Only 19 Chamber members back port plan
Cruise ship in George Town Harbour, Grand Cayman (Photo by Dennie Warren Jr)
(CNS): The Chamber of Commerce Council has said it supports the development of the cruise sector and cargo port improvements, although the organisation’s survey results on the issue do not appear to back the government’s plans. Following the publication of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on the current proposal, only 19 of its over 600 member businesses backed the project. In a lengthy statement released Tuesday, in which the results of its survey and members comments were revealed, the Chamber said that from the 67 responses it considered, 48 either did not support cruise berthing or wanted to see a different proposal that did not pose such a threat to the environment.
The Chamber said an undisclosed number of responses to the survey that could not be verified or were incomplete were deleted but the remaining 67 came from a cross-section of the business community. Twelve came from members who said they were directly involved in the cruise tourism sector; three of those were still against the project, though the Chamber statement was unclear if the other nine were fully on board.
Of the remaining 55 respondents, 24 were opposed to berthing altogether. Eighteen people said they wanted to see more research into different locations or better designs that would not impact the environment, and three were undecided.
Only ten businesses not involved directly in cruise tourism supported the current plan.
With the lack of support from the wider membership for the latest cruise port plan, the Council indicated it was not fully behind the current proposal, although it still appeared to back the idea of cruise facilities and a cargo upgrade. The Chamber said two online surveys indicate that the majority of members support cruise berthing but they wanted assurances “that any environmental damage caused by dredging can be reduced and mitigated and all efforts will be taken to relocate the living coral that will be impacted by this project”.
Therefore, it now wants the consultants who wrote the EIA, Baird, to confirm the breakdown of live coral reefs versus the associated marine habitat. It called on the marine experts to give a detailed breakdown on how much live coral is to be relocated and how.
“We would recommend that the area of live coral that will be affected is measured and confirmed so that a true cost for the mitigation can be properly assessed rather than estimated,” the Chamber said.
The authors of the EIA have already stated that the challenges in relocating the live, and in many cases fragile, and endangered coral would be a near impossible task. In the report they said the estimated cost of a full coral relocation programme for this project would be in excess of CI$13 million.
Nevertheless, the Chamber said it is keen to see a breakdown of the details ahead of any decision by government.
“We believe that before deciding to invest millions of dollars in cruise berthing facilities and cargo dock improvements, the Government must be satisfied that the environmental risks are clearly understood and all efforts taken to mitigate the damages,” the Council said in the statement, as it called for a national tourism strategy for cruise and stay-over visitors.
While some leading members of the current Council are wholly supportive of the project, as they stand to benefit directly if cruise ship passenger numbers do increase as a result of berthing facilities, its members appears divided.
Johann Moxam, the previous Chamber president, has already raised his concerns about the plan. On Tuesday he told CNS that it was impossible to know what the port will cost or what model is going to be used to procure it.
“If we are committed to build two piers at once and we expect a third-party consortium to procure it, then we can count on diverting the Port Authority revenue to the project financing and we may even need to supplement the Port Authority revenue source with other types of government revenue in the future,” he warned.
At odds with his Council colleagues about the economic necessity of improved berthing, he said the long-term impact on government coffers over the next 20 to 40 years was of significant concern. He also pointed to other national priorities and infrastructure projects, such as the dump and John Grey High School, both of which may well be sacrificed in order to fund the proposed cruise berthing facilities.
“We cannot afford to get this wrong from an environmental, financial and socio-economic standpoint,” Moxam said. “In my opinion, the government needs to take a comprehensive and objective look at what’s down the road. Where does it leave other important aspects of government priorities finances, liabilities and long-term ability to service debt? This is too important for Cayman’s future to get wrong.”
While the past president continues to point out that the cost to the public purse to fund the facility against the benefits to a limited number of businesses has not been justified, the environmental costs continue to dominate the local debate.
Acknowledging the economic importance of Cayman’s marine environment as a primary reason why visitors come, the Chamber Council said more must be done to protect our natural resources. It said the DoE also needs to determine how the cruise proposal relates to the National Conservation Law.
“But we must also ensure that the Cayman Islands is competitively positioned to attract cruise visitors and improve our cargo port to keep pace with the Islands’ growing economy,” it added, as it continued to waiver on the proposed plan.
Category: development, Local News
Anon 7:53 I am Caymanian and have no where else to go. That is why I am so concerned about people who are not invested here nor have anything to keep them here making such a big fuss about the future if our island. If people loses jobs and we start to look like Jamaica then people like me are the ones that will have to suffer. I don’t like the way you talk about my home but I do agree with what you are saying. I hope that our government does what is right for our people and their jobs not what those who can pack up and leave want.
Here is my two cents about progress and things like Cruise Ship Docks. Like everything else, we feel that somehow we (small island states) are pressured to do this, or do that, or we will be left behind. Well, we are a lot different from a lot of places, and that is exactly why tourist come here, to discover something different.
No one wants to see the same boring things everywhere they go. Take for example, jet-bridges at airports, well they are everywhere, does that make it right for us to have them. We are giving up what really made us paradise … step off a plane and walk in the sunshine, or rain, and start a vacation in paradise, but oh no, we have to get as comfortable as everyone else and stroll from the comfort of a/c onboard to a/c in the lounge, to end up in the hot-sun after we exit the customs hall, … what makes us different, unique, … we have already lost the “island time forgot” status, so what will be unique and different and which will make people want to come and visit us.
I listened to a talk show a few days ago on Rooster about equal rights for same sex unions, and the guest speaker said “we are behind the rest of the world.” Well as a “small island nation” we, as a people can choose NOT to advance, if our the people’s wishes that we “are not left behind,” but have made choices to remain a tiny unique little paradise, carved by our christian heritage and retain some of the true uniqueness that attracted visitors to our shores every year. Why do we as a nation have to constantly feel and act in a way that we MUST constantly align ourselves, actions, attitudes, lifestyles with the rest of the world, what next, nude beaches ? And yes, it’s largely in-action by scores of politicians over decades which leaves us in this mess.
One very important aspect of all this, and I don’t see it touted much, is, what is the national forecast on where we the people (Caymanians –no matter how you became such) want things to look like, 20 years from now, how much people do we want here, and what is the carrying capacity of this tiny place, for residents and visitors alike. Do the heavy lifting, do the math, make some hard decisions and put more controls in place.
We have to be careful of what we ask for, that thing in itself can be our greatest failure or downfall. Remember people, we are just a spec in the ocean, if we remain a spec, a gem, an island paradise without wanting to mirror the rest of the world, perhaps this is what will keep visitors come back time and time again.
Forget the cruise ship dock, at least the experience of tenders will remain. How about focusing on better customer service, genuine experiences, tradition, values, things that will set us truly continue to set us apart from the rest of the world …that will keep visitors wanting curiously to come and visit us. For sure Cuba will get people excited, and lazy travellers will always want these modern conveniences, but what’s the fund in that. Spend the time to develop and nurture our tourism product and the people will come.
A good friend always remind me, if you have the right product, people will find you, and will want to come, by any means even with a tender from a cruise ship. That should be the focus at a national level, and there will always be enough for everyone, provided the decisions happen at national levels and are not just on paper, but in practice.
In a complete free market society you are fairly correct. However if the cruise lines decide to take Cayman off of the itinerary due to lack of berthing there is very little we can do no matter how much we work on “our product”.
I am out of little jamaica soon cant wait would of stayed but lets face it the ships will not be coming as much anymore and crime will keep rising and red tape and all the other bullshit that goes with it I am also not worried about finding workers or being forced to hire useless people
MSC Cruise Line, the privately owned Italian company, is the first of the large cruise companies to announce moving their home port to Havana, Cuba. This presents a significant opportunity for MSC (Mediterranean Shipping Company) to move ahead of Carnival, RCCL, Celebrity, and Norwegian in staking a claim in Cuba
And I don’t care if the door hits me in the ass
it wont hurt as much as how you stick it up there now
Anon 7:53, A little bitter are you? The Jamaicans ran you out of Cayman did they? I do hope you are not moving back to London or New York because in terms of sheer numbers, there are far more Jamaicans over there.
For someone whose comments appear to be suggesting that you were invested in Cayman, to the extent that you had to wade through “red tape” and hire “useless people”, you do come off as someone who make major life changing decisions on the fly, without doing your research.
Surely you researched Cayman’s requirements for setting up a business and the fact that there is overemployment here, before you uprooted yourself and bought a ticket to come here…………….or is all that bitterness because you had to justify the need, before we let you bring all your friends over to work for you, under the guise that you could only attract “useless people” (Caymanians?)to work for you.
Of course I understand that you had to bring in “the best workers in the world” to fulfill the needs of your important business.
Now you seem prepared to jump out of the frying pan, into the fire by moving to Cuba. There is of course no “red tape” over there for foreign businesses who want to hire their friends from back home. They give out work permits right, left and center. Good luck with that.
I am already losing sleep because the cruise ships will stop coming to Cayman…………do you even have any idea, which country in the world, welcomes the most cruise passengers each year? It is the Dominican Republic, with 5 million per year………….but of course, their crime rate pales in comparison to the crime rate in Cayman………or so you seem to suggest.
Oh yes, it is the fact that MSC is moving into Cuba that will spell doom for Cayman. Here is a news flash for you. Their itinerary, besides Havana, is Jamaica and Grand Cayman………both places you now despise.
You should use the internet to do some research to support your stupid arguments instead of posting asinine comments on CNS.
You seem overly concerned about your ass…………perhaps it is appropriate if I remind you of an old Jamaican saying…………..”The higher monkey climb, the more he show his ass.”
Goodbye to you………sorry you did not assimilate!
It looks VERY shaky, Mr. Driftwood! Points well taken.
WaYaSay, that is the best write-up on this subject I’ve seen! You have a firm grasp of the situation. More power to you!!!
@ Anonymous 2:09: Who said anything about taking money OUT of the economy? I have serious doubts that a fancy cruise berth would add enough to the economy to pay for itself………. everyone knows it will take unknown millions out of the public purse, which is OUR money.
Read the PriceWaterhouse business case then you won’t have to depend on your own guesses. The professional accountants have researched this and are telling us it will not only pay for itself, it will add nearly 1000 jobs for local Caymanians!
And if we don’t build the docks, the public purse will lose about $10million a year in lost cruise passenger head tax.
What does the Queen say about it?
piers provide lots of places for new growth to develop and places to hide for small fish the few coral heads that would be disturbed are already occupied by territorial fish that don’t want any outsiders around their home
(seems to me upon thought those must be Caymanian fish )
but back to it, it would be really cool to have an observatory under the water under the new pier like they have at Atlantis in the Bahamas what a tourist attraction that would be especially if it were as long as the pier
Mr. Sahm, When I hear about the fact that “you, along with three others, sat in on a proposal”, it raises all kinds of red flags for me. It is these kinds of behind closed doors meetings that has gotten us into the mess that we are in now, from the Sir Anthony Jenkins proposal for an Island in the North Sound, in the 1980’s, to the Mega CBF of today. The fact that you threw in that “Chris K and their group seen the same presentation”, gives me no additional comfort.
This clandestine method guarantees that the people, who most stands to benefit, will soon be out there trying to sell this new idea as the best thing since sliced bread. It also guarantees that whatever group is selling it, will try to dump the cost on Government and the people of the Cayman Islands. It appears that the “local contractor” would prefer the select few to be inside their tent, pissing out, instead of outside the tent pissing in. I would put money on the fact that that “local contractor” is conflicted in that he will build this “new idea” as long as the people of Cayman pays for it, no matter what the cost.
Am I to read into this that you are not against a CBF, and the attendant Mega cruise ships, as long as it is not built in your back yard? I am not convinced that the flexibility of anchoring and tendering, is no longer the best option available to Cayman, at this point and time.
Let me make this abundantly clear, I am not for any CBF that will put the Cayman Islands Government into hundreds of millions of dollars in further debt! I am not in favor of any CBF that will result in tens of $millions being spent to improve traffic congestion in George Town and along Seven Mile Beach or inconveniencing our stay over tourists. I believe neither is necessary in order to increase our cruise visitor numbers or to improve their Cayman visit experience.
It is my position, that the people who should bare the majority of the cost for an improved disembarkation/embarkation facility(s) should be the tendering monopoly, the dive industry, the “duty free” retailers, the land based excursion businesses and the cruise ship companies. That is to say, anyone who has direct contracts with the cruise ships and who stands to benefit most, from increased cruise passengers coming to Cayman, should shoulder the cost for studies, the piers and land based buildings.
The cost to Government should be limited to, providing land, manning the immigration facility(s), cost of maintaining and running said facility(s), access roads and infrastructure improvements around the facility(s). These can be funded from the collection of fees already being charged to cruise ships and licensing fees charged to on shore providers.
The tendering monopoly should bear all the cost for upgrading their fleet or the monopoly should be broken up so that others can upgrade the tenders.
Diving industry is no more benevolent to Cayman than the duty free retail businesses who return to the economy the cost of buying their land, building or renting their stores, hiring their support staff and importing their goods; while, the diving industry contribute to developing their facilities, employing a far smaller employee to customer ratio and get to use all the underwater real estate they care to use for free (see auditor general report on Government owned property), therefore a much higher profit margin.
But back to these secret, behind closed door, meetings. These serve one purpose and one purpose only. They allow the privileged few, who participate, the opportunity to get their hands around the purse strings of said development. Damn the cost to Government.
This does not translate into me being anti cruise ship visitors, but I do object to these plans being developed behind closed doors and then presented as a fait accompli to the public, under the guise of public consultation. Transparency should apply as much to the private sector (when they envision spending public funds) as it applies to Government.
I put forward a perfectly feasible proposal that will guarantee the numbers that both sides of the CBF argument, agree they will benefit from.
I stated it publically here on CNS, and, more importantly I stated it for free, anonymously, and with no way to personally benefit from it.
I went further, I left my name and phone number, at your place of work, at Gerry Kirkconnell place of work and at Minister Kirkconnell’s Ministry and have received no call from either, maybe because I did not leave my fake name as well. I have had the opportunity to speak to Ronnie, thank you Ronnie.
Let me make something clear, I am retired, I have no consultancy company, I have no construction company, I have no cruise ship related company, but more importantly, I have no snout in anyone’s trough and I do not have my hands on anyone’s purse strings, except my own.
What I do have, is a burning desire to never see this Government put my children and grand children in debt any further than we already are.
P.S. Thank you Anon 8:42am for reading my submissions, I fared no one had noticed.
WaYaSay, I’m not sure where you left your name and number, but I have checked with our front desk and my secretary and neither have had anyone leave any messages for me. I would be glad to sit down with you and hear your thoughts. This is exactly why the Government has been very transparent throughout the process – releasing the EIA for the public – so that everyone’s voice can be heard and ideas can be pitched by all, to ensure that the best and most balanced plan can be developed. Please call or stop by my office or secretary to arrange a meeting time.
Gerry Kirkconnell
Thank you for the courtesy Gerry, I called for you three months ago when the rumors of a Mega dock first revived. As we grew up together, I wanted to research the impact of not spending $150 million on a new CBF and thought you were a good resource.
Questions I wanted to ask you, and Moses included:
Did you support this new CBF?
I also wanted to ask you for some comparative sales between 2006 and 2014?
What impact on hiring Caymanians did you experience between 2006 1.9 million cruisers and 2014 1.3 million cruiser?
How did you envision Government recouping the cost to build the new CBF?
Did you consider a public/private partnership could best accomplish this?
How much should Government give, up in future revenue from the Cruise Lines, to a private partner, in order to build a new CBF?
What did you see as a good reason why we needed to build any kind of CBF, considering the fact that the anchoring and tendering had delivered 1.93 million cruisers to our shores in 2006 and 1.3 million in 2003?
If Government was able to attract 1.93 million in 2006, from the smaller ships, what exactly was preventing Government today, from surpassing those numbers, and indeed surpassing 2 million this year, from the medium sized cruise ships and tendering?
How did you think we could eliminate the two biggest complaints heard from cruisers i.e. waiting in the sun to go back on board and how to alleviate congestion in George Town?
We probably would have talked for hours and I probably would have had 50 more questions that your experience could have helped to answer ……………….alas, the moment has passed………..I got my answers through other research resources.
I respect the fact that Chris eloquently and forthrightly answered some of the above questions on CNS. He also clarified Kirk Freeport’s position that we needed the CBF and the Oasis class ships, if we were to survive.
Feel free to answer any of my questions that you feel need further elucidation, it will certainly help with transparency, however, I cannot agree that this Government has been any more transparent than any other, just because the published the EIA; it is a public document and would have seen the light of day through an FOI, had they not done so.
Government not only needs to hear my ideas, they need to discuss their merits publicly, against the CBF, transparency demands nothing less.
I have no desire to be recognized as the author of a less expensive solution, nor benefit directly from it, but I would at least like to know that my ideas, to save $100,000,000.00 are taken seriously, especially when my ideas can deliver the numbers that retailers and service providers want to see.
Thank you again for the invite, however discussions behind closed doors, in someone’s office, is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution…………in my honest opinion.
You are most welcome WaYaSay, but it is now mid afternoon Thursday and the revelation that Keith refers to has still not made the CNS any wiser.
You keep plugging your campaign and I wiil persevere with the floating dock idea.
The more I hear and see of all this the more it looks like a massive bait and switch exercise inappropriately paid out of the Environmental Protection Fund.
To heck with all of who wants what. Just man up and ask the real question: what does the Dart Corporation want?
Couple things. Two piers is overkill. Completely unnecessary and a waste of time and more importantly money. If we need berthing, one pier accomodating two ships is more than sufficient and presumably less destructive to God’s bottom (I’m copy writing that).
Why did the EIA not consider a single pier option? Greed.
In fact it is the “Queen’s Bottom”.
Either way I’m not sure we should be digging around in it willy nilly.
What is government supposed to do?? People want the dock and then they don’t want the dock. Add in the special interest group that is very influential and stands to loose the 7M$+ Tender contract and this is an impossible mission for this government. The PPM is being very responsible by having a much more in-depth study of the EI completed as the first one was not conclusive. If it were MB’s and the UDP in power the Environmental Impact would not have even been considered! Quote “Booby Birds come and Booby birds go… oh well!”
THANK YOU JOHANN!!! THE DUMP THE DUMP THE DUMP!!!!!!!!! THAT IS THE REAL PRIORITY!! Damn it people!!! Forget this STUPID CRUISE SHIP DOCK to bring a bunch of hill billies here who have no money anyways- can we PLEASE SORT OUT THE DUMP!!!!!!!!
The truth is politicians here support INACTION – dump, tire sales, public asset sales, the port and the list goes on and on. Maybe they should hire another consultant – they seem to be good at that.
What a load of waffle from the chamber of commerce
Johan thank you for saying what most people don’t want to hear the truth!!!
Mr. Moxam raises some valid points on the costs versus other competing national priorities
Let’s do the math here. 1.6 million cruise tourists last year with $87 per person spent, plus $17 in taxes and port fees per person, so a total of $104 per person. Government gets over $27 million through direct taxes, and the overall industry brings in over $165 million annually. If we don’t invest in this industry, where is this money going to come from?
Cruise lines and passengers want to come to Cayman because it’s English speaking and relatively safe, but with Cuba opening its doors, and all of our competitors having better facilities than we do, we are fighting just to maintain these figures, forget about growing them. Those that think it’s just a few retailers, taxi drivers and tour operators that benefit, or we should forget about cruise tourism and just focus on air passengers, your kidding yourselves. Trying taking $100 million out of the economy and see what happens.
The cruise ships will still come… They have threatened this over the years, when it was the Freedom class of ships, then the Voyager. Now this December, the Quantum class of ships will be coming in. Stand up and quit whining. Let’s be better than everyone else!
For one Quantum carries 300 passengers less than freedom class. Two Anthem of the seas only stops once in December, once in January and once in march. 3 stops a season isn’t exactly a plethora of calls. Conveniently you managed to leave out the Genesis (Oasis) class ships still will sail right by cayman.
Let’s do some more math. The huge $200 million plus investment would add how much additional revenue? There is no guarantee that our very expensive parking lot for ships would result in more arrivals. How many more do we actually need to hope to pay for that $200 million loan?
Likewise your argument that not building them removes 100% of the arrivals is rediculous. I seem to remember that over the last 6-8 years as different port proposals were brought forward and dismissed the same argument was used. Yet here we are with growing cruise arrival numbers.
Even without the passionate debate about the environmental cost the bigger problem is that the business case itself looks a little shaky.
Why is it that Cayman News Service is so quick to point fingers at chamber board members trying to discredit their statement but when CITA gives an opinion against the port they make no effort to point out conflicted board members (like Keith Sahm who is a leader against the port). Not to mention the cfo of the tender company is on the board of chamber.
Dear BOD, Let’s make this perfectly clear, I am not against cruise, nor of a port expansion, but with the proposed berthing facility as laid out in the latest EIA with the proposed dredging. Check your facts. SaveCayman is not anti cruise, either. There is another proposal out there (not the floating cruise piers) that is environmentally friendly.
That’s going to be a hard sell considering your paycheck comes from the same place as the tender operators.
Then why isn’t this massively expensive, destructive plan not a hard sell considering that the proponents paychecks come from their sales to cruise passengers. OF COURSE people are talking from their own perspective. OF COURSE people are going to defend their own income. Drop that sort of wily finger pointing and stick to the facts. Will the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? Even the EIA said that in many ways they don’t.
Thanks for your honesty in acknowledging your motivation to defend your income. However, you’ve missed the point that we (the pro-dock tourism operators) all have to compete in the open market for business while the owners of the tender operators rake in tens of millions $$$$$$$$ a year running a monopoly.
It’s no wonder they are doing all they can to stop the rest of us from improving our ability to make a living. They’ve held us back long enough!
They are trying to prevent you from committing tourism suicide. No one is holding you back except yourself.
At least I can put my name and a way if you want to get a hold of me on my posts… Can’t say that for most
Keith, pray tell, what is the eco friendly alternate proposal you refer to? If there is anything better than a floating dock we need to hear it asap.
The only viable alternative is put forward by WaYaSay whereby he says that we should be tendering cruise visitors directly to their on island destination. This will abate the craziness of thousands of people thronging into and out of Georgetown while giving the visitors the experience of a small boat trip that will be the highlight of their Cayman experience and just may lead to their returning as stayover guests in the future.
I have to tell you that I am unaware of the alternative you refer to.
It was proposed to government officials yesterday, required no dredging and environmentally safe. It was actually submitted by a local contractor that I too hope in due time that they will come out publicly with the plan. It was not the floating docks. Myself along with three others sat in on the proposal. Chris K and their group seen the same presentation. This could be the win win for everyone… Everyone wants to keep throwing stones and not wanting to work together. It is not fact that the SaveCayman group is anti cruise or for a cruise berthing facility. It is against this proposed CBF that has all the dredging… However you want to classify it as a large or small dredge. Go to the SaveCayman.org FB site to see for yourself on some of the dredging issues. Thanks
Keith, is it a secret or will we be told of it after the dredging has begun.
Will the cabals be able to make a little cash out of it
C’mon Keith, let the cat out of the bag.
Sounds very interesting.
BOD — you just contradicted yourself. You just mentioned two members opposed to the plan — one is on the CITA board and one is on the Chamber board. What is your point? Also, note that I said “plan” not cruise ships.
No contradiction. Just pointing out that CNS only wants to mention the information that they like. They only said that certain members stand to gain form the project, while leaving out the fact that there are equal members of the board/council that stand to gain directly if the project is shot down.
So what you’re saying actually is that the majority polled are either in favour of the dock as is or they are in favour of the dock but with some variation. That is a far cry from the verbiage portrayed in your article. What I heard from the chamber statement is that most of those polled are I favour of cruise berthing, but they want to see the development carried out with environmental concerns mitigated as much as possible.
(CNS note: The Chamber did not say that, they said that the majority of members connected to the cruise ship industry – the 12 that responded – were in favour.)
I’ve heard quite a few other people and groups saying the exact same thing (except savecayman, they just want no dock
CNS note: No, the SaveCayman people have stated that they are not against any dock, just this one),
so my guess is, let’s get this thing done bur make sure we do not the best way possible.
Omg why can you people not read- CNS did not say that but you will read whatever you want right. fool!
In all fairness, unless Anonyous 1:12 am actually studied the report, he would not be able to come to a conclusion. It said that of the 12 businesses that were directly affected by cruise tourism the majority supported it, but you have to calculate to find that number represents only NINE businesses. The biggest flaw in the report is that THEY FAILED TO SAY how many of that nine supported it outright (by choosing response number 1) , or if they chose #2: which says that they support the construction of the cruise berthing facility but want to see further studies to make sure we are building in the best location with the best possible design to minimize environmental impact. There is a HUGE difference between these two types of support.
Thank you Mr. Moxam! Thank you!
After Legge – gate ’15 I was desperately searching for a better alternative. This article proves that the reporter may be my only option.
Get ready for another disappointment.
In this day and age, newspapers are only of practical benefit for use as disposable placemats to put under pet feeding bowls. The Reporter is best because it’s free, even though the Compass does have more pages.
It is utterly amazing the lengths CNS will goto distort information. CITA only ends up with 30% of their membership polled and cns reports that the “majority of the 250 members” are against the dock but when the chamber come out in favour of the dock with responsibility factored in (as the pro dock group had stated from the beginning) that they come out guns blazing against the chamber.
CNS writers and owners are too emotionally vested in the anti-dock campaign to be objective. These articles they write are so distorted it makes me question anything those handful of Save our Tenders expats are saying.
I have a hard time believing or giving any credence to someone who cannot even sign their name to their thoughts. Come on, tell us who you are so we can see what YOUR vested interest is.
Everyone is confused because the chamber statement is terribly worded. They said that 54 out of 67 respondents did not support the current cruise berthing plan and of the 12 businesses that were directly affected by cruise tourism the majority supported it, but you have to calculate to find that number represents only NINE businesses. The biggest flaw in the report is that THEY FAILED TO SAY how many of that nine supported it outright (by choosing response number 1) , or if they chose #2: which says that they support the construction of the cruise berthing facility but want to see further studies to make sure we are building in the best location with the best possible design to minimize environmental impact. There is a HUGE difference between these two types of support.
Thus, the chamber statement is totally worthless until they clarify what the results really are. Also, keep in mind that this survey went out without any summary of the plan and I suspect that very few people in this country have studied the 384-page EIA.
At least it didn’t go out with completely biased, untrue and misrepresented information attached to it like the CITA survey did. At least the Chamber statement doesn’t come with an asterisk that completely voids it’s credibility.