FCCA in dark over port plans
Cruise ship tender (Photo by Dennie Warren Jr)
(CNS): The president of the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA) has told a local dive news website that it has had no discussions with the Cayman Islands Government (CIG) over the latest proposed plan for berthing facilities. The body which represents the cruise ship sector also made it clear that environmental protection is very important to the industry. Both the current and previous governments have pointed the finger at the reluctance by cruise lines to continue visiting Cayman because there are no piers as justification for the berthing plan.
But Michelle Paige has told Adela White from Cayman Bottom Times that no one from the CIG has asked them what they think of the current proposal. CNS has also reached out to the FCCA and is awaiting further comment on the much touted position that without berthing facilities the cruise lines will eventually stop calling on this jurisdiction.
Speaking to the local dive website, Paige said, “We have not seen anything related to how it’s going to be built.”
In a surprising revelation, the FCCA president said she was aware of the project after a routine update from the Cayman Islands Government some six months ago but there has been no direct discussion. Paige noted, however, that while the CIG and FCCA may not have been talking, the association has been monitoring the local debate regarding the issues, at the heart of which are the environmental questions.
“The cruise industry is always in favour of protecting the environment,” she said. “We always underline the importance of the environment. At any time we stand ready to review the project, but this is up to the government to proceed. We respect the government of the Cayman Islands to do the right thing.”
At a cruise industry conference in Miami just a few months ago, Paige also emphasized the importance of destinations for passengers over the physical attributes of ships when it comes to choosing their trips. She said a survey had revealed that unique cultures, cuisines and history are the key things people are looking for when they select their cruise vacation.
One of Cayman’s unique selling points for cruise passengers is that it is one of very few Caribbean destinations that has not only held onto an impressive underwater coral habitat but it can offer cruisers shore diving and snorkelling immediately on disembarkation.
The reefs and wrecks that attract numerous passengers into the water with tanks or snorkels or onto glass bottom boats and submarines are all at risk as a result of the piers. Many watersports operators claim that the George Town Harbour has been responsible for attracting cruise passengers back for stayover vacations. Their experiences diving and snorkelling in the harbour was so impressive they came back to see more.
While arguments rage over the precise square acreage of reef that will be directly destroyed by the dredging, what is of much more significance is the extent of the indirect destruction. All of the reefs and wrecks in the harbour will eventually die, albeit some much more quickly than others. The combination of dredging, silt and turbidity during construction will see as much tens of acres of the Caribbean’s most pristine endangered coral reefs lost forever before the project is even finished.
But the resulting piers, land reclamation and day-to-day comings and goings of cruise ships will ensure the death of all reefs in the harbour, covering at the very least 30 acres. The questions that can’t be answered is how much worse it may be then predicted.
In addition to the environmental loss there will also be significant economic loss as a result of the destruction of so many water-based attractions. Now that the FCCA has confirmed it has not been consulted, estimates of economic gain to counter those losses, based on the hope that the new generation of mega-ships will call on Cayman, cannot be substantiated.
At this point, the promised benefits of some job creation during construction, offering employment to some Caymanians but more than likely a significant amount of foreign labour, may not be as easy to sell to the wider Caymanian public as the tourism minister hopes. The government will also have to weigh up the possible retail sale increases for some George Town merchants against what may prove to be much higher economic losses sustained as a result of the destruction of the capital’s water-based attractions.
CNS has also asked the FCCA to comment on the alternative model of improving the existing terminals and overall arrival experience by upgrades on land and the tendering services. Several members of the campaign to save the reefs and marine environment in the harbour have noted how the tendering experience is already a positive one for many passengers and that it could be greatly improved.
“Taking a tender to shore is part of the experience that Cayman now offers to cruise ship passengers,” Red Sail Sports Operations Manager Rod McDowall said. “They start their adventure by boating across the clear water of the harbour to shore, and then a lot of them go snorkelling to one of the nearby sites, or they take a glass bottom boat ride to the reef, or a ride on the Atlantis Submarine. What are they going to do if all that is gone? Why not just improve the tendering facilities that now exist?” he asked.
The recent passage of the National Conservation Law after a more than ten-year battle and plans by government to enhance and protect Cayman’s fragile and threatened marine environment for future generations seems wholly at odds with the scale of the environment destruction that pressing ahead with the cruise port project will cause.
While sources close to Cabinet have confirmed that no collective decision has yet been made by government’s inner political circle on the next stage, a recent statement from the tourism ministry indicated that it is still hoping to press ahead with the plan. Following the announcement from the Cayman Islands Tourism Association that it could not back the proposal, the ministry indicated that it was taking CITA’s position on board but doing what it could to mitigate the impact and “protect” the project.
Category: development, Local News, Marine Environment, Science & Nature
Surely a good idea in the interim is to put the tendering operations out to competitive tender, pardon the repetition, to improve cost and services. Surely in a non-corrupt Cayman than does not pander to vested interests that would be done?
I would posit that if, by chance, the current South Dock at Hog Sty Bay was suddenly upgraded to the same standard as the Royal Watler Terminal and the flow of tender landings distributed equally between the two, the current urgent demands for a cruise dock would overnight go silent. And business would go on as usual.
An excellent suggestion..now we are getting somewhere
Extend the south dock , all the way along to where Atlantis now resides, thereby tripling the number of tenders that can land. Improve shore-side facilities to include shade cover, toilet facilities and some essential vendors.Improve taxi & bus zones by a terminal in the currently unused area of Kirks Mall parking lot across the street. There would still need to be an upgrade to Spotts to cater to winter bad weather cruise days, but isn’t there a plan in the works for this already?As Time Bandit says..business will still go on
Two quick responses, first to Anonymous 12:20.
Sunset Divers and Red Sail Sports have been leading contributors to support of progressive reforms to protect and sustain our diving treasures over the past thirty years – both in gratis donation of boats and human resources and financial contributions. Both have been leading proponents and supporters of early efforts to establish mooring programs to the sinking of the Kittiwake, a man made reef specifically sunk to take stress of existing reef sites. Both companies have been strong proponents and supporters of DOE’s initiatives such as rotating and resting dive sites so they have an opportunity to rejuvenate. These reefs allow us the privilege to have a business in this sport. Our goal is always to protect and sustain it in every way.
Small batch not RS 12:24
I take umbrage to the inference that because some companies introduce or take more divers to experience Cayman’s underwater world than others that they don’t take their responsibilities to protecting the reef and marine environment seriously. I challenge you to find more dedicated community driven companies and staff in this endeavor. Just the effort and contributions of staff and boats at no charge to the current save our reef project of Don Fosters is such an example. I hope you are one of the small operators who have been doing the same! Big doesn’t equate to lack of care or concern. To the contrary, we are very aware of our responsibilities to the marine environment and the Cayman Islands – and very proud of them.
Rod I don’t think you should take those comments personally. Sometimes being the big guy attracts a big target too. “Little” guys like to take shots at the big ones, it’s kind of part of the territory. No one is going to question you or your partners contribution to waters ports and CITA. Similarly no one will question your same partners contribution to pioneering diving at sunset house over all these years or those same partners contribution to cayman while running g the tenders and supplying cruisers to cayman shores. You guys have been very successful and are fantastic business men as well. The territory just comes with the same targets.
Only just clicked…..so you’re saying that the same people own the tenders, sunset and red sails……that makes things a bit clearer now for me.
Ah boy … and here come the “pro-port comment thumbs manipulators” once again.
You guys were late on this one .. but got here in the end.
Welcome. We look forward to your pathetic yet entertaining performances.
– Whodatis
Better face reality, just because a lot of people disagree with your position doesn’t mean someone is manipulating the thumbs.
When you suddenly get over 200 dislikes in a very short space would be far to say is being manipulated
200….really?
Exactly, all this means is that the Caymanians are finally waking up and not willing to let a bunch of expat divers and reef huggers that don’t even live in cayman run away with the save tenders. …I mean save cayman group.
As an actual Caymanian I find your comment utterly ridiculous. I hope you are nothing but an idle troll because it should be illegal to genuinely be this stupid.
– Who
Yeah yeah, whatever. Everyone knows what is really what.
Feel free to play these games though. To each his own.
– Who
Everything about this stupid dock is a bad idea- forget it!!!!
If we want to talk about protecting the reef we need to take advice from the United Nations. I have been diving and snorkeling here for almost 18 years and I can see a general degeneration of coral in all areas, not just George Town. There are no controls or limits on the number of divers and how they interact with the reef. United Nations Environmental Program recommends that a maximum of 5000-6000 divers for any particular dive site per year should not be exceeded.
“Direct physical damage from snorkeling and diving has been the subject of extensive study and is well documented. The damage inflicted by divers and snorkelers consists mostly of breaking fragile, branched corals or causing lesions to massive corals. Most divers and snorkelers cause little damage; only a few cause severe or widespread damage. Research indicates that reef degradation and change of reef community structure occurs once a certain level of use by divers and snorkelers is exceeded. As a rule of thumb it is recommended that the level of 5,000 to 6,000 dives per sites per year should not be exceeded.”
The current Dive companies dive as much as they want with as many divers as they want to make MONEY. Eden rock is nothing like what it was and life is sparse compared to my first dive there. Even snorkeling cemetery beach this last weekend there is hardly anything left.
If we want to save the coral it is not the barren area of George Town Harbour that needs petitions, we need to petition government to limit the use of all dive sites before it is too late.
The sad thing is I doubt that the same “concerned” guys that are funding save cayman have any interest (or atleast no business interest) in putting money behind a sensible, restricted diving campaign/petition to protect our environment. I highly doubt that the same voices from Sunset and Red Sails are going to fight for that cause. DOE should do some research on the UN research mentioned above and make some regulations and practices in place.
Please don’t group all of us into the same category as the large dive operators. Many of us are aware of this and purposely take small groups to be responsible. The larger companies are all about volume but some of us are more boutique oriented and take this very seriously.
However, in the Cayman Islands four major factors are at play in destroying our reefs. 1. In 1983 the entire Caribbean lost up to 95% of its Diadema sea urchins who used to help control algae. No cause has been discovered. 2. As development grew in Cayman, our lack of a proper sewage treatment facility further encouraged algae. 3. Then we did the big damage. We removed the majority of our Nassau Groupers. They were keeping the dusky damsel fish populations in control. Without them, the damsel fish peck at the coral until it can no long stop algae from growing and they have built their algae farms all over the place, killing off both corals and sponges. 4. The final blow is our disastrous over fishing of the parrot fish. They also were instrumental in keeping algae in control The resultant algae overgrowth far outweighs any damage caused when a diver just knocks over a piece of coral that will continue healthy growth from the base. Yes — divers must continue to be monitored but remember — divers bring jobs to our island, and bring money, as so many people seem to value above all else, but fortunately divers do virtually no real, long-term, permanent damage.
So what you’re saying is that we should probably stopp even more diving than what is recommended by the UN? Diving brings expat jobs to dive masters, not to Caymanians. Also, interesting that your only justification on this is that diving brings money in……
Whose fault is that?
Anonymous 1:29 – You dingdong, Caymanians can easily get those jobs if they want them. They do not want them. Not enough $$.
The expat dive masters do it for the love of diving. And many times they go on to other careers. This is a beautiful stop off in life.
Divers has been a disaster to the marine enviorment especially those with the bright flashes on their cameras which scare and damage marine creatures, I say it’s time to place restrictions on scuba diving.
Keep those darn Foreigners away from our reefs..
Of course the FCCA has not been involved, for one you have to deal directly with the cruise lines to talk about investment, 2) the OBC shows a clear path and the cruiselines and financiers are only engaged after the full public input and DOE feedback is complete. This is the next step, everyone is taking the EIA as the final stage in the process and it is only the beginning.
If true this statement from the FCCA rather suggests that some of the pro-dock lobby have not exactly been 100% honest in their arguments for the project. They have suggested clear commitments by the cruise lines when none actually exist. Makes you wonder how much more of their case is complete BS doesn’t it?
Not anywhere near the BS being spewed by the anti dock group. Everything from that group is complete exaggeration full stop.
@11:25 As the original poster I’ll make it clear I’m not opposed to the dock as such but I do object to people with clear vested interests telling lies to push the project through.
So far the pro lobby has claimed the cruise lines would desert Grand Cayman unless the dock was built and that those same cruise lines not only support the project but will guarantee the arrival of the Oasis-class mega-liners if it is built – both statements they knew were not true at the time they were made. A well-placed CIG source has also repeatedly referred to consultations with the cruise lines knowing full well that none were on-going,
In fairness there’s been a lot of BS from both sides, it sometimes seems like a contest to see who can build the biggest pile, but when people who stand to make a lot of money out if this project start bending the truth it goes beyond BS and becomes fraud. Are they seriously asking us to make a 20-year commitment to a $150+million project when the best case they can come up for it is at best a pack of half-truths? If so I’d say we need to tread very carefully.
If the pro-dock lobby want to be taken seriously they need to back up their claims with verifiable documentation and do it PDQ. Specifically, they need to seek support from the cruise lines for their arguments and then publish the actual responses rather than making vague claims and hoping nobody notices.
The FCCA ARE LYING! See who the members are! This is all about money for all concerned! If the tenders can be upgraded then why aren’t we hearing their plan! It costs $$ to upgrade the tenders. Don’t be fooled, the new berthing facilities are coming wether you like it or not. The white elephant in the room is how can we reduce the impact on the enironment as much as possible is the question. Floating retractable docks is the answer. It does not take a genius to look this up on the Internet. Carnival has already agreed in other jurisdictions and there are already reports to prove the concept. The other question that begs and the premier should be addressing is how are the officials going to handle cargo and the construction of a new pier construction in GT when there are five ships in port all at the same time. It’s already a nightmare. They should come and take a look when the ships have to use south and north terminal and ask our guests what they think!
This whole article is taken out of context. The cruise lines will show their commitment.
When?
Why is the Article taken out of context because you say so?. Foolish statement indeed. There has been no documented evidence made public that provides written assurance that 1. Any cruise ship has committed to finance and. Build, 2, that if the piers are built that they will send their big ships and 3. That if the piers are not built that they will stop coming. In the absence of either of these, there is nothing being taken out of context.
There are some words missing from the last sentence. It should read “The cruise lines will show their commitment to Cuba.”
Sorry, I was distracted by the pig flying past my window. When exactly do you think we can expect that commitment, and how much cash or guaranteed passenger volume can we expect? I would have thought we would have had it by now given the subject has been debated for years – maybe lost in the post?
Fred, you’re dead right. The original design for the cruise dock was drawn up pre-Ivan. Anyone who visited the late Desmond Seales office in Allista Towers would have seen (probably been shown!) the picture he had of the planned facility, which was an enclosed harbour. The cruise lines weren’t interested then and they don’t seem to be now.
I suspect the cruise lines have been watching the way CIG handles major capital projects over the years and decided to keep well out of it all. I can’t imagine their share holders being too impressed by the kind of government over-spends we’ve seen here in the last 10 years.
As for the Oasis-class mega-liners coming here? Stop dreaming about it! There are no plans to include Grand Cayman on their routes and whether or not you build the dock won’t make a bit of difference – that came to me from someone with 20 years experience in the industry.
Will they show their commitment with funding?
To: Hon. Moses I. Kirkconnell, JP, MLA; Deputy Premier: Minister of District Administration, Tourism and Transport: Cayman Islands Government.
Alright Moses……..stick a fork in it. This Mega cruise ship dock idea is dead. No one is asking for it except a hand full of duty free outlets. Stop wasting Government funds by having your buddies at Price Waterhouse trying to make the economic projections and business plan fit your vision of “what Cayman’s tourism product needs”.
We have already spent millions on this bad idea while we could have required the private sector tendering providers to upscale the tendering experience. If they refuse to spend the money to upgrade, lobby the cruise ship industry to open up their monopoly to others that are willing to make Cayman proud of our tendering service. Having said that, I do think the present providers will step up on this as the guaranteed returns are quite handsome, especially if you also spend some money promoting Cayman as a destination that can accommodate one or two more cruise ships on the four days we now welcome cruise ships.
The increase in cruise visitors, from one more cruise ship, four days per week, supersedes the number of cruise visitors that are available from two Mega Oasis class ships. If you can attract one more extra on two of the four days, you have hit a home run……big time. Six more ships per week and we have surpassed the 2.3 million visitors per year, by a healthy margin and you are way ahead of the increase from the Mega ships. This is the magic number that seems to satisfy all of the people pushing for the Mega dock.
There is no question that we can cater to over 2 million by tendering; eight years ago, we managed 1.93 million in 2006, with antiquated tenders and we did 1.8 in 2003.
At 2 million plus, we are the 5th largest cruise ship port IN THE WORLD……something to be proud of.
If Government were to build multiple landings, two tiered, air-conditioned and include an air- conditioned departure seating area, with the clearance facilities so that the cruise ship can eliminate the bottleneck that occurs, due to everyone having to be security checked when they reenter the ship, we have a win win. This can be done on shore while they wait on the tender to take them back onboard.
One of the biggest drawbacks of docking the Mega ships in the middle of George Town………besides the negative environmental impact………is the congestion from disgorging 6 thousand additions cruise visitors onto Harbour Drive two days each week……even worst if the both dock on the same day.
The tendering service allows us to mitigate the impact of over 2 million plus cruise passengers landing per year, if you build the planned and researched option of having the tenders deliver the cruise passengers that will be visiting the two Dolphin attractions, the Turtle Farm, Hell, the Kittyhawk, West Bay shore diving, resturants in Batabano and the Sting Ray City clients who all depart from Morgans Harbour, directly into West Bay, at a purpose built facility at North West Point.
A third one could be built on the North side of George Town for those excursions that include Seven Mile Beach and Camana Bay shopping.
An added bonus of this option is that the excessive road traffic, from taxis moving the hundreds of thousands of cruise visitors that visit these West Bay attractions each year, along the West Bay Road and new bypass, will be eliminated, reducing the urgency of expanding the Esterlt Tibbetts Highway, Harquail Bypass and West Bay Road.
Economic impacts that help to sell the multiple landings include: Far less cost to develop two or three new tender landing facilities. Less funds needed to expand the Harquail bypass and Esterly Tibbetts Highway. Less subsidy to Turtle farm and even a profit if the numbers that were forecast in the oroginal business plan are achieved. The cost of these excursions on board will go down as the cost of transport by taxi or bus is largely eliminated, therefore more cruisers will avail themselves of these excursions and facilities. Taxi drivers will make up for the shorter fares, if the numbers are increased to over 2 million cruise visitors per year, just in pure numbers and a greater profit margin on the shorter runs. Better experience for the duty free shoppers resulting in them spending more time in the stores and getting better one on one service, which usually results in them buying more products. Developing better relationships with the Cruise Ship Companies because they can reduce the cost of their excursions, thereby selling more excursions on board before the ship arrives. Higher profit margins for the Cruise Lines, due to the fact that tendered cruisers do not eat lunch on board, saving them hundreds of thousands per week. Less stress on the on shore dive sites in George Town, if the cruise lines are successful in providing cheaper excursions to other dive sites.
Get over the fact that the additional landing in West Bay was McKeeva’s idea, right now it is a better option than one Mega dock in the middle of George Town.
The fact that Cuba will soon be a big player in the American cruise experience can be nothing but a plus for us, certainly an asset in your negotiations with the cruise lines to get them to make more stops here; all cruise customers love the fact that cruises allow them to visit multiple countries, therefore any Cuba itinerary will usually include Cayman because in order to visit any other country from Cuba, you have to sail right by the Cayman Islands, unlike Jamaica, Mexico, Honduras, Etc.
Two final points; I have worked in the tourism industry for 36 years before retiring, starting in 1977 at the Royal Palms and benefited from both land and sea based industries as well as stay over and cruise tourists………..I love tourism. I do not have, nor have I ever, had any connection to the present tendering company.
I do hope you can find something in the above thoughts that will deter you from burdening the Country with more debt, or “deferred income” or that the idea that a Mega cruise ship dock is imperative, or we will perish. Even better, my advice is free, if you choose to adapt anything I said.
What do you say?
I commend you, you should not disparage your view by remaining anonymous. The Hon. Deputy Leader should pay attention.
How about a tender dock at Pagent Beach, the old Almond Tree site or between Beefers & Eden Rock. You still have the North and South Terminals. That’s 5 potential sites. And moorings for the ships themselves. Resurrect the harbor, don’t destroy it.
Very well put WaYaSay, I only hope that CIG will have a chat or two with you before they continue on their merry way to signing contracts which WILL go way over budget and WILL go over time projections.
Only thing is, WaYaSay, how do the powers that be and the people manipulating their strings get to pocket the 20% of the $150,000,000 that they have already allocated to buying retirement homes in Georgia or wherever?
They’ve only just started their watch collections etc. Are you prepared to ruin their dreams and their lives just because you want to think outside the box?
\If they were the royalty they aspire to be then you and I and a whole bunch of others would be accused of treason.
At last a sensible structured comment. Being objective I am sure it will be hijacked in the dislikes which is a petty but clear sign that one family is certainly running scared.
The tender issue which everyone harps on about and the so called monopoly and millions earnt has this never gone out to tender (excuse the pun) because if it was such a money making business surely someone would have put a bid in.
Upgrade the arrival terminals and put the contract out for a class A tendering service with state of the art air con vessels and make this all part of the exclusive Cayman experience. Make coming here different to all the other run of the mill islands.
Oh and save millions to spend upgrading GT and sorting the tip out
CNS — can you find out whether CMS has an exclusive contract for tendering and if so for how long and whether the contract has any caps on what they can charge?
More common sense in one post then I have seen in all the coverage to date. And a win win for both the duty free boys and the tenders. I would love to see the Ministers response to this.
The only flaw I find with your proposal is the negative affect your suggestion to tender to different locations would cause on the “taxi operators”; the majority are local and you would be taking their bread and butter right out of their mouth. Half the day people are working and you can avoid town if you really hate the traffic that much but not everyone is going to go out and buy a boat to compete.
so — Anonymous 10:09 am — One small sector of the island cannot be isolated to be a deciding factor for this massive, destructive and expensive, three year project. I myself bring a lot of business to the taxi drivers who carry my students and my customers from their hotel to my company. They will lose all of that business carrying people to Sunset House from the airport and beyond if we have to close from loss of business of this massive port. How about all of the trips from the beach to the water front businesses in town? Taxis will always be able to make a living. You did say that the “majority” of drivers are local. Why should ANY driver not be local if they are short of work and quite capable of doing it????
I would like to adjust my last reply to Anonymous 10:09 am. You are quite right in that you say “The only flaw…is the harm to taxi drivers” You are correct — it will affect them, to which I should have said, “However, they will also be somewhat negatively affected with the port decision as well, but they should be able to find ways to make the effect balance out.”
This is a really great conversation. Cathy and WaYa are right on the ball. The only comment I would add is this: when the taxi drivers agree to using meters, thereby ensuring tourists are not being ripped off, then I think they deserve our support. Nothing more to add other than, WaYa, if you are eligible, maybe you could be one of the leaders of a third political party which this country desperately needs. The fact that Arden and Ezzard have nothing to say about this massive enterprise tells me that they are at the same trough as the rest of our parliamentary exploiters. Amen
Anon 10:09 and Cathy Church, If you reread my post you will see that I do address the taxi drivers and I see no negative impact to them, only positive. Indeed they will benefit more than most.
Please let me elaborate; the end result of my proposal is that the cruise ship numbers will increase from 1.3million, present day, to 2.3million with the 6 extra ships per week, spaced out over 4 days. These extra one million cruise visitors will still need to be transported to their eventual excursion destinations. That is a 77% increase in customers guaranteed, as they all need to be transported while on shore.
No other business entity would expect to see the entire increase in cruise visitors enter their doors, however, they all need ground transport unless they are walking across the street to shop.
Perhaps I should also elaborate on my comment about the higher profit margins on short haul hire versus long haul hire. No taxi customer balks at paying $5.00 to be transported a distance of one mile, nonetheless, anyone hiring a taxi to go 25 miles would usually vehemently object to paying $125.00. Anywhere in the world, taxis charge 4 or 5 times the amount for the first mile while discounting the remainder of the trip heavily.
I value the contributions of our taxi drivers to our economy as they spend more of their income, directly into our economy, than any other business, including duty free stores, diving and hotels. Almost 100% of their income is spent locally, weather buying the vehicle, buying gas, vehicular repairs or their personal spending, remember very few of them even take offshore vacations and do their personal spending on island. Very few transfer funds offshore to feed their families in a foreign country as most of them are Caymanian.
I truly love our taxi drivers and so should everyone else, I would never suggest anything that would take food off their tables!
In closing, let me send a message to Alden, Moses and the rest of the PPM.
I hope that you are not banking your political future on the skewed thumbs up/thumbs down voting on CNS, with regards to this Mega cruise dock issue.
Up until 10:00am 43 people had read my post and zero had thumbs downed it, within 45 minutes the thumbs down had overtaken the thumbs ups. I do not give a rats ass who agrees with what I have to say, either agreeing or disagreeing, that is not the point I am trying to make, people are welcomed to their opinion.
What I am trying to point out to the Government is that if you build this Mega port, put the country in debt hundreds of millions of dollars, and run in the next election, depending on the pro vote to elect you………..you are in for a shock.
No one that I talk to on the street wants the PPM to go on a spending spree again like last time, leaving us ALL to pick up the tab. So far I see on the PPM wish list, new port, new airport, new roads, new schools, the dump……….!
Remember the pro dock supporters can easily manipulate the electronic voting on CNS by each using multiple computers, I would like to see you two, and the rest of the PPM and C4C, pull that off at the next election!
Wow, I do not know who you are, WaYaSay, but you surely do say it right! I am duly impressed by your accuracy, thoughtfulness and ideas. RIGHT ON!!!
WaYaSay, let me tell you what I say. I say your comment is well-thought-out and well written. I couldn’t agree with you more! Let’s hope our government will come up with something positive that is really “Value For Money” and we can feel good about the way our money is being spent.
Can you please run for a seat in government??!
Thank you for contributing this to the conversation.
How about a high speed tender from the cruise ships up to the West Bay dock for those Turtle Farm visitors?
Awesome!
– Who
I do find your comments and advise very refreshing. I took the time since attending the EIA meeting, to go downtown on cruise ship days and ask the cruise passengers about the tendering process. On 1 day alone, I spoke to over 200 passengers. 95% of these passengers were happy with the tendering process, in fact some preferred it more than the long walk on a pier. One of the main concerns were the congestion when cruise ships are in, better access for pedestrians. I think we have to better design the downtown area before going forward. Also, very important is the fact that almost 100% were shocked at the clarity of the waters as they were being tendered in to the terminals. They said they have never seen such beautiful waters in the other ports, and will definitely have Cayman as a top destination to return to. Not once was shopping mentioned for their pleasure in visiting Cayman. Please Mr. ministers, listen to the cruise passengers, as they are the ones visiting and enjoying our small but beautiful islands. Let us be an example to the world, let us preserve our beautiful God given environment!!! Please upgrade downtown, give our visitors a Cayman experience they would never experience elsewhere and forget the dock for now. It is definitely too costly and too destructive. May God guide you in the right decision. Remember, once the piers are built the damage cannot be reversed and it will be on your conscious forever.
Chicken drumsticks are better with BBQ sauce.
Now even the FCCA running from this potential environmental disaster!
Rod McDowell of Red Sail Sports just made a great point by saying that when cruise visitors ride to shore on the tenders, they are promptly motivated to snorkel, dive, go glass bottom, or submarine, by the crystal clarity of the water. Great point Rod!
I am a bit surprised at the lack of dialogue between the Govt. and the F.C.S.A. This should not be as in reality they are our partners in this dance!
I also believe that we should be looking in the mean time at alternative cruise pier sites, so as to not loose precious time if we drop the G.T. option which seems highly likely.
We should be looking for alternative sites where the cloud of dust etc from dredging, piling etc. will be safely swept away by our prevailing ocean current (Westerly), and away from delicate marine environments. Spotts area seems to fit this criteria well.
It just seems that we have all our eggs in one basket right now, when we really should be looking around intelligently. Never mind the certain businesses that have bought up land in G.T. hoping to be near a G.T. berthing facility, they are NOT Cayman. Their consciences are stifled by the prospects of much profit from having cruisers disembark , and embark right by their in-bond stores or whatever.
Without preserving our pristine marine environment, we will have nothing. No cruise ships, no busy in-bond shops, no busy busses, water sports, restaurants, etc. etc. BEWARE OF WHAT YOU CHOOSE, AND FOR WHOM YOU CHOOSE!!!
This release was from march. We aren’t at the point of formal consultation with the cruise lines.
CNS Note: Just to clarify the comments from Michelle Paige were made this month the speech was made in March.
Why not? This project has been under consideration for over a decade now. I would have thought that talking to the cruise lines (it’s known as market research) would have been one of the first moves rather than the last.
How can you say we are not at the point of talking to the cruise ships yet and there is a $2 million dollar expenditure on the EIA alone. If you are part of the Government which your statement surely indicates, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Yo, someone got som splaninin to do!
Once again the powers to be trying to pull the wool over the general public. The way I see it, you build the piers and there’s no reef upon disembarkement what will the tourist do? Shop? Highly unlikely. They will probably just stay on the boat. After all food and drinks are all inclusive.
“One of Cayman’s unique selling points for cruise passengers is that it is one of very few Caribbean destinations that has not only held onto an impressive underwater coral habitat but it can offer cruisers shore diving and snorkelling immediately on disembarkation.
The reefs and wrecks that attract numerous passengers into the water with tanks or snorkels or onto glass bottom boats and submarines are all at risk as a result of the piers. Many watersports operators claim that the George Town Harbour has been responsible for attracting cruise passengers back for stayover vacations. Their experiences diving and snorkelling in the harbour was so impressive they came back to see more.
While arguments rage over the precise square acreage of reef that will be directly destroyed by the dredging, what is of much more significance is the extent of the indirect destruction. All of the reefs and wrecks in the harbour will eventually die, albeit some much more quickly than others. The combination of dredging, silt and turbidity during construction will see as much tens of acres of the Caribbean’s most pristine endangered coral reefs lost forever before the project is even finished.”
What more is there to say?! The debate is over.
“NO” to the proposed CBF.
bottom line is that a dock would make it a better experience for everybody all around…..only if there was no environmental damage……
lets get all the information on the table and put it to a referendum….
time to make a decision and stop chasing our tails,……
OK — 53 people disliked this marvelous comment to get all the information on the table and put it to a democratic vote. That tells me that 53 people do not like a democracy. What then, do they prefer?
I challenge any of these 53 people to please give us a fact or two why you disliked this? Or shall I assume that you just plain do not care about the health and well being of this wonderful country’s finest asset of beautiful water and reefs? Come on– speak up–you who just say “dislike”–Let’s hear from you! Do you have a worthwhile cause? And don’t say jobs, because we all already know from the latest news in the Caymanian Compass that unemployment is dropping nicely without this massive project. And we already see that we need more and more work permit holders to take on jobs that Caymanians just will not take. So show us a real reason for this massive, destructive, expensive project should not be stopped or at the least, put to a vote?
News flash, the entire island voted on this long ago when ppm put this as priority in their manifesto.