Ex-Chamber boss queries wisdom of port project
(CNS Business): The former president of the Chamber of Commerce has warned that the costly port project should not go ahead based on “unproven back of envelope ‘guesstimates’ about the economic benefits of cruise tourism and private discussions with a select few who are possibly conflicted and have a pecuniary interest to protect in the outcome”. Read more and comment on www.cnsbusiness.com
Category: Local News, Politics
The trouble is we all want to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die! Everybody has the right answer as if we can have piers all around the island. Now that would cost a pretty penny.
You note that Johan isn’t commenting on the environmental side. That because he has already seen evidence that the “15 acres” is not really 15 acres. Separately it would do cns good to go back and read the technical details in the report. They clearly state that the picture the environmental side posts as from the EIA is actually not a possible reality. The EIA states that those simulations do not account for the use of silt screens. Silt screen are common best practise and in the EIAs own report “These simulations do not include the containing effects of turbidity barriers, which can be effective in containing sediment plumes”
Silt screens will do no good in that depth of water and those open ocean conditions. Silt screens work best in sheltered environments and even then it is not fault proof.
Treason!
Please, go and look at the Outline Business Case (OBC), which was done before the EIA. Don’t say that Government doesn’t have the business information to make an informed decision. (What you can say is that the EIA identified costs outweigh the OBC identified benefits, for the country.)
OBC does not give detailed information nor address the questions. It is another expensive consultants report written by PWC to justify the wishes of the minister and his friends.
11:32 – I’m not defending the OBC. I’m just pointing out that claiming that ‘guestimates’ are what is driving this is unfair. This isn’t like when someone says ‘it will bring in billions of dollars/tourists’. That’s a guestimate. Now we have numbers. Now we have something we can consider: are the numbers right? do they outweigh the environmental numbers? etc.
My concern is that in a rush to bash the project people are ignoring the groundwork. So if I were government and someone said ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about’ I would ignore them. Since they weren’t paying attention earlier (OBC) and Government does ‘know’ (OBC) what they’re talking about. – Clearly this doesn’t apply to someone saying ‘OBC does not give detailed information nor address question X’. That’s a comment the Government can work with. (And should work with. So I hope you sent yours in tot he Government if not when the OBC was published then now.)
Is this ‘OBC’ the study designed to justify giving the contract to the Chinese?
Mr. Moxam raises some valid points. My concern is that the PPM have a history of large over built projects which are complex and very expensive. The history to which I refer are the high schools conceived and built by this premiere.
It is my sincere hope that we do not have another white elephant project and that says nothing about environmental concerns. If the worse case environmental concerns occur this government will have the label of crippling diving along 7 Mile Beach.
Good for you Mr. Moxam! Congrats on raising these valid concerns. While the port expansion may turn out to be desirable, this Government is clearly associated with special interest groups and families on this particular issue – making it important that transparency exists before PPM drags us into another poorly-thought and vastly expensive project.
@2:00am Could you please publish your proof that the PPM Government “is clearly associated with special interest groups and families on this particular issue ” as it is simply not good enough to accept a comment from “Anonymous” as reason to accuse this Government.
Oh man. Too funny. I just dropped my spoon in a big bowl of “Special K”!
Well we know the stock market is uncertain so we should avoid it
we might not get sick so we don’t need health insurance
we pray so for sure we will go to heaven
people may stop going on cruises so we should not build a pier
and while we are at it why educate our children if they will be unemployed
get where I am going with this?
with the logic displayed by your leaders it would be best to commit suicide because we will all die someday
The underlying message (if there really is one and that’s debatable) of your comment is little more than ‘don’t gamble with anything you can’t afford to lose’ and we are talking about at least $150million here. Can we afford to lose that?
I just wishes that Capt Eldon and Mr. Rupert grandbabies would get along and work together in harmony to take Cayman to the Oasis………Class!
Oasis class will never, ever come here whatever we do. They’re floating resorts, not designed for the old style island hopping routes.
@4:19 The thumbs down on your comment indicate just how little the people reading this understand about the cruise industry. The big problem with this project is that too many people assume that building the dock will somehow radically change the cruise lines’ plans for future itineraries, ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support this. If Grand Cayman is a key destination in the long-term plans of the major cruise operators then why are they investing all their money elsewhere and refusing to get involved here?
FYI the cruise lines were interested in building the port years ago but of course our government with their self serving interest couldn’t come to an agreement so they pulled their support…..
Talk the truth n shame the devil
It’s time for Cayman to face the truth and stop pandering to ” special interest and lobbyist”. The Cruise Terminal should NOT be in its current location. There should be two ports – at either Spotts Beach, Turtle Farm, or South Sound dock. Ask any of our Captains and they will tell you that in terms of weather, currents and the marine environment, these are the logical choices.
The Kirkconnells and the Hamaty’s will still be millionaires as the passengers will still come to George Town. It is Governments job to create the environment and infrastructure to develop and promote the cruise ship industry BUT it is NOT Governments job to drop your customer off by your front door.
Two cruise ports will provide the opportunity of spreading the business and benefits between the two largest districts, create more jobs in the Taxi business, and more opportunity for development of “island tours” in the Eastern Districts from the Spotts Dock.
We have got to realize that the days of developing this Country to serve a few Merchants are over. That model was in 1960’s. It’s over. You cannot take poor people money to build infrastructure for rich people to get richer and then tell the poor people, whose taxes you have spent, that you are now going to try to find them a job.
It’s is unfair, corrupt and inequitable and the model is over. Our money needs to benefit all and not just a select few. Enough.
@2:26 – Very well said. However, please be careful with your use of the word ‘treason’ – next we’ll have Alden screaming “Off with your head”!
Well said Mr. Moxam again showing leadership and consistency. All valid questions that should be addressed before Cayman moves forward with this ill conceived plan.