bothered to read it. 

  40. Anonymous says:

    As soon as I read that 'article' I showed it to my wife. We can't figure out if the Islands only printed paper is up to some agenda ( for someone) or making bad decisions, or just pumping content out the big content hole, but for now, we're done with that paper…. But will monitor them for more bad behavior. 

  41. Anonymous says:

    CNS: Thank you for this excellent and well-needed reporting!