Tourism association divided over cruise port

| 11/10/2018 | 76 Comments
Cayman cruise, Cayman News Service

Cayman cruise ship passengers visit George Town

(CNS): The Cayman Islands Tourism Association, which represents businesses dealing with both overnight and cruise tourism, is attempting to stay neutral on the increasingly polarized debate about the government’s plans to develop a berthing facility in George Town Harbour, as its membership is divided over the issue. Following a board meeting earlier this week, CITA released a short statement indicting that it would not take a position because of the diversity of it members. Instead, it will focus on accessing and evaluating “the information available”, so each member can “take an informed position,” according to CITA President Theresa Leacock-Broderick.

CNS contacted the organisation to ask if it had taken a survey of its membership to see where the majority view lies and whether or not CITA backed the referendum. Leacock-Broderick told us that because of the wide representation in the association, it was difficult to make a decision on behalf of all its members.

“With fair and equal recognition of the range of feedback and interests across all our sectors, the board understands that it cannot find nor take one singular stance on either side of this matter that truly represents a collective position of the association’s members,” she told CNS, as she re-emphasised the board’s position of neutrality and the goal to instead help the members get access to information “rather than think that we can make a decision for our members”.

CITA released a follow-up statement today, which noted that back in 2015 CITA said that any proposal to develop cruise berthing facilities in the Cayman Islands would be informed by the results of the environmental impact assessment and outlined business case.

However, the re-design appears to have further complicated issues for the association, which covers a very broad cross-section of Cayman’s tourism industry. It includes some business that could gain from the project, while dive and watersports operators, especially in George Town Harbour, could see their businesses closed down.

“There has been considerable revision to the 2015 proposal that is the basis for the procurement process,” Leacock-Broderick said. “As we understand from the statements made by the deputy premier, the EIA and OBC will be updated specific to the successful bid proposal for consideration by Cabinet before any contract is executed. We expect that if this government is to remain consistent with their stated commitment to transparency, the updated documents will be shared with the public.”

However, according to comments made by officials at the public meeting in George Town, which was hosted by the tourism ministry, the updated EIA will be conducted by whoever ends up securing the contract for the project, so there is no indication that it will ever be made public before work begins.

In addition, it is not clear how the OBC will be updated to reflect the potential loss of business, the impact on other attractions and infrastructure or how the tourism sector will manage through the construction period, which is expected to last more than two years.

Leacock-Broderick said CITA was hoping that ultimately the views of the stakeholders would be taken into consideration before Cabinet makes a final decision. “Meanwhile, we are garnering questions to pose to government for answers which may assist members in their process of reaching an informed personal and business position,” she added.

It is not clear from her comments in today’s release whether or not the association backs the people-initiated referendum, which would provide the opportunity for its members who are registered voters to have their say.

The public is invited to another George Town meeting on the issue Thursday evening, hosted by MLA Kenneth Bryan (GTC) at the George Town Town Hall, starting at 7:30pm, where the referendum petition will be available for people to sign.

Anyone wanting to sign the petition can now call 327-5411 to arrange for the petition to come to you.

Tags: , , , ,

Category: Business, Tourism

Comments (76)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sunrise says:

    Is it a case of the cruise lines wanting a number one attraction or Cayman having to comply with the cruise lines as they will not come here because of a cruise ship berthing? I think that it is the other way around!! The cruise lines are wanting to get Cayman committed and to screw us Royally, by dictating to us and setting the rules and regulations so they can benefit from it!!!! Come on Cayman, think outside the box!!!

  2. Ron Ebanks says:

    I believe that with this cruise ship pier issue , that this gives every Citizens of the Cayman Islands good reasons to call out all politicians who are connected to the pier project , and put them politicians in place and to be fearful of you the people . Instead of having it the other way around .

  3. Anonymous says:

    So we have a proposed pier with pilings that allow the free flow of water under. Great. Had one of hose about 30 years ago but when it started to fail the only solution was to concrete under it. Anyone else remember when you could drive a small skiff under the piling of he current dock that is now a solid block???

    5
    1
  4. Anonymous says:

    BUILD-THE-DOCK

    2
    21
    • Ron Ebanks says:

      Anonymous 6 : 07 pm , can you please give us all some educated reasons why we need a cruise ship pier ? Instead of just saying “build the dock” . That is very stupid to say , especially when you put it in upper cast . Think really hard before you touch that key pad , if can .

  5. Anonymous says:

    The misinformation, secrecy, and non-compliance expressed via this cruise/port conception is just one of many outward expressions of successive authoritarian regimes that have been allowed to run amok with our finances and trust – entering binding autonomous back room deals, failing to meet objectives /loosing or gifting territorial assets, paying hush money, taking bribes and/or procuring personal in-kind soft dollar benefits while refusing to enact any form of personal conflict disclosure or submit to personal financial declarations. The pattern ranges from complete ineptitude to intolerable corruption, and the FCO need to arrest the situation since our MLAs and electorate fail to do it themselves. Remaining silent is a vote for continuance of theft and waste on a grand scale, to the impairment of social welfare, territorial autonomy, UK security, and good governance. If this LA continues to defer enactment of the Standards in Public Life Law (2014), then the UK FCO should be prepared to take some radical steps. There is so much more than the Port at stake.

    29
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      No one is more blind than he who will not see.

      How can you say the project is secretive when everyone, including Can Not See (CNS) has the documentation and information that has been done over the past several years. See https://cnslibrary.com/grand-cayman-cruise-dock-facility/

      The Compass also has a page with documents and reports and their reporting on the cruise port.

      What is the secrecy. O yes. Perhaps it’s the names of the bidders that the civil service say they can’t provide to the public as yet. And why can’t they? It’s because the procurement law says they cannot do so. When the process is done then all will be known. This is what happened with the landfill project. When the process was done the names were advised to the public. The same will happen here.

      So tell me. Where is the secrecy when we all have the documents available. Statements have been made as the thing has progressed. Where is the corruption when all rules and laws are being followed. Boggles the mind at the irrationality of it all. The only reason anyone is aware of the intricacies of the project is because government has been transparent.

      Disagree about the need for a cruise port. But don’t start accusing the same people who helped fix the country’s economy and finances of corruption etc when all information is provided.

      16
      29
      • Jotnar says:

        Secretive? Lets see.

        What about public declaration of the economic interests that government members have – or do not have – in the project or in entities that will benefit from the project. Do not recall any of that other than Moses saying he personally and directly does not own property or interests in George Town (completely silent on indirect interests through thrusts or corporate structures, quite apart from the direct interests of his family members) . But he is at least one step further than those with obvious commercial interests in the project, quite apart from being lobbyists for certain bidders.

        Then lets move onto how its all going ton be paid for – completely opaque. Its all “CIG wont pay for it and in 25 years Cayman will own it” – but no discussion on how much other government revenue w e will surrender in the meantime in lost head tax and cruise ship fees for those 25 years, all of which drop off government revenue.

        Then there is the EIA – has to be revised but will be done by the selected bidder once selected. Yep, that sounds transparent.

        Then we get down onto the “transparent” but blatantly misleading. That time in town and expenditure per head will double to 8 hrs – then when confronted with facts a row back to its going to go from 4 hrs to MAYBE 5 – 5 being the max in any port in the Caribbean, irrespective of tendering versus piers. That expenditure per passenger will double to $230 from $115 (despite there only being an extra hour) because of all the additional tours they will take, when

        a) an extra hour doesn’t mean an extra tour
        b) the same survey they rely on for passenger spend says that the majority of the spend is on watches and jewelry not tours – an extra hour in port going to mean you get the Rolex instead of the TAG I guess.
        c) that 300 (where did those figures come from – no one knows) taxi drivers are critically dependent on that revenue, when the same passenger survey shows that under $4 of the $115 per passenger spend goes to taxi drivers?

        Can go on, but you get the point. There is a difference in having an honest dialogue with the electorate and saying the documents are there to be examined in a CNS or Compass library. Selectively quoting from the material to the public – apart from the stats that just seem to be plain invented or simply ignored -is not the same as having an honest and frank discussion about pros and cons. When you have the government grinding on and on about the pros and nary a word about the cons or the checks and balances being respected, you start to think that – hey – maybe for whatever reason the government wants this irrespective of whether it makes sense. If I saw an honest admission from CIG representativs that there were downsides here I would be more likely to believe them. As it is, I cant help but feel that for whatever reason they have lost their way. The party that was so vehemently opposed to Mckeeva building the dock with Chinese money because of fears of corruption and self interest seems to have morphed into a party that wants the dock built without any discussion. How can you say with a straight face that “the same people who helped fix the country’s economy and finances of corruption” are being unfairly criticized when they manifest all the same symptoms of exactly the same disease. Transparency my arse. Blatant spin to support a pre agreed objective (for reasons best known to those in power).

        15
        2
      • Anonymous says:

        1:29. Finally some intelligence.

        Build the piers our children will thank us. The same way we are thanking those that built the dock we have now.

        2
        21
      • Anonymous says:

        Old outdated plans are available. Yes. But current far more damaging iterations are hidden but yet being thrown out to tender. And the environmental impact studies are for the old plans, not the new. This is all a game of shifting goalposts and I think the premier and government should be faced with a class action suit from the people they represent to fully disclose all aspects of the plans, even if the actual bidding process remains opaque. What they are selling and what they say they are selling are two very different things and when the curtain is lifted from the veil of hiding it for the sake of protecting the bidding process, everyone will be shocked. Impeach our current leaders for failing to lead honestly and with the true future of the country in mind.

        12
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Where is the EIA for THIS version? Oh yeah…doesn’t exist.

        13
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Four years ago, the Standards in Public Life Law (2014) which was ordered as part of the Constitution Order (2009), was finally gazetted, but never enacted by the PPM or their Unity Cabinet. The Commission established for the express purpose of reviewing and monitoring their yet-to-be-made conflict and personal interest disclosures, has had nothing to do since 2010, and already sports six (6) former officials, who presumably had nothing to do but attend equally unproductive foreign conferences on my dime. Tell me again how this regime is in compliance…

        13
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Well then it seems the Procurement Law needs to be changed! Major capital projects interest all residents of Cayman, Caymanians most of all, and we should be signing off on who we get into bed with. The 150-200-300M-who-knows port should not be handled the same way as $50,000 worth of computers. All information has not been provided; all information allowed by the Procurement Law has been provided, and if you think for a second the government didn’t realise ‘oh hey we can hide everything in the procurement process and say we’re following the law’, you’re beyond naive.

        10
        1
      • Ron Ebanks says:

        @ Anonymous 1 :29 pm , I have to agree with you , when you say , no one is more blind than he who will not see .
        I think that everyone else do see what the government is trying to do with the people and the Islands and the environment .

        But how can you say that the Government is being honest and transparent about the pier project . Do you believe that the little bit of information that has been published , is all the information on the pier project. That is all that the Government wants you to see , if they showed everything , it would kill them and the project .

        When you say the same people who helped fix the economy and finances of corruption , when has the corruption ever been so high in the Islands history ? You sound like some politicians I know that is trying to fix their broken record .

      • Anonymous says:

        If there is only one non-tenderable 6000 passenger capacity boat plying our waters for only a few months out of the year, for the foreseeable future, how does ignoring that single vessel spell the end of cruise tourism and become the deathnail of Caymanian jobs? Ask yourself if that is an honest portrayal of the cruise landscape – all public companies with public filings, order books, and analyst coverage?

        9
        2
    • Anonymous says:

      For all we know, that’s what the interim governor will be coming to do. They certainly seem to be taking their time choosing one.

  6. Ron Ebanks says:

    What I am seeing about this whole petition for the referendum and the pier debacle . Is that everyone of the registered voters are scared to death to sign their name to anything , so how are the petition going to get the signatures that are required ? If you Caymanians don’t grow a pair of balls . REMEMBER that this issue of the pier is yours and your great grandchildren futher and the Islands future too . Grow a pair of balls and sign that petition for the referendum .

    36
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks Ron.

      Did anyone ever really think about the cruise passenger and what they actually want to see when they come to an island? As a “cruiser”, I would certainly prefer to exit the ship in Spotts or another location — not near my ship! 90% of the countries and islands I have visited the piers were located in warehouse or remote districts. The tour really began once we got beyond those gates to see the true beauty of the countries.

      Having the piers in Spotts or…would give cruisers the opportunity to see the island, it’s beauty, its heritage and its people. They would have a better chance of interacting with locals who weren’t only salespeople and definitely have a better chance of purchasing food and products available in these beautiful islands.

      I don’t know how many cruisers currently even see the LA Building, Courts office, etc., or interact with locals beyond the tour drivers, as if you have a tour booked, it’s usually down West Bay Road to a beach or a one off attraction in one of the Eastern districts, then back to town, with an hour before you have to board.

      One could actually make Hog Sty Bay an actual attraction with early morning snorkeling and diving, with the beach for sunbathers as well. Then when the cruise visitor is well tired and hungry from those excursions they would then visit the restaurants and eventually shop before having to catch the bus back to board the ship. This would also allow for longer and more excursions to the Eastern districts.

      When you are already downtown, there is nothing that stops them from taking a few photos from the ship balcony and never leaving the ship…as we already know about 50 to 60% only ever come to shore.

      Just my 2 cents…

      14
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        I’d say that’s a whole dollar of common sense.

        9
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Interesting… As a cruiser, you are likely to be in a minority. I’m sure most of your companions would rather not be dropped off in the middle of nowhere and then have to bus/taxi to where all the shopping/sights are…

        Plus if you want to see the LA Building, Courts office, etc, then wouldn’t you rather be dropped off where you can walk to them…?

        And please don’t state misleading facts, the true number of people that come ashore (supported by cruise ship surveys) is 90%

        https://www.f-cca.com/downloads/2012-Cruise-Analysis-vol-1.pdf

        https://www.f-cca.com/downloads/2015-cruise-analysis-volume-1.pdf

        1
        6
        • Anonymous says:

          When the liners are offering incentives like “free week-long cruises”, or “as low as $200” for a week, maybe these boats aren’t consistently leaving the home port fully loaded at capacity…so 90% of whoever showed up, not 90% of vessel capacity – the maximum theoretical this gov’t uses to skew all of their inflated tourism stats.

        • Anonymous says:

          Downtown is the middle of nowhere.

      • Anonymous says:

        2:24. Actually thats 1 cent. Rubbish!!

        1
        3
      • Anonymous says:

        With that success, build another 3 ports. I cant believe there is so much much ado about nothing about these docks. Why so much complaining. Cayman is blessed with good weather and cursed with ignorant people.

        1
        11
      • Anonymous says:

        Having the piers at Spotts would mean 20,000 cruisers will crawl in small buses in a 10 mile traffic jam at rush hour. The journey to GT and beyond would take an hour at least…spending time gone.
        This would also add to the already bumper to bumper traffic as parents try to get to work and kids to school.

        4
        2
  7. Anonymous says:

    “However, according to comments made by officials at the public meeting in George Town, which was hosted by the tourism ministry, the updated EIA will be conducted by whoever ends up securing the contract for the project, so there is no indication that it will ever be made public before work begins.”

    This should horrify all because “Whoever pays the piper calls the tune”.

    35
    5
  8. Anonymous says:

    As I recall from years ago in the tourism industry most of us where not in favor of the cruise ship industry, because we all knew that the cruise ship passengers did not spend any monies when they are here visiting and the message was that they would bring in over night visitors which was never true.
    It was at that time that the count of arrivals also included the Caymanians and residents returning home from vacation. So Go Figure

    26
    5
  9. Anonymous says:

    I cannot believe that the CITA would not even back a Peoples Referendum. What a poor example of being true Caymanian leaders. Spineless to say the least.

    50
    14
  10. Anonymous says:

    “With fair and equal recognition of the range of feedback and interests across all our sectors, the board understands that it cannot find nor take one singular stance on either side of this matter that truly represents a collective position of the association’s members,” she told CNS, as she re-emphasised the board’s position of neutrality and the goal to instead help the members get access to information “rather than think that we can make a decision for our members”.

    BULLOCKS!! This dock is being proposed for exclusively TOURISM purposes. The Cayman Islands TOURISM Association cannot be neutral or silent on this proposal. CITA must have an opinion on this.

    Mrs. Theresa, if you or the other Board Members dont want to lead, then get out of the way. It is your duty to canvas your membership on this proposal, listen to what they have to say, summarise the responses and publish the results to your membership. Simple.

    You also need to research information on both sides of this issue and provide to the membership, or encourage your membership to do so on their own, and then let the Board (as reps of CITA Members) know how they feel for forward transmission onto Govt.

    You are taking your role too lightly with this neutral stance.

    37
    7
    • Anonymous says:

      CITA – the cruise lines talk about patrnership…

      Did they consult us before they took the decision to go for megsships which is clearly to make themselves even more hugely profitable?

      Should The people now authorize spending hundreds of millions to destroy a large amount of snorkeling coral reef and risk unknown threats to Seven Mile Beach?

      Cruise ship passenger numbers have already increased exponentially over the years and the land and sea tour operators make a pitiful amount, just enough to buy a new bus or boat when the bottom drops out of the one they are now running into the ground…. do we Think the cruise industry owners and executives got this wealthy by being stupid?

      The cruise lines are packaging and marketing these ships to a mass market with very little disposable income; do we want this sector to be an even bigger part of our tourism product?

      The very old Beach Club and Royal Palms properties catered to large numbers of cruise shippers, but they have been and are being redeveloped to luxury product, so where are these ever increasing numbers of cruise shippers gonna go? How many more can we put on top of the Sand Bar?

      29
      • Look Ya says:

        They will ALL be shuttled to Dart owned properties. Open unna eyes pls. Why unna tink he nah saying nuttin about all a dis! And all da little tour operators that need and want this will be left out in da sound wid gmo mosquitos biting dem.

        CITA nah goin say anyting cause de back up against da wall. Wonder wha de goin say when their small business membership don’t get a piece of the pie.

        De BIG business man dem need the numbers cause we is a service economy and dis is one way to bring em in.

        Lawd, what a ting.

        12
        3
      • Anonymous says:

        Plunder & Pillage

  11. Anonymous says:

    7:50 pm, are you part of the Premier’s family?

    7
    4
  12. GT Voter says:

    CITA’s letter is an indictment on the project, Minister of Tourism and the entire process which is proof it is a big mistake to proceed due to so many questions remaining unanswered by the government.

    20
    5
  13. Anonymous says:

    Top reasons 5 NOT TO BUILD THE DOC:
    ================================

    #1) Monopoly Tender Cash Protection

    #2) Eco Radicalism and Climate Change Deniers doomsday hysterics. (Climate change deniers as in people who DENY that the climate can change on it’s own as its done for the last 4 billion years.). The notion that this dock will somehow destroy Cayman reefs to such a degree that we should halt any and all development, is just plain radicalism.

    #3) If I don’t get any, they can’t get any mentality. These selfish envious people that just can’t stand seeing someone else either succeeding or making money without them making any. These are the same people who will oppose roads, oppose trenching of canals that would significantly increase property value. They do so for total nonsensical reasons other than: Making sure no one else can get canals and waterfront property and benefit in any respect.

    4#) People who don’t understand how economics work and why economical growth is important *to everyone*. You hear these people like former MLA’s calling the radio with the most asinine analogies such as the doc is driven by people wanting to get rich, and will end up fat and unhealthy, living in a concrete jungle.

    I ask those people, WHERE DOES THE MONEY FOR YOUR PAYCHECK COME FROM? And then ask yourself, where does THAT money come from? Eventually for those with any common sense left, will come to realize that it comes from TRADE (The Exchange of Value). *NOT* some giant bowl of money somewhere that greedy people and filling their pockets with fists full of money, leaving none for everyone else. Believe it or not, there are members of the LA, that doesn’t understand this basic concept. (We won’t name names, but those are usually the ones pushing for universal healthcare)

    #5) The people who could not care less, whether your children can find work and world class education in Cayman without going overseas. Their lives are fine, so screw you and your children and their opportunities. So they oppose ANY development.

    13
    38
    • Anonymous says:

      Yah okay… Lets just turn Cayman into a ghetto concrete jungle with depleted natural resources like the rest of the Caribbean.

      40
      8
      • Anonymous says:

        We have been developing since the 70’s. Where the “concrete jungle”? Or do you consider your house and supermarkets part of the concrete jungle?

        9
        27
        • Anonymous says:

          The recently announced GT revitalisation has already been stated to involve removing trees. I could not believe that when I read it. THAT’S the first step to beautifying GT for tourists, removing the greenery and shade so it doesn’t get in the way of more concrete?! Look around you!!! Nothing but concrete painted different colours. We adopted Florida building codes and now look like Florida. Just, you know, without all the good parts.

          32
          5
          • Anonymous says:

            the people who are wanting this destruction must have concrete brains ..….don’t expect anything better from them,. Do they really think that tourists are going to want to come to Cayman to see concrete jungle? the days of coming to buy jewellery and freeport items are long gone.out of vouge!

            11
            3
        • Anonymous says:

          Ummmm, Yes.

      • Anonymous says:

        Clearly you fall under #4

    • Anonymous says:

      1) The tender company does not have a monopoly. Anyone wants to bid for part of the contracts can do so.
      2) Since no one has ever claimed that “this dock will somehow destroy Cayman reefs to such a degree that we should halt any and all development” this is a false argument.
      3) Nonsense
      4) Economics: if the total dock costs more than the financial benefit, economics says don’t build the dock.
      5) Now the dock is going to ensure world class education? That’s some dock.

      12
      2
    • Anonymous says:

      The LSD is strong in this one.

  14. Anonymous says:

    If the cruise dock project doesn’t make sense and have support of CITA due to a lack of transparency that should serve notice to all outside of the tourism industry. How can anyone support the government and project without all the facts and key information? The risk is too high and CITA recognize these concerns.

    27
    4
  15. Anonymous says:

    Anyone on work permit who does not support the dock should have to leave. This is serious and we must get tough on all these trouble makers.

    5
    44
    • Anonymous says:

      @6:34 wow you are worse than scum to force others to support anything through fear of denial of service. You are a good example of what is wrong with Cayman.

      35
      5
      • Anonymous says:

        Well if you want to come here you are going to have to live by our ways and our elected leaders plans for our country. So if that makes me scum well so be it. Why don’t you just catch one of the flights leaving this afternoon.

        4
        13
      • Anonymous says:

        I would not assume 6:34 is a Caymanian. Maybe yes or maybe no. Might just be a trouble maker but who knows where from or why?

        9
        1
    • Anonymous says:

      I support the building of the dock, but I don’t support your suggestion on muting anyone that is opposed.

      13
      2
    • Anonymous says:

      Good thing a lot of expats are getting status these days, seems like some of you need someone on Caymans side to cancel your vote out. Shameful that you don’t care about your countries natural beauty.

      20
    • Anonymous says:

      Can we please have the troll button back. You’re stating nonsense! Residents have a right to state their option or have you forgotten the basis tenants of freedom of speech smh.

      13
      2
  16. Ron Ebanks says:

    Anonymous 7 :09 pm .They are intimidated by Moses , and scared of loosing their jobs . I don’t know why CITA couldn’t have taken survey of all members to get an idea of how the members feel about the pier project .

    18
    3
  17. Anonymous says:

    Doesn’t it get tiring posting the same comment day after day and still not being correct

    Don’t worry, the referendum has almost been triggered, only a couple more weeks of your garbage on articles like this

    9
    7
  18. Ron Ebanks says:

    The pier attempt sound like it’s put on hold with the expectations of bringing it back through the back door . But the fishy
    stinky new approach sounds worse than the last try .

    The updated EIA will be conducted by whoever ends up securing the contract , but NO indication that the EIA “will ever” be made public before work begins . Those words came from Mr. Kirkconnell public meeting/article . So I have to assume that there would be more that wouldn’t be made public before work begins . Right back to square one , hiding and pushing through .

    I think that if there’s anything about the project that should be made public before work begins , is the EIA.
    SLIPPERY and SLIMY .

    22
    6
  19. Anonymous says:

    I hope you live close to sea level.

    2
    5
  20. Anonymous says:

    Well Honorable Premier pull all the government grants to any department who will not support our dock. Lets get CHEC and Decco going!

    5
    60
  21. Anonymous says:

    Go ahead and build the dock and after it is built everyone will say “what a lovely dock we Have” and we needed it. Cayman needs to stay ahead times not behind times likes we been doing, the dock should been built 20 years ago and the Airport 10 years ago.

    16
    57
    • Anonymous says:

      If the dock had been built 20 years ago what would the difference be right now? Record high level of cruise tourists?

      4
      1
  22. Anonymous says:

    I have never been a fan of CITA. Their neutrality speaks to a massive silo effect that is plaguing Cayman. Additionally, it also speaks volumes on the hush and quiet mentality for which Cayman is famous. This is an issue that should be loud and clear. It is anything but. I fear for the future of the Cayman Islands.

    41
    4
  23. Anonymous says:

    BOOM what bitch lick to Moses K!

    24
    9
  24. Anonymous says:

    This should send a clear message from CITA to Alden, Moses and the Unity government. The people do not trust them. Do not believe them and this project does not have the support of majority. CITA is making a bold statement and the ministry of tourism should be embarrassed.

    39
    12
    • Anonymous says:

      How? CITA is remaining neutral. It’s like they are ignoring the giant elephant in the room. Preposterous.

  25. Anonymous says:

    CITA=Spineless waste of space.

    26
    14
  26. Anonymous says:

    There isn’t even a consensus within the Tourism industry but we are supposed to just rush into this head on

    Time for the CIG to pump the brakes

    Sign the petition for a referendum
    Get the facts
    Make sure your voice is heard

    59
    11
    • Anonymous says:

      anon 700 I might agree that we should have had a referendum but if you are struggling to get the votes for the petition then how are you going to get twice that much for the referendum?

      3
      8
      • Anonymous says:

        I think for a lot of people signing the petition the outcome of the referendum is irrelevant. They may even be leaning dockward. But they are hoping that it will force enough (all) information out that an informed decision can be publicly made. So they can be comfortable/confident in their support of the dock.

You can comment anonymously. Please read the CNS Comment Policy at the top of this page.

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

Cayman News Service