Cruise port too expensive

| 09/05/2018 | 97 Comments

Cayman News ServiceDominic Dyer writes: We cannot afford to build a cruise berthing facility in George Town. This is true from both an economic and, more importantly, an environmental perspective. The current coalition government is choosing to blatantly ignore the facts presented to them, and by doing so are putting our beloved isle’s future in jeopardy.

Despite an environmental impact assessment (EIA) concluding that the dredging of coral will result in significant ecological losses and an as-yet-unpublished consultant’s report finding that Cayman will need to attract 2.5 million cruise passengers per year (requiring a 45% increase from 2017) to make the cruise berthing facility financially viable, the government is still choosing to progress with the project in secrecy.

Economic self-interest appears to be the strongest and sole motivating force behind the project, with supporters of the cruise berthing facility limited to merchants in town, a small number of tour operators, and the multi-billion-dollar cruise companies themselves. However, we cannot let the selfish few who will benefit financially have it their way, while the rest of our nation faces the negative consequences.

The principal concern with the cruise berthing facility is the devastating environmental impact it will have on the George Town harbour and its surroundings, with the dredging, construction and operational phases all having severe impacts. The current concept is set to directly destroy 15 acres of coral reef (a segment of that area is an established Marine Protected Area), with an additional 15-20 acres set to be impacted indirectly. Although supporters of the project will argue this coral can be relocated, coral relocation is prohibitively expensive, success is not guaranteed, and the EIA states that it will not achieve “no net loss”.

Beyond the numerous environmental impacts of the proposed cruise berthing facility are the obvious economic impacts. The EIA estimates the economic losses to be US$10M/year, a direct consequence of the reef destruction and its impact on the watersports operators that have been operating in the area, while also caring for the environment, for many years. This figure doesn’t even account for the impact that the dredging will have on the even more profitable surrounding areas such as Seven Mile Beach.

Even if we are able to attract the 2.5 million cruise passengers needed to make the project viable, which is estimated to cost a whopping $200-300 million, it is questionable whether our local attractions and infrastructure would be able to support such a large number of daily visitors. With traffic in George Town already at a standstill and tourist attractions such as Stingray City becoming dangerously overcrowded, accommodating these additional 800,000 cruise passengers on an annual basis could have an extensive negative impact on the island.

One of the biggest challenges with this daily influx of cruise ship passengers is balancing their experiences with the experiences of much more valuable overnight guests. The addition of these cruise passengers will result in additional pressure on diving and snorkelling attractions (as the cruise berthing facility will reduce both the number and quality of coral reefs available for visitors and locals alike) and cause overcrowding in already congested areas such as Stingray City and Seven Mile Beach.

We cannot afford to see a decrease in invaluable overnight visitors, who spent an average of nearly CI$1,200 in 2017, compared to the CI$98 the average cruise ship passenger spent during the same period.

With Department of Environment Director Gina Ebanks-Petrie warning that the environmental consequences will be “extremely dire”, newly appointed governor Anwar Choudhury noting that “it is vital that we protect our environment” and the majority of the public being deeply opposed to the project, it is difficult to comprehend why the government is choosing to proceed with the construction of the cruise berthing facility.

The economic self-interest of the cruise companies appears to be similar in nature to several MLAs, who will derive a significant economic benefit from the numerous businesses they operate in George Town. Those MLAs should distance themselves from the process and recuse themselves from any matter that concerns the cruise berthing facility.

The $200-300 million construction cost for the cruise berthing facility would be much better spent on building new, or improving the existing, infrastructure, fighting crime, or finishing the incomplete renovations at John Gray High School.

Before this project commences, I propose that the government holds a referendum, and puts the future of our beloved isle in the hands of our people — the same people who will have to live with the severe consequences of the cruise berthing facility if the government continues down this path.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Category: Viewpoint

Comments (97)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Lol I think you mean 15 acres of a shipwreck that was blown to pieces with dynamite and scattered after many norwesters because it sank directly in the shipping lane.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Environmentalist wackos: the best place to catch lobsters and fish in Florida is around all the man made bridges. There are coral reefs that grow on the oil rigs out in the gulf where we do bounce dives to spear groupers and tunas. Marine life absolutely loves man made structures. Anyone with basic knowledge of marine life know this elementary fact. This is why we sink ships and call them artificial reefs

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah!!! Lets tear up all the reefs around the island and replace them with concrete! The marine life will love us for that!

      Jeez some people really are dumb.

  3. Anonymous says:

    No one will ever use email.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Airports are too expensive.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Dyer speaks the truth albeit too dire for most proponents of this half baked facility to handle.
    Constantly CIG reminds me of a youngster in a candy shop with some change in their pocket. They pull out a handful of coins on the counter and and say what can I get for that? We are always missing the big picture and most importantly the master plan.

    As Mr. Dyer and others have eluded to the cruise port is a major piece of urban infrastructure that begs a master plan for George Town. Following the inevitable gridlock if the project goes ahead CIG will be forced into another impulse spending spree to provide a knee jerk solution which might surpass the price tag of the port itself.
    All aspects and knock on effects have not been fully studied and some of these reports only paint a partial picture. There is good reason for the general population to be wary of misinformation and bias.

    I say bring on a referendum.

  6. Anonymous says:

    As far as CIG bottom line revenue is concerned, the net contribution of air and cruise tourism is a paltry $50mln per year. Hypothetically, a cruise port financier would recoup their costs against landing fees over 25-30 years. That means less gross gov’t revenue, not more. The only increases are: congestion, waste, and capacity erosion, at the expense of overnight guest satisfaction. It’s clearly something else motivating these Ministers – the same ones that refuse to enact the Standards in Public Life Law. They want the lights out for a reason.

  7. Anonymous says:

    There has been a lot of brainwashing by the tens of thousands of dollars spent by the pro-tender, anti dock lobby group known as “Save Cayman” aka “”Save Tenders”

    • Anonymous says:

      Don’t want to spend half a billion dollars on a dock therefore must be pro-tender… seriously? Fine. License the tenders down to a reasonable operating profit and pocket the fees for CIG… next.

    • SMH says:

      ROFLOL on the paranoid attack. SMH

    • Anonymous says:

      So answer me this. Let’s just say that the port is never built and tender company stays in operation. What environmental risk does this pose to our islands? Anti-Tender supporters are in it for all the wrong reasons. From the comments i read over the years, people seem to be more concerned that the tenders are owned by one particular individual and they are making profits, and that seems to be the justification to go ahead with the port. The Cayman people are as lost as can be.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Dart will do it for free.

    • If we are going to see a major drop in the financial services sector in 2020 we cannot afford to put the CIG into deeper debt. Say no to CIG higher debt and the $200 million port. Let the private sector fund the port though doubt they will take the high financial risk.

    • Anonymous says:

      Trust me on this; NOTHING Dart has done is for free.
      What kind of simpleton are you?

    • Calling BS here says:

      Dart does nothing “for free”, he does everything with a long term goal of scooping up every last bit of revenue into his own ventures at the expense of every other business on these islands. You might not be paying dollars today, but you will be paying with your livelihood some years down the road.

  9. Jonathan Joseph Thomas Adam says:

    Mr. Dyer I for one agree with you 100%. At the very least, this needs to go to a national referendum. Sir Winston Churchill’s quote is relevant here, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.

  10. Anonymous says:

    What is being ignored is the special interest group which keep pushing this pier forward against the will of the people. Much is done in secret without any oversight and this group who remain in the shadows know that what the people want DO NOT MATTER.

    • StopTheCrime says:

      The people overwhelmingly support the pier and the long term benefits of it.

      • Cheese Face says:

        There aren’t any benefits, unless you sell watches and t shirts. You can kiss the boat tours and beaches goodbye as there will be no space on the beach and no marine life left. There will however be trash everywhere, yay!

      • Anonymous says:

        That’s funny. I haven’t met a single person who wants the dock.

      • Anonymous says:

        Which people, other than the owners along the waterfront ?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Obviously the author Mr. Dyer has not read the 2400 pages of the EIA and all the other multitude of reports, financial, economic and other wise that have been produced and publically released and available for everyone to study. There are only two infrastructural developments in the country that are funded and indirectly paid for by the users, and those two projects are the airport and the cruise/cargo port. The new airport is paid for by the users/customers being the airlines and the new cruise port is pad for by the users being the cruise lines. Why would any country walk away from these two opportunities, preferring to remain in the dark ages. The cruise industry directly and indirectly provides employment for 3500 to 4000 people in Cayman and employment is the #1 issue involved in whether we stay in or exit the cruise business. No cruise berthing facilities means a slow exit out of the cruise business as all the older and smaller cruise ships go to scrap in India or Pakistan. No cruise ships no head tax and no funding for social services and massive unemployment. This does not only affect the unemployed it will also affect their families. Mr. Dyer, now wake up and look at the big picture, for Cayman is the only port in the entire greater region that does not have cruise berthing.

    • Dumb like door knob says:

      person 7:48am…it seems YOU do not understand the big picture here. You reference employment opportunities, please elaborate and tell us, how many of the persons who work in the shops of Town, the dive industry and restaurant business are actually Caymanian?? don’t worry i’ll wait.
      the fact is, they are trying to push this thing using fear mongering, similar to what you just stated…that unemployment is going to go up, cruise ships aren’t going to come to Cayman, we are going to be left in the dark ages, blah blah. Kirkconnell wants to push this thing through, for his family business to profit and the only other MLAs who support him also have businesses that stand to make a significant profit from this. I would love for someone to request a FOI and see what the true percentage of Caymanians employed in the Tourism sector is, and broken down by occupation type. The stay over guests without a doubt spend more money than the cruise passengers, so if we really wanted to grow economically, they should be the focus.
      The whole reason tourist even come here, is because of the beautiful beaches, pristine waters, and awesome dive spots/ attractions. Why would you support 1 thing that would destroy all those things, with a unsupported argument that it would make US more money?!?!,

    • Anonymous says:

      No amount of cruise shippers will ever cover the cost of the dock. CIG will be on the hook for it. Even then an increase in cruise tourism will completely ruin the island for stay over tourists. 12,000 people at public beach and sand bar, er, no thanks!

    • Anonymous says:

      Kindly explain and/or elaborate on who exactly will fund the required infrastructural upgraded needed for the increase in tourist?

    • Anonymous says:

      The reports that you refer to neither validate or justify the building of these piers. Ask the Accountants who wrote them or read what the reports says.

    • Right ya so! says:

      @ Anonymous 10/5/2018 @ 7:48 re your comment: “for Cayman is the only port in the entire greater region that does not have cruise berthing”. Have you seen these facilities? have you seen how deserted they are? how the shops are owned by major global brands? how the small businessman has been pushed out & all the money leaves the country anyway? have you seen how cheap most of the cruise shippers are? We CANNOT afford the spend! There’s no two ways about it. Those who want to come ashore, will do so by tender. As Dominic has so succinctly said we don’t have the infrastructure in place & there’s no space or money to put it in place. Cayman has no money – we’re already up to our eyeballs in debt – and the only way out will be for Dart to buy that debt as he has in other countries.

  12. Anonymous says:

    A Royal Watler size upland development and a dock that holds two ships paid for by a partnership with Carnival in Sprotts. It could be built for about 75m. Another in Weatbay or North Sound in a few years paid by Royal Caribbean.

    Leave Georgetown as it is.

    • Anonymous says:

      I love the idea that people throw around numbers like they mean something or have some actual reality. 75 million for a dock?

      • Anonymous says:

        Its a way of looking at capital project that is absolutely unknown here.

        1/ Make a giant list of all the possible bells and whistles that everyone and his his brother thinks is a good idea, come up with the cost and say… “ok”
        Think the high schools.


        2/ Pick a number that works from a cost of borrowing and expected revenue, and design a project that meets the budget.

        Banana Walk and Amber Cove ran about 25m each… No reason we could not design a pier for 75m.

    • Anonymous says:

      And add Mike’s of congestion and delays as thousands of tourists are bussed into GT and beyond all during the morning rush, and again during the after work rush hours.

  13. Anonymous says:

    You all can not tell those guys what to do even if jesus come down they would say who are you?. Come on bring it on a referendum let us all try to stop the madness with those two overnight friends the premier and the speaker of the house the difference between two of them one is educated and one is not but the educated one can be more dangerous too us and it is wordt he is the leader now the dock will just like the school but the only thing diffference the water can wash us away. The UK soon fix things up that we all wil be on a level play field.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Alden spewing steam about how the UK are being undiplomatic but, here he is with his government being hypocrites…

  15. Anonymous says:

    I fully understand both sides of the argument regarding this berthing dock for cruise ships. However, the Cayman Islands, apart from Aruba, is the richest in the Caribbean! How can you say you cannot afford such an expensive structure which in turn will be an asset to this island. Most of the other Carubbean islands, which are much much poorer than you, have this facility. You are one of the few tax free banking facilities in the world. Your tourist industry is booming both by sea and air.

    • Anonymous says:

      And that is why we don’t need it.. We are have a booming tourist trade now, we had it yesterday so why do we need a pier to have it tomorrow?

    • We also have a large public debt and one of the fastest growing debts in the Caribbean. With the economic downturn coming in 2020 we cannot afford to take on an additional $200 to $300 million of debt next year.

      I do not want personal income tax nor property taxes, but on the road we are on we are headed personal income tax and property tax will become inevitable.

      Say NO to the port now while we can still save ourselves.

  16. West Bay Premier says:

    If this cruise ship pier project has to be put to a referendum, I think that the Citizens of the Cayman Islands need to make a special demand before it go to vote , that all Politicians and vested parties MUST NOT BE INVOLVED in anyway shape or form in the referendum .. There should be town hall meetings to properly inform the people about the project and the consequences of it before they vote .

  17. P&L says:

    More cruise ship passengers = way too much sunscreen in our waters = continued death to our reefs!!

    Look at Hawaii… they just made most sunscreen brands ILLEGAL in efforts to save what they can of their reefs meanwhile our leaders plan to dump concrete on top of acres of our reefs to let even more people crowd in for a few hours where they will leave the boat with at least one thing…. their sunscreen. 🙁

    • Anonymous says:

      I guess they can build it over the site that the Rhapsody scraped flat if it’s not too grown back yet. Wait forget I said that, they may take it seriously.

      Berthing? We don’t need no stinking berthing!

  18. Anonymous says:

    Good piece Mr Dyer. It’s worth noting that the increase in cruise passengers is just to break even. The current number of cruise passengers is bad enough, any increase will be absolutely miserable for everyone.

  19. Anonymous says:

    The cruise lines will be paying for the Cruise ship piers.We will also expand the Cargo dock, we need a larger and better facility so that larger cargo ships can bring more volume of cargo. That should help with reducing costs of living.
    We always talk about hotels spend more money on island. I would like an accounting firm to actually give us a breakdown of where and who gets all that money? Cause I really don’t get any of that money from that source. Is it you ? How do you make money from Hotels and condos? Enlighten us, how much, doing what?
    Cruise lines coming in feed almost 6000 people from stores, tourist attractions, all transportation (500 individuals times 4) dive boat companies, Stingray City boat operators and their Caymanian crews and families etc. If you watched the youtube videos in different parts of the world including all new Caribbean cruise line stops, you can see they are all on board. Progress ladies and gentlemen, the environment recovers rapidly and continues to create new coral reefs that make up the pilings under the piers.
    Remember if you forgot, Starfish point was dredged and is now a new tourist attraction.
    There are 100’s of scuba diving sites around the entire island, enjoy. “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs”. Have a wonderful breakfast.

    • West Bay Premier says:

      Stop watching you tube and drinking PPM coolaide and coolant then you could learn how to make some money from hotels. If that cruise ship pier is built, little people like you won’t make a dollar from it for 25 years , after it be turned over and owned by the people , that’s what Mr .Moses said .

    • Anonymous says:

      I think the cruise lines will be paying for the dock in lieu of paying the per head charge currently paid to Government, whichever way you slice it we pay for the dock, the cruise lines just pony up the cash upfront. So the Cayman Government give up $20mio of income per year, plus any annual increase in that number for the next 20/30 years? Bit like putting it on your credit card. The devil is in the detail, which unfortunately is lacking, if we do give up the income for 30 years, and cruise numbers increase to 2.5mio pa the total cost rises to $1.5bn, if we stick at 1.6 mio and it’s over 15 years the cost is $480mio, for which we get a $250mio asset and no control over the future costs. We also have to build and pay for any infrastructure upgrades needed. I can see why the cruise lines would want a pier, it’s not a need for them, but it is another way to make money, which btw they are very good at.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Don’t forget who trod the same path before them. Remember Bush/CHEC?

  21. Say it like it is says:

    How can a Government have credibility on any project when two arch enemies become bedfellows – the Premier and the Speaker. Self preservation triumphed over all other considerations.

    • West Bay Premier says:

      Say it like is , it looks like all the kirkbots has sank , now that some real good common sense has come to light about this detrimental cruise ship pier . You don’t even see or hear the bubbles from their sinking .

  22. Anonymous says:

    How about we as the people just tell them no? WE have the power, not them.

    • Anonymous says:

      This would appear to be winging after the event, my understanding is that the deal has already been done

  23. Anonymous says:

    Imagine building a $200 to $300 million cruise berthing facility under the current Board and management at the Port. Lord save us please!

  24. Anonymous says:

    On may surmise that we are in a bit of a dyer situation here.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Excellent viewpoint.

    The Government should be forced to do a line by line response before they waste any more money on this nonsense

    • Anonymous says:

      don’t bother asking because what you will get is not a line by line response but a lie by lie response.
      this folly is not being built to benefit the Cayman people it is being built at the expense of the Cayman and the Caymanian people.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I think it would be useful to clarify the visitor ‘spend’, i.e. over how many days does an overnight visitor spend CI$1,200 versus the one day spend of CI$98 for a cruise ship passenger, then compare actual numbers of true tourist visitors of both types. I find it hard to believe these are over the same measurement periods? The spend may therefore well be closer than it first appears, but regardless it is always important to ensure apples are compared to apples.

    • Anonymous says:

      I believe the OP is using the recently released official statistics:½billion/

      I also believe the OP makes a very good point. The official statistics have only confirmed what most of us already suspected. It’s only logical that the pier makes no economical, environmental or common sense.

      • Anonymous says:

        the government stands to make at least 20 million dollars a year off the cruise dock. Minimum

        that’s an extra how many jobs for how many caymanians?

        because right now, it’s the tender boats and their owners making that profit and the boat captains are all expats.

        do you think those people making 20 million a year are putting that back into the economy.
        No, but the government would.

        • Anonymous says:

          Your fictitious 20m, and more, will go straight back into servicing the debt, not made up jobs.

  27. Anonymous says:

    This is a really stupid idea. If there’s money for this project it would be much better spent on education and other social programs.

  28. A. Caymanian says:

    Dear Government

    Please enlighten the public and provide clarity on the following questions:

    1. Will the public be informed of the full details before you commit to the final agreement in Sept 2018?

    2. (a) When will the public be able to review details?
    (b) Is it a secret?
    (c) Why are details being treated as a secret?

    3. How will the project be financed? Cruise lines will not pay for the cargo expansion component.

    4. Has the government updated the Outline Business Case given the new design and financing projections?

    5. Will the results of the new Environmental Impact Assessmebt be made public? If so, when and how will the information be shared?

    6. How will Cayman accommodate the 2.3-3million Cruise passengers per year?

    7. Is new infrastructure being put in place along the SMB to accommodate the volume that wish to soak up the world famous beach and it’s pristine waters?

    8. Where is the transparency that was promised and the Progressives campaigned on in May 2017?

    9. What exactly do you have to hide? Is the deal that bad?

    10. Is government prepared to put this question to a referendum?

    Unfortunately, the attitude and behavior being displayed by the government, Cabinet Members , caucus and ministry officials regarding the promised public consultation and information sharing phase with relevant details suggests that there are significant issues that may embarrass the government. The question to be asked then is why are you committed to moving forward at any costs? In fact your collective actions are reminiscent of the conduct of the previous UDP administration during its covert negotiations with China Harbour Group in 2011-12.


    A. Caymanian

    • Anonymous says:

      I’ll answer on behalf of the government:

      1. No.

      2. A. No
      B. Yes
      C. It’s a secret, that’s why.

      3. Not important for public to know.

      4. Obviously no.

      5. Who cares about the environment?

      6. They’ll figure it out.

      7. For sure bro, we got this.

      8. Lol you actually believed us?

      9. Deals done from long time ago bobo. Don’t worry we’ll spend the money as wastefully as possible.

      10. No referendum. Not needed. Kirk assured us we’ll all be rich. Well, us anyways. You’re welcome.

  29. Anonymous says:

    The most unsettling thing about this debate is the fact that we’re still in a situation where nobody, and that includes all the journalists working here, has obtained any real feedback on this project from any of the cruise lines. The nearest we seem to have got was a comment from the FCCA but very bluntly they don’t count – it’s the people who actually own and operate the vessels we need to hear from.

    My big concern here is that the cruise ships are becoming huge floating, self-contained resorts that don’t need stop-offs. If you check some of the current Caribbean itineraries you’ll find that the passengers are spending over 70% of a one-week cruise at sea – we’re actually creeping towards a situation where cruise lines might take this one step further and stop island-hopping completely. From an operational point of view that makes sense because the vessels operate most economically running at a constant cruising speed and the operators wouldn’t be sharing the proceeds of any activities with anyone else or paying landing fees.

    The cruise lines need to give input to this because without that we’re back to the old, ‘If we build it, they will come,’ concept and based on my experience of the hospitality industry that’s a recipe for bankruptcy.

    In order to justify the dock it seems we need one of two things –

    1. Substantial outside funding so if it does go belly up the entire financial burden doesn’t fall on the people of these islands or;

    2. A cast-iron guarantee that the various cruise lines will continue to use the facility for at least as long as it takes CIG to cover the building and upkeep costs.

    The facts are nobody seems to be rushing in with funding and there is no way on this planet that any of the cruise line will risk committing to a potentially open-ended obligation like that, their shareholders simply won’t let them.

    Do we need a dock? Without input from the cruise lines nobody knows and anybody who claims otherwise is delusional.

    • Retired Captain says:

      Your second paragraph:
      The ships have to call at at least one ‘foreign’ port, i.e. a port in a country other than that of the departure port; otherwise they would be undertaking a ‘coastal’ voyage (even if 2000 miles out into the Atlantic) and subject to different regulations.
      For one thing, the owners would have to pay customs duty on all of the alcoholic drinks carried aboard together with all spare parts; the crew could be liable for income tax in the country of departure and, in all probabllity, the ship’s registry would have to be changed.
      That’s just a start…….

    • Anonymous says:

      stop copying and pasting this argument. your argument can be shot down in one statement. Half the reason passengers go on cruises is for the stop overs. No one is going to want to stay at sea for 5 or 7 days.

      • Anonymous says:

        thumbs down all you want. If everyone wanted to stay at sea for the entire voyage. Why do they get off the boats now? Why not just stay on the boats. If that is what the passengers wanted. The cruise ships would already be doing it. Use your common sense, people

  30. Anonymous says:

    Bring it on the referendum because the port is all about money and greed again.

  31. Anonymous says:

    We need a referendum of this before the contract with Royal Caribbean and Carnival cruise lines is signed. What is government afraid of?

  32. Anonymous says:

    This UNITY government do not give a toss about the environment and protecting the seven mile beach

    • Anonymous says:

      Let’s be fair here. When it comes to the port project it seems all political persuasions are feeding at the trough.

  33. GT Voter says:

    Everyone else can see the disaster which is inevitable by pursuing the cruise dock project at all costs. Mr. Dyer’s view point highlights legitimate concerns yet this government led by Premier Alden McLaughlin, Cabinet Minusters Moses Kirkonnell, Roy McTaggart, Joseph Hew, Tara Rivers and Dwene Seymour are committed to mortgaging the financial and environmental future of Cayman to benefit a few gt duty free retailers.
    They must all be voted out for failing to put this decision to a referendum and ignoring the concerns of the people.

  34. Anon says:

    Royal Caribbean has been known to build docks on several islands. Why not Cayman. Not a penny needs to be spent.

    • Say it like it is says:

      5.08pm were you paid for this comment?, but you are correct in one regard it won’t be a penny.

    • Anonymous says:

      Dear Not-a-penny:
      No humans have ever been foolish enough to contemplate a blue water pier at this depth anchored into questionable cavernous limestone rock, anywhere in the world. The original EIA, in shallower water, advised it would be questionable. Still, it might be possible to build and last a couple years until “the unforeseen collapse event”, but then insurance will skyrocket and we will be left with the hulking wreckage, massive un-financed re-build costs, environmental disaster, and no docking! Similarly, lots of engineering firms will gladly take the contract to build it, but they are not going to warranty performance in Hurricanes, nor our annual Nor’Wester season. Cayman will also be obliged to guarantee depth in the dredged channels, so the continuous upkeep, dredging, and tugging costs will be substantial and recurring. If any liner damages a propulsion pod or bends a prop, it’s a big, and very expensive deal – on our dime. The boat has to be re-routed, temporarily decommissioned, at enormous inconvenience, cancellation costs, and other shipyard expenses. The CIG (who have trouble keeping the parking machines at the airport working) will be responsible for these complicated logistics, and catalog of new risks.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Well said Dominic. This is what this country needs – our young advocates to voice their opinions and standing up to what is wrong. I hope that you can get all our young adults to join you in this.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Weird how our local marine biologist/artist is completely silent on this matter… Oh wait that’s right his work is plastered to the bow of the ships. #sellout

    • Courtney Platt says:

      Actually “Anonymous 4:35”, despite owning a shop on the waterfront, Guy Harvey has publicly stated that he is against the cruise berth facility and has stated several reasons why.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Great points, Sir.

    I would also add that given governments track record on these sorts of projects, the $200-300 million construction costs are likely to be massively underestimated. Realistically this project will end up costing just shy of a billion dollars, and our grand kids grand kids will suffer the consequences of a few greedy merchants/politicans.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Stop the cruise ship pier now!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.