Listen Up! Barkers under threat

| 23/01/2019 | 31 Comments

(CNS Podcast): In this pilot episode of the CNS podcast “Listen Up!”, which will be a frequent but not necessarily regular feature on Cayman News Service, we take a closer look at what’s happening at Barkers Beach. The proposed development in this area has been in the news lately and has caused quite a stir locally. So, “Listen Up!” and enjoy.

Tags: , , ,

Category: development, Land Habitat, Local News, Podcast, Science & Nature

Comments (31)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for doing this CNS. It is greatly appreciated. My only comment would be, if possible, that future episodes have no background music. All other podcasts I’ve heard don’t have constant background music which may be distracting to some.

    Again, I thank you for your efforts.

    1
    1
  2. Anonymous says:

    Cayman on a whole is under threat!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Moral of the story: Legal exchange of property should no longer be upheld or recognized by the law or the courts. What should be upheld are the opinions of the self appointed virtue signaling moral authorities that are climate sensitive and turtle grass conservationists (Usually white Godless liberals from abroad that have destroyed their own countries, hence why they are here), which should determine how Cayman land should be appropriated regardless of any legal contracts rendered, but rather by the virtues they command (the super virtuous people in this audio segment).

    So whether Dart, John Doe or Mr. Cayman bought the property legally through due process, should be disregarded and appropriated according to the doctrine of the enlightened ones (Not you, the purchaser).

    Having said that. I would love Barkers to become a national park. But it’s up to the people who bought the land!! Not you virtue radio signaling do-nothing deadbeats

    15
    20
    • Anonymous says:

      Dart doesn’t actually own the area where Handel is proposing to remove seagrass. That actually belongs to Dart’s neighbour – the Crown, i.e. the people. He has no inherent right to develop his neighbour’s land and he needs to ask for permission. Your trolling is foolish because you don’t understand that the seagrass removal is on public property. Are you under any obligation to allow your neighbour to dig up your property so they can have a beach bar on theirs? No!

      25
      4
    • Anonymous says:

      The Public Marine Park doesn’t belong to Dart or Whittaker – they do not have our consent to foul it up, or create a new self-rewarding traffic corridor through the park at our expense!

      6
      1
    • Captain Kirk says:

      The Devil has an offshore account in Cayman, He dosent have to buy souls, they are free.

  4. Anonymous says:

    for all the objectors….what was there before your house/apartment was developed?….same thing about the shops you go to and restaurants you eat at???
    Do you enjoy rum point and kaibo or do you want all development there levelled and return it to its natural state????
    cayman hypocrisy at its best….

    13
    27
  5. Anonymous says:

    it is privately owned land, zoned for development. end of story.

    14
    22
    • Anonymous says:

      The seagrass removal is actually public land, not private, zoned as a Replenishment Zone (a type of marine park). This should be the ‘end of story’.

      23
      4
      • Anonymous says:

        I see a hater of anything Caymanian thumbs down @8:06 comment.

        3
        10
      • Anonymous says:

        It might be, were there not an established process in place to deal with such applications. A process which to the best of my knowledge has been followed by the concerned parties.

        Ps. If you don’t like or agree with said processes, vote for change.

        6
        1
  6. Anonymous says:

    I wonder what they would say if someone proposed to do a waterfront establishment somewhere in Prospect?

    9
    5
  7. Anonymous says:

    The development is outside of Barkers. Stop with all the caterwauling!

    16
    37
  8. Anonymous says:

    well, I can tell ‘unna’ one ting’ and that is if we don’t get rid of Alden and his cohorts we are not going to have anything left.

    It seems that Alden is just out to destroy everything we have. He will have made his money and he just doesn’t have the sense or interest to care.
    I kick myself every day because I voted for him thinking he was smart and educated.
    Any illiterate in Cayman would have been a better choice then him.

    50
    12
  9. Anonymous says:

    This is spot on.

    23
    11
    • Tell it like it is says:

      Isn’t it really strange and somewhat sinister that the applicant for development of the Cited Barkers location has not been engaged in the discussion or has he, and he refuses out of fear for his Master oops no pun intended, apologies.

      The applicant certainly has the right to speak especially being a born Caymanian who is well known is a naturalist himself as heard from persons who have as the pleasure of visiting his homestead in North Side.

      Now as to the Politicos mentioned in your “Listen up” re either dazzled by the limelight that they are thrown in as part of the CIG canal and really have no intention to utter nary a whisper until big Chief authorizes it. And so the story goes and the beat goes on irrespective of green red or yellow movements. How sad!

      14
      3
  10. Anonymous says:

    Great job CNS!!

    25
    9
  11. Anonymous says:

    Great comment, there needs to be understanding on both sides when looking at this issue. Let’s end up with a great location that the day visitors can enjoy when they’re here and the locals can enjoy when they’re not!

    16
    3
  12. Anonymous says:

    We have a problem in Cayman in that we want our cruise tourists to enjoy their visit whilst not impacting our stay-over tourism. It would seem that development of Barkers as a location would be a sensible idea. The area is already zoned for this use, and long as it is developed sustainably it should be a good thing.

    Of course there are those that would rather no development happened at all, and I understand that. However it is not a realistic proposal, what we should be aiming for is development with minimal impact on the environment.

    I would rather see this area developed and maintained, providing a well-managed area that we can all enjoy.

    The question is how much impact on the environment is too much?

    22
    21
    • Anonymous says:

      This is not the place for your ridiculous balanced arguments. This is the CNS comments section, take that crap elsewhere.

      20
      10
      • Anonymous says:

        I agree, lets sink Barkers, better that it be destroyed than developed!

        6
        7
      • Anonymous says:

        Just because there is a centre doesn’t mean that is the inherently correct position
        Should we discuss the pros and cons of slavery or arson?

        Well you lose your house but look, now you have so much more space for outdoor activities right?

        10
        4

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.

SIGN UP FOR THE CNS NEWS LETTER, SENT EVERY WEEKDAY STRAIGHT TO  YOUR INBOX