The port: sifting through the political weeds

| 09/10/2019 | 43 Comments

101 writes: With only ten weeks before Cayman’s historic referendum vote on the proposed cruise berthing facility, there is little balance in the information available to the general public. The government has been inept at informing the people (part of the reason for the referendum’s success), and even with the date set for the vote on December 19th, CIG and its advisors remains lethargic at best and incompetent at worse in responding in a timely manner with any information for voters on why they still think this infrastructure enhancement is a good idea.

The result is a ‘debate’ which is 99% dominated by the opponents and with far too much politics in its content. A vote in this context risks meaning that our historic democratic moment is reduced to being too similar to our general elections, where politicians drum up populist/emotive sentiments among voters, who then vote with very few facts in mind. That result would be great for whichever side ‘wins’ but it would be a waste of the country’s first people’s referendum on such an important issue. 

As a guide through the weeds of populist statements, dogma and ‘politricks’ on both side, these are some of the key arguments for and against the port:

Arguments against the Port:

1. It causes significant damage to our natural environment. This includes the destruction of several established dive sites which our tourism industry depends on. Our environment is our most important asset and we must do whatever we need to do to protect it.

2. Cayman does not need cruise berthing piers to sustain or grow our cruise tourism industry because we continue to see a growth in cruise tourist visitors without such piers. Statistics from the government’s own official sources shows a growth in tourism over the past year.

3. The country cannot afford the financial costs of the port project. The costs borne by the government involves public money so it is a cost and tax on the people. The government has incorrectly stated that the project will impose no costs on the people.

4. The cruise tourism sector does not provide a material benefit to the Cayman Islands economy due to relatively low spend per person compared to a much higher economic benefit from air arrival tourists. We are already doing very well with our financial services industry and our air arrivals tourism sector continues to do extremely well. Therefore, the financial and environmental costs outweigh the economic benefits.

5. Neither the George Town area nor the various tourism attractions, such as Stingray City, can handle the capacity challenges created by the increase in cruise tourists arriving on island. 

Arguments for the Port:

1. The original plans have changed and the dredging initially planned has been reduced by more than 30%. Despite a statement from the CCMI, the developers will use an innovative scientific approach to ensure that the coral relocation has a very high chance of success. The developers and the government will strike an appropriate balance to ensure the construction of the port is environmentally sustainable.

2. Cruise tourism peak time is in the summer months. Several of the larger ships do not currently stop in Cayman during the summer months because of the lack of a berthing facility. The Cayman Islands would benefit from a growth in cruise tourism if those ships add Cayman to their itinerary during those months as well as at other times in the year. A percentage of cruise visitors return to Cayman as air arrival tourists, so the two tourism sectors are complementary.

3. The port deal will involve funds coming from the public purse to support the project in the form of a per person head tax of just over $2. But given the net increase in cruise tourists, the overall revenues to the government will increase, even though the tax per head will be deducted from each person. Therefore, the net impact is projected to be no costs to the government because it will obtain more additional revenues from the extra passengers than it will pay in the per head tax. In addition, it is not unusual for a country to pay for its infrastructure needs from public funds. That’s still one of the primary methods of infrastructure financing.

4. The Cayman Islands has only two primary economic sectors: tourism and financial services. Financial services remains under constant global threat and tourism needs to be both grown as well as become more diversified. Seeking to grow cruise tourism and further diversify our tourism industry as a whole will mean a positive benefit to the country in the form of additional jobs and opportunities.

5. The increase in arrivals will be spread throughout several months and the new terminal will allow for improved management of tourist traffic. Therefore, the increased numbers in arrivals will be manageable.


These arguments for and against the port can be supported by both sides with additional information. The challenge with voters gaining a more accurate understanding of the arguments is that both sides are resorting to tactics similar to a general election campaign instead of using facts for us to properly consider the pros/cons of the proposed port.

This referendum should not be hijacked by incumbents or political hopefuls who are very squarely focused on the 2021 General Elections. For the government, winning means showing they can secure support for a project of national interest and campaigning on their success next year.

For the incumbent and potential politicians driving the opposition against the port, winning means demonstrating that the people, by voting against a major project proposed by the government, are in effect voting against the government. This success, fought on the backs of ordinary folks, will also be used to further the political campaign strategy of these opposing politicians.

Either way, this is more of a political game than a public interest debate for these stakeholders. For the people, however, the port is a serious matter. There are valid arguments on both sides, but we all need to navigate the twisting of the truth and see through the political motivations to find our answers.

Good luck, whichever way you vote, on December 19th.

Share your vote!

How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , ,

Category: development, Local News, Viewpoint

Comments (43)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Alden is asking the wrong question. Since the petitioners wanted Government to stop any further progress on the CBF then this should be the question ” Do you agree that Government should stop all work on the CBF in accordance with the CPR petitioners wishes.” ( Or something similar.) If you support stopping the project then you vote yes; if you are against stopping it then you vote no. No need then to say that a no show is actually a yes vote. BTW I hope all MLAs will vote against that clause being put in the referendum law.( Section 4.4?)

    • Anonymous says:

      CRP petitioners wish that you get to vote. Yes or No. I am not sure why it is so difficult to understand.

  2. Anonymous says:

    If you think this is getting political just wait a few weeks as the campaigns ramp up. This is basically a primer for 2021. We will see who is running where

  3. Anonymous says:

    Make the vote a democratic one. It should be based on the numbers that get out to vote. NOT based on the number of voters in the population.
    Alden is so smugly sure that he will prevail. And if it stands the way it is, he will.

    • Campaigners = Complainers says:

      So just throw out the Constitution and its rules on referendums because it doesn’t seem fair to you in this case??? Keep on complaining, it’s entertaining.

      • JTB says:

        In pretty much every democracy in the world, if you don’t vote, you don’t count. I can’t think of anywhere other than Cayman that counts abstentions as votes for the Government. Saying it’s the rules doesn’t make it right or fair.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Re the referendum for a new port:

    In an honest and open referendum for all voters, the government needs to:

    1. Choose a date that includes the entire electorate, ie after 1st January 2020

    2. Choose a neutral question. This one assumes the port is going ahead – until the electorate votes, it is not.

    3. Each MLA declare his or her personal and/or business interests in the building of a new port.

    • Anonymous says:

      Date is subjective and each side will have a different view. CPR had a year worth of campaigning people to register to vote and sign the petition The 99.9% of the rest of the voters should not have to wait for people that couldn’t think it was important enough until the last second.

      How more neutral of a question can you pick than one that asks if the project should happen with a yes and no answer as the only possibilities?

      Each MLA has to declare their business interests already, this isn’t new information.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Welcome back 101. Finally a reasonable article on this topic. Would like to hear from you on the dump situation now! Things are waay overdue there..

  6. Anonymous says:

    I am very much a PPM supporter. Mainly so because the only other option would be the UDP or whatever it is now called. And I pray that I never get that senile.

    But I will definitely be voting against the port development as presently planned. It can not be denied that improvements are necessary to the existing facility. But this horrific monstrosity that is bring proposed is totally unnecessary and destructive.

    They pay lip service to the rejuvenation of George Town yet in the same breath want to pour more paper bag cruise tourists in it. How can that be? All for political expediency. Firstly to fill the coffers of the big downtown merchant and to pacify a handful of West Bay skiff owners who believe they are getting a deal in taking a few trips to an already overburdened Stingray City.

    It is time to put a halt to this concept if more is better. It is not! Quality tourism is better and you don’t get quality in the masses.

    So those are some of the reasons I will vote NO in the referendum. And I am not put off by the date selected. And despite my own personal support of Alden Mclaughlin I am fervently praying for that miracle he claims we will need.

    • Anonymous says:

      Wholeheartedly agree. The words ‘against the port as presently planned’ are well said. The government could so easily upgrade the port, cargo and cruise, remain a tender port and continue to host 2,000,000 passengers a year for a fraction of the cost and without selling out to the cruise companies. No environmental destruction and no loss of income to Cayman – a win win for all.

  7. Anonymous says:

    If the number of tourists coming increases, the government has a net gain rather than loss as implied by CPR.

    Higher spending tourists that are cruising the mega ships that cannot currently come without docks mean greater opportunity to create new, more luxury tours and experiences. These will benefit stayover and cruise guests.

    Many businesses are only able to survive and be an offering to stayover guests because of the economies of scale brought by the volume from cruise guests. Same goes for benefits for locals.

    In short, everything is connected. Without cruise, stay over suffers too. We don’t need to be over exclusive or we will end up like some islands where only the uber rich can experience it.

    • Anonymous says:

      1) We can’t handle and don’t want more cruise tourists.

      2) There is one mega ship in the region. It only has so many suites and the rest of the rooms are all for budget travellers. We are talking about a small handful of people who have enough money to go anywhere in the world, but choose to spend the same money to get on a cruise ship. The market is not going to be revitalised by this. All the ships that already come here have suites too, which means we already have wealthy cruisers. We are not going to be suddenly selling 5 watches to one family, as I saw happen once, anymore. Never going to happen. As for a tour company being able to buy an extra bus or whatever, the environmental damage is not worth it to grease the palms of local businesses that already have guaranteed customers. We already know that the ships will never stop coming – we’ve been told so. What is the argument for hurting all 66,000 of us plus our stay-over visitors, so a few hundred/couple thousand (how many is it? Government can’t say) with cruise-dependent jobs or lives can make a bit more money? It’s the most expensive vote-buying scheme I’ve ever seen.

      3) Fine, let’s wait until they’re having to close up shop, then we build the piers. That would be evidence that we need to do this. Right now there’s very little. The government has an ad running on YouTube with a Caymanian woman talking about how the piers would allow her to expand her business. Note she isn’t saying she’ll have to close without it; just that she wants more money. This whole thing is about greed.

      4) Yes, everything is connected. We already know that stay-over tourists who are far more valuable individually avoid GT and even if they’re staying at a nice hotel, somehow they still end up inconvenienced by cruise tourists. It is a classic juxtaposition of quality and quantity. 400,000 stay-overs who spend thousands each and aren’t hard on our environment and resources versus 1.5-2.5 million cruisers who spend almost nothing, clog up town, and damage the environment. They buy a bottle of water and a tour company gets $15 for taking them to see Hell. A stay-over tourist has spent more than a cruise tourist by the time their (Caymanian) cab driver has dropped them at their hotel. Quality over quantity. Do consider in your calculations all the things stay-over tourists support the availability of too. We wouldn’t have all of our restaurants, cheap rental cars, or nice hotels to hold events, without them.

      • Anonymous says:

        You say we don’t need more your tourists, I bet if lawyers and accountants want more business to line their pockets you don’t mind. But if your operators, taxi drivers and others want to improve their livelihoods we should ignore that? You people think that it’s only 50 persons making a living from cruise sector. It’s a lot more of that and we need to focus on our part of the country economy. All you professionals sitting in your living room saying we don’t want any harm at all to environment can say that easily because you’re already rich. This is why so many of us remain in poverty. Our needs don’t matter to anyone. My 12 or 1,300 a month from cruise is NO less important than your millions each year! I’m so tired of the one side approach knocking Cruise like we are not real people working to make a living.

        • Anonymous says:

          You know what, I am a lawyer and I make less than a successful taxi. And that’s WITHOUT piers to make them even richer with more bodies to carry. This island is about more than your multiplication tables (X passengers at Y rate equals Z dollars to spend in Miami). Sorry, you don’t get to destroy the environment for your pieces of silver.

          • Anonymous says:

            A lawyer that earns less than a successful taxi driver? Come on, you think we fool fool or wa?

        • Chris Johnson says:

          Please do not knock all the lawyers and accountants. Remember many actually work in the tourist industry. Many have been here years, are fully conversant with the islands problems and do their best to assist in resolving them. They are no different from your dentist, doctor or psychiatrist.

          They are acutely aware of the contribution of the tourist industry and obviously concerned about the future of the local financial industry which could well contract in future years.

          The CI Government is also aware of this and hence wishes to increase tourism whether it be cruise ships or the preferred long term stay overs. They must also realize that the twin pillars of the economy needs to be restructured to include the medical industry where Cayman has taken a lead in the Caribbean. It may not remain the leader for long as the Turks and Caicos islands have been monitoring Cayman’s success in this area. No doubt others will follow.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Come on 101 you know it’s always about the politricks!

  9. Anonymous says:

    “The Cayman Islands has only two primary economic sectors: tourism and financial services.” says the featured above comoment.

    People, can you at least read? When do you stop talking and spreading nonsense? Why can’t you open your mouth or click on keyboard ONLY when you DO KNOW that what you say is an indisputable fact? Or you don’t understand what 3% means? Or you don’t understand that $1 investment in tourism brings back $2, but investment in financial service brings $18? Can’t do simple math? 18>3?

    Core total government revenue as of March 31, 2019

    2% Sale of goods and services
    2% Investment and other operating revenue
    2% Other levies on int’l trade and transactions
    3% Tourst accommodation charges
    4% Levies on property
    6% Work Permit fees
    10% Other domestic levies on goods and services
    13% Partnership fees
    14% Import Duties
    21% Bank and Trust, Mutual Fund and securities investment business licenses
    23% Other Company fees

    “The financial services industry is the PRIMARY driver of our economy. It is a primary contributor to GDP…” Minister of Financial Services Tara Rivers says.

    71% if you add last 5 categories on the above list. 71>3

    A total of 7,669 people in Cayman work in financial services, accounting for more than 18.3 percent of employment; far MORE THAN HALF of these jobs, 62 percent, are held by Caymanians.

    “There is absolutely no doubt that the financial services industry is CRITICAL to the socioeconomic welfare of the Cayman Islands,” she said. “It is critical for our ability to fund schools, to fund education, to fund healthcare, to fund social services, to fund road infrastructure, environmental conservation, etc.”

    Stop, breathe and read again. “….financial services industry is critical to the socioeconomic welfare of the Cayman Island.”

    71% vs. 3% Financial services vs. tourism

    There has been, from the political perspective, a disproportionate focus on tourism. Government has releases a lot more information in support of expenditures on tourism than in support of the financial industry. That sends an INACCURATE signal to the community to the importance in relative terms.

    Tourism sector, with tourists on the street, cruise ships in the port and hotels along Seven Mile Beach, is simply much more visible than the financial services industry, much more noticeable to the general public. But use your brain and do simply arithmetics, please, before writing a comment.

    • Anonymous says:

      Dude, no idea what you are ranting on about. You have proven above that financial services is a key sector as the viewpoint says. Tourism employs thousands of persons. How can you say it’s not a primary sector? CIG does not get as much revenues from tourism but the economy benefits significantly and always has. Do you really think that the half million air arrivals that spend up to a week on vacation each year and all the activity in our hotels and restaurants is insignificant ? Seriously? You think quoting a figure of 3 percent of government of revenues ( when the statistics does not accurately measure the impact on restaurants and other activity related to tourism) is the way to go here? Actually forget all the facts. Look around you. Still think tourism is insignificant to this island economy?

      • Anonymous says:

        “Put it this way: Tourists are easy to spot. They sport garish raiment, tend to look the wrong way before jaywalking across West Bay Road, and are sometimes tipsy in public during the day.”

        Read the rest here. May be you’ll get it:
        EDITORIAL – Paying homage to Cayman’s essential ‘invisible’ giant

        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah…. we know that financial services is important. The point is so is tourism. Tourism employs thousands too in restaurants, hotels, transportation, tours, retail etc. the fact that 1 sector is enormous or more important does not mean another isn’t also important. And god help us when the OECD finally succeeds in crushing our financial industry.

          • Anonymous says:

            Have not seen one Caymanian in restaurants and hotels.

            • Anonymous says:

              The you are not going to many hotels or restaurants and are speaking out your ass. Try Comfort Suites to start. As for restaurants, good grief. Where do you go?

  10. JTB says:

    This is a really good, objective analysis of the arguments. Thank you

  11. Anonymous says:

    The mental picture of some of the loudest anti port lobbyists riding on the backs of (and fooling/using) the voting public in an attempt to jumpstart their political campaign for the next election is the only picture voting Caymanians need to understand. They claim to be different, but in fact they are exactly the same as the politicians they aim to displace.

    • Anonymous says:

      That’s fine, they can stop the port and we’ll throw them out too. Politicians have an expiry date and the problem we have here is letting ours stick around past it. Whenever there is a changing of the guard, at least the new guys are trying. The dinosaurs know they don’t have to bother.

    • Giving a crap does not equal politically ambitious says:

      Any time anyone in this country makes an attempt to raise public awareness on issues of national importance, or to implore citizens of this country to exercise their democratic freedoms, there is always someone shouting them down as “just looking to run next time”. This is a deliberate ploy used to undermine the good intentions of civic-minded citizens and to make well-meaning social activists appear deceitful. It is a dirty trick. Did it ever occur to you that people simply care about the direction that their country is headed and couldn’t care less about running for office? Why is that such a far fetched concept to grasp?

      • Anonymous says:

        This is a grossly naive view of the actual situation.

        • Anonymous says:

          Not everyone that speaks out is looking to enter politics. CPR are doing a great job to raise awareness on the issues about the port project that cayman does not need.

          The Premier said no more information will be shared about the project until after the referendum and the contract is signed. How is that helping the country to make an informed decision? It’s utter madness. Wake Up Cayman

      • Anonymous says:

        2:43 when I summarize all the comments its not really about sand or coral as much as tearing the Government!

  12. Anonymous says:

    101 is no doubt a government employee. If you look at Cayman’s infrastructure woes whether it’s the absence of any real green public open space for recreation, a public walking track that looks like something out of a suburb in Syria, public schools that can barely attain a passing grade, roads clogged with cars, the dump fiasco…… even contemplate a capital project of this nature at this time with its potential to destroy both our terrestrial and underwater natural resources can only be described as totally reckless. You cannot equivocate the pros with the cons. Weak government has created the mess this country is in so the subject of the proposed port is inherently political. A no vote is a clear signal to government that the Cayman people have had enough of crony capitalism and bad choices by those in power.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Arguments “for port” analysis:

    #1 Remain to be seen
    #2 Cayman needs a reduction, not an increase in number of visitors. Waste management, traffic congestion and education must be a priority.
    #3 is GROSSLY misleading. Tourism revenues to total government revenues are only 3%
    #4 is GROSSLY misleading. See #3
    #5 remain to be seen. Also, since when improvement in “management of tourist traffic” have become an argument supporting the project?

    • Anonymous says:

      You have completely missed the point made in 3. The point has nothing to do with how much tourism contributes to government’s overall revenues. the focus is on the absolute amount of dollars that CIG gets from each passenger. The extra cruise passengers will contribute revenues to CIG even after the $2 is deducted and those extra revenues offset the cost to CIG/ the public.

      • Anonymous says:

        So you are saying that creating the biggest mess ever and environmental catastrophe is Okay as long as it comes at no costs to the government?

        Has anyone factored in the “break even” calculations the future cost of the Dump remediation and solid waste management, with cruise ship passengers and stayover visitors being significant contributors to the Dump growth?

        Are there plans to charge tourists visiting the Cayman Islands a waste management levy?

        Collection, transport, disposal, recycling of waste requires adequate funds to cover a range of activities involving designing and building recycling centres, landfills, and other facilities such as buying collection vehicles, compactors, and other equipment.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hmmm… me thinks you need to re read the article again…

  14. A time and place for simplicity... certainly not here and now says:

    I think I am bit more skeptical of the government than you are but I guess we all have our own perspectives I do however have a few issues with this piece but I will start with this bit toward the end:

    1 – Regarding : “This referendum should not be hijacked by incumbents or political hopefuls who are very squarely focused on the 2021 General Elections”

    This is true and in a perfect world there would be no issue here, but part of the job of politicians whether they are elected or hopefuls, whether we like it or not is debating plans and proposals publicly and coming to a decision in the best interest of the country.
    I don’t think anyone can really argue that is what has been going on in terms of this port project, members of the government have been pushing for this project in its current form since just after the 2005 general election before any business case, before any EIA and before any significant need was displayed; this entire project is an example of what happens when people try to argue backwards from their conclusions to justifications or reasoning, this conclusion (Cruise berthing is necessary in Cayman) was reached in 2005 if not earlier and they have been trying to justify it after the fact ever since.
    Government claimed back then that our cruise industry would disappear by 2012 if Cruise berthing facilities were not built expeditiously (a claim that turned out to be entirely false as time has proven, one of the many reasons why the attempt in the last UDP administration fell through)
    While it is unfortunate that many MLAs and potential candidates use these conflicts and controversies primarily to support their future campaigns it would be foolish to put them all in one boat, many of them see both a political opportunity and legitimate concerns about this project in the community and while their intentions are not entirely pure, I’m not going to split hairs over it.
    At the end of the day, I am not for a second naive enough to think that politicians aren’t gaming this for political points, that is my baseline when it comes to politicians, but lets at least not lump the people actually highlighting truthfully our concerns regarding this issue with the ones who are sitting in closed door meetings ignoring us and bombarding us with ads telling us that they know best and we should just accept it.

    2 -As a second point while I understand this is by no means a definitive list of pros and cons it is interesting that you made no mention as to the track record of the PPM and CDP when it comes to starting and either failing to complete or having complications in terms of capital projects. A résumé or CV is still a prominent part of presenting yourself to a potential employer, why should we not examine the résumé of the people currently in power as they try to sell the public on this project?
    Whether you look at the high schools that are still not completed 10 years later, or the airport that was a year late and millions over-budget or The CDPs “Nation Building fund” debacle which was little more than an attempt to curry political favour from evangelicals and the clergy, the horrendous inability of multiple governments to properly expand roads and manage traffic, the delays with extending the East-west arterial, the delays with the Mental health facility in East End, delays with the runway expansion etc etc for every successful project there are two or three government endorsed failures that the PEOPLE end up paying for
    How is that not at the top of the list for reasons to be at least skeptical of this “free lunch” being offered. The list of short sighted projects that are delayed, go over budget and end up not being worth what we paid for them is far too long to simply sit back and accept this port deal at face value, and anyone who does, is asking to be fooled.

    3 – Another point, how is there no mention of the sheer derision the government has shown to the electorate who are justifiably seeking answers on this project, whether that is preventing Civil servants from showing up to public meetings to present their analysis

    or dodging meetings themselves

    They are more than happy to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people’s money advertising against a petition, knowing full well if they referendum was triggered they would have the time to make their case seeing as they set the date, the question and have the right to advocate for their project.
    Government members should have gone district by district, holding public meetings and taking questions and concerns during the entire process, updating people and giving them an opportunity to prove the merits of this project as they claim them.

    With that being said the vast majority of the controversy surrounding this project is self inflicted, the PPM stirred all of this up when it was a CDP plan with CHEC , and now they have lost control of the narrative, and they are spending from the people’s purse to try to convince people all the things they said when they were in the opposition holds no merit now that it is their plan. If they had been transparent from the start instead of hiding information they would not be in the mess they are in now
    People have a right to be pissed off here we asked nicely, we were more than patient, we voiced our concerns at every opportunity and each time were rebuffed, redirected and often ran in circles by the people who are meant to be representing us.

    There are other issues I have but this is already reached the length that most people won’t bother reading but in conclusion I feel this had to be said, boiling down an issue like this to a couple of points isn’t what we should be pushing for, this is a complex issue, it deserves complex discussions not talking points or bullet points, we need to stop babying caymanians when it comes to real issues, people talk day and night about how developed our democracy is then lets see us treat our people like they are adults who can digest information themselves and come to their own conclusions. Instead of offering them bite sized chunks or the kids meal.
    Its not convenient but not every issue can be boiled down accurately to a couple paragraphs, boiling an issue down to its main components can be useful and does have a place but lets not lose sight of the big picture here.
    There is a lot more at play than some people would like to let on, this issue will set the precedent for future governments to follow in terms of how they introduce large public policy and proposals, will anything be able to be shoved through the LA after years of closed door meetings, procurement and backroom deals, will any issue the people of these islands raise be dismissed, advertised against and then called fake news or political opportunism?

    We need to tread very carefully, that includes regular people who enter the public forum

    • Anonymous says:

      Disagree with this approach. My take is if we want to vote the government out lets consider that in 2021. Right now let’s focus on the issue. We have more than 200 dive sites. 2 at most will be impacted by this project. Are we saying we will not compromise anything at all to improve our port facility? It IS true that the opposition is riding on the backs of the people for political gain. Think about the ‘face’ of the opposition for a few seconds. Which one of those persons have you heard campaigning for the environment until recent years? And when they are successfully elected what guarantees will we have that they will do any better?

  15. Anonymous says:

    how much information do the anti port people need to say No?

  16. Anonymous says:

    Thanks “101”, well done! I encourage all voters to form your own opinions based on facts and not the opinions of others.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Finally.. a balanced view on this. Regardless of how I vote I will not be used by any these politician, including the wanna be ones that turn into climate change warriors yesterday

    • alaw says:

      I think we should try to make a long story short, even if the port is not built at this time 30 years ahead it will still be the job for some generations ( it will not be cheaper)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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