MLA takes beach access battle to LA

| 25/06/2020 | 86 Comments
Cayman News Service

(CNS): Veteran MLA Anthony Eden, the opposition member for Savannah, is taking the long-running beach access battle to the Legislative Assembly with a private member’s motion calling on government to make blocking access a criminal offence. As government continues to fight a group of West Bay ladies over simply registering access rights, Eden is asking to make it a crime to ignore historic easements.

While successive governments over the last ten years or more have all claimed they want to resolve the beach access issue, very little has happened to enforce the law and address the ongoing challenge residents now face getting onto and using the beach.

In his motion, seconded by Alva Suckoo, the opposition member for Newlands, he points out that it is unfair to expect members of the public to bring civil actions to enforce historic rights and asks government to consider amending the Penal Code and the Prescription Law, which deals with access rights, to create a criminal offence for obstructing a public right of way and use of any beach.

Public concern about the lack of access and the continued efforts by beachfront property owners and developers to deter people from accessing the beach, even over long-held historic easements as well as those mandated by planning requirements.

The Prescription Law grants absolute and indefeasible rights to the public to use easements, light, air, waterways, beaches, roads, tracks or pathways which have been used for a period of twenty years without interruption, Suckoo notes. But despite the legislation, access points are increasingly blocked to the public without consequence.

Eden said that the RCIPS consistently advises people who report access obstructions that they can do nothing and that the issue has to be resolved through private civil action in the courts. And as it is not an offence under the Penal Code and only a “nuisance” offence under common law, the blocking of beach access has reached unprecedented levels, making it harder and harder for local people to access the beach anywhere.

A group of women from West Bay have been fighting beach access rights on two fronts and are engaged in two costly legal battles: one against the islands’ biggest developer, Dart after the investor and major property owner managed to secure the removal of several access points along Seven Mile Beach, and a second against the land registrar for refusing to follow the law and register the hundreds of historic rights of way that the women have researched and documented. While both cases are still alive, the lack of funding and a legal aid refusal in the Dart case is putting them in jeopardy.

The motion brought will give legislators an opportunity to debate the matters publicly and reveal their positions on what is a matter of significant public interest and concern and very likely to be high on the subjects for debate when political campaigning begins for 2021.

However, Suckoo said he was worried about the amount of opposition work that will have to crammed into one day when the Legislative Assembly meets next week, since government did not allow any opposition business during the last sitting, leading to a walk-out by the official opposition members.

He said was it was “regrettable that we are in this position of having to cram the work of two meetings into one”.

See the PMM in the CNS Library


Share your vote!


How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , ,

Category: Community, Local News, Politics

Comments (86)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone realize that the only little bit of beach that we have anymore is next to the Governors house?

    Our beautiful Seven Mile Public Beach has become a commercial property used by vendors selling overpriced chairs and umbrellas to cruise ship passengers.

    The Legislative Assembly needs to get our prescriptive rights to the beach and beach access registered and they need to do it now.

    10
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      We have our rights to the whole beach already. Do not surrender them. The ropes and signs need to go!

      • Anonymous says:

        you’re 100% correct, there is no legal support for any rope or sign that seeks to restrict your access to any part of the beach. You can’t use the chairs that may be roped off, but you can 100% absolutely access the beach whether its infront of the Ritz, or the Sovereign, or the Kimpton or the Watercolors or wherever you wish on SMB. all the way up to the end of the sand. Sit wherever you want. Just dont use their stuff. thats all the ropes do.

  2. WHO BENEFITS FROM A SEGREGATED SMB? says:

    Dear Cayman,

    Seven Mile Beach was once miles of shimmering white sand dotted with soft beach grass, and under the crystal clear water, lived vibrant brain coral teeming with marine life. There were no invasive casuarinas. Just canopies of plop nuts and seagrapes in the distance filled with birdsong. Imagine, no condos. No hotels. No cranes. No seawalls causing erosion. Just miles of uninterrupted sea views with a little wooden bathhouse on what’s known as Public Beach. SMB could still look like that. Many wanted to keep it that way. Some folks will say that Caymanians of yesteryear didn’t love the beach, but that’s a lie. Our ancestors picnicked on SMB on moonlit nights. Frolicked in clear waters as children. Caymanians didn’t build their houses on the sand, but they always loved SMB— the most swimmable beach in the world.
    What the early Caymanians didn’t understand, however, was the beach’s value. But a developer can always sniff out an undervalued gem to exploit.

    So here’s the uncomfortable truth: SMB’s infrastructural “development” was never for Caymanians. Let that sink in for a moment. Then, ask an old timer from the 70s— particularly those of a darker hue— what it took to pay for a drink at one of the few hotel bars back in the day. Here’s some history: some Caymanians had to “force” their way into those hotel bars on SMB. Some even had the police called on them because the managers of those properties didn’t want Caymanains in their establishment, unless you were the “help.”

    Have you ever wondered why Cayman needed beach access laws in the first place? Have you ever wondered why developers were allowed to build directly on the beach, even long after the Government understood its value? SMB didn’t have to be a concretized strip nor did it have to be economically segregated. Someone who served on Cayman’s early planning board told me they advised the Government to keep development off the beach and build hotels/condos across the road, keeping the beach free and accessible with uninterrupted views.

    There was deeper wisdom to this advice too that went beyond aesthetics and public access. Sand on beaches circulates naturally, and keeping SMB free and clear would allow those tidal shifts to happen and prevent erosion.

    Didn’t happen. Why?

    Poor planning laws coupled with zero foresight by CIG. BUT, but… at least back in the day, even up until a few years ago, there was still open stretches of beach for all of us—Caymanians and residents alike. Even if you couldn’t afford to eat at a beach bar, you could have a little picnic on the beach. Plus, back in the day there was actual beach access with fewer security guards acting like top cops. And, moreover, Public Beach was easily accessible. Remember when you could drive straight there, park and hop in the water? No hiking through imported sand. No private landowner controlling how, when, and where you could access it?

    But it’s 2020 my friends, and one of the best beaches in the world is trapped behind a concrete jungle that’s policed by security pit bulls who couldn’t find the high water mark if it was on the tips of their noses. You think they just hustle Caymanians off the beach? They hustle everyone that isn’t a SMB resident or at a hotel bar paying premium dollar for a drink. One of my mates was aghast that he got hustled off the beach with his elderly mother in tow. They were having a picnic at the high water mark in front of a condo. Old boy had never been hustled off of anywhere in his entire white life, let alone his very proper English Mum. The irony! We laughed. But it wasn’t funny.

    What’s happening on SMB is a perfect storm— a convergence of poor planning laws, profit raiding and a complicit Government.

    And who’s benefiting from the current state of affairs on SMB?

    It’s not just the condo owners who want to keep the “natives” off “their” beach. No. The primary beneficiary of a segregated Seven Mile Beach is none other than the Midwest raider, tax evader, styrofoam polluting American imperialist called Dart.

    Remember what the West Bay women were trying to tell us? Remember the ugly future they’d predicted? Why were they fighting so hard for Public Beach? Because they knew what was coming when the Government moved the road. Today, every stretch of SMB is occupied or blocked off for future development. Plus, the high water mark is disappearing in certain stretches due to beach erosion. Do you know how many times Government has appeased developers and allowed the high water mark to be moved? How many times has Government allowed development to creep closer to the shoreline? Who allowed those seawalls to be built? Government.

    Who do you think benefits from these shifting policies? The public or the profiteer?

    As it stands today, the only way the public can freely frolic on SMB (that’s not Dart’s public beach) is if they:

    a.own or rent beach property;
    b.can afford to eat at beach-front restaurant/bar; OR
    c.HAVE BEACH ACCESS

    No beach access = no beach access for our children and children’s children.

    If beach access isn’t secured or enforced or even reimagined to be more inclusive, a segregated SMB will continue to service the needs of the rich and ultimately, Dart’s vision for the area. And a SMB that only services Dart’s vision is not for Cayman.

    No matter what the PR machinery tries to gloss over, please understand that Dart’s vision exists to feed his profit margins, at least eventually when our population climbs to 100k. So stop buying into the false narrative that his development is philanthropic. Stop buying into the false narrative that he’s creating a utopia. Development is not philanthropy. Camana Bay isn’t our saving grace because Tee-Tee’s gotta big job there. Or Bo-Bo’s nephew can pay an arm and a leg to send his child to CIS. You think that’s utopian? You think a utopia is only for the exceptional few? Anyway, it’s an illusion. No average resident or Caymanian can pay rent at Camana Bay. And you don’t eat and frolic at the Kimpton for free either. It’s not a public park. Who lives at Seafire? Who’s really benefiting from that development? The workers?

    No matter how many scholarships DF awards, please understand that those charitable cheques pale in comparison to what’s being extracted form this tax neutral “paradise.” Like other developers before him, Dart’s here to profit, and also to protect his generational styrofoam wealth. Let that sink in. Also, please accept that developers like him usually want to earn profits THEIR way with little to no regard for the public’s interest. Case in point? SMB is nearly a breath away from being an exclusive playground for an exceptional few. Please wake up. Development happening on this Island, particularly on SMB, isn’t for your benefit or the greater good. If that were the case, an MLA wouldn’t need to spearhead a motion to make blocking beach access a CRIME… in 2020! And look, it’s not just SMB that’s slipping away from the public’s reach, its other coastal properties in Cayman too. Barefoot Beach in East End, a pristine area beloved by the public, will be another soulless Stepford Wives “development” with little to no beach access if something isn’t done.

    Don’t believe the hype by the current Cabinet. Like their predecessors, they’ll try to convince you that there’s nothing they can do to enforce beach access or mitigate the unchecked concretization of coastal lands in Cayman. They’ll try to convince you that Government doesn’t need to have a vision for the country if Dart has one. (Just remember who they were going to hand Smith Barcadere to.) That was Government. Our elected leaders. The same one’s who’ll gladly remind you that Dart’s a Caymanian. King of the world, face to the wind, but one who’s unsinkable and free to run economic roughshod because not one of them can write an anti trust law or draft better planning laws. That’s rubbish. Another false narrative.

    Please understand that Government’s drafting laws (or amending old ones) every day. There’s a whole legislative drafting department plus highly skilled technocrats dedicated to this end. Please understand that if there’s political will, laws do change. Laws can be amended. And better laws can be written and passed to protect SMB (what’s left of it) and make it more inclusive for *all* of us. More importantly, ACTUAL LAWS can be enforced like the one governing beach access!

    No one should throw up their hands. Least of all the people paid to run the country. After all, they’re not politicians of yesteryear getting bamboozled. They’re educated. Worldly sophisticates who can read a room. Or so they tell us.

    Finally, stop blaming the state of SMB on Caymanians who’ve sold property. Selling beach land does not equal zero beach access. Selling beach land does not equal poor enforcement of laws. Selling beach land doesn’t mean what’s currently happening on SMB can’t be mitigated for the greater good. Don’t let folks frustrate you with red herrings. Again, government makes the laws of the land. Government enforces the laws of the land. Cayman does not have to go the way of other Caribbean island’s where the public has little to no access to the best coastal properties of the land. Who wants that life here?

    So please keep the pressure on. Our elected officials can do better. It’s their job to protect the public’s interest.

    Be well my friends.

    Sincerely,

    “A Keyboard Warrior”

    Disclaimer: This keyboard warrior (KW) does not want a career in broadcasting or politics. They don’t eat turtle meat or are they anti development. This KW just wants to see more inclusive policies for this country that benefits *all* Caymanians.

    23
    5
    • Anonymous says:

      Not true that Caymanians were not welcome at SMB bars. I don’t remember any such thing , other than a few who would get unruly and unreasonable after a few drinks that had to be spoken to…. but then so did some of our Texan visitors.

      5
      4
      • Anonymous says:

        So, I walked into a SMB club with a group of people after a Christmas party. I went up to the bar, ordered drinks for my wife and me and while the bartender was making them, a drunk Caymanian leaning up against the bar tells me he doesn’t like the looks of me and tries to pick a fight. We got our drinks, drank them and left, as did most of the people who had joined. I haven’t been back to a club since because I don’t need that kind of nonsense. If that’s the kind of riffraff that the club’s let in, maybe they should be more selective with their entry rules.

      • Anonymous says:

        not true? who you is? i know several people who were bared from entering a smb hotel bar in the early 70s. they weren’t unruly. they were Caymanian and black. just because “you” can’t recall discrimination doesn’t erase actual history.

    • Anonymous says:

      you expect us to read all of that?

      2
      5
      • Anonymous says:

        Sorry they didnt include pictures to make it easier for the reading impaired but I easily read the whole thing and it was pretty great!!!

        6
        1
    • Anonymous says:

      What a bunch of dribble!

      1
      1
  3. Anonymous says:

    Waht width of sea front land requires a public access?

    • Anonymous says:

      Planning Laws used to be 200ft width but govt has managed to update these laws about 15 times over the past 20 years to the benefit of developers and extracting revenue. Kind of funny since other antiquated laws and needing serious updates cant seem to get looked at!

  4. Anonymous says:

    Lots more beach areas have been roped off during the lockdown. Look at the Turkish monstrosity, he has now roped off an area of ‘private beach’. Next NorWester will take his sunbeds out to sea.

    10
    • Anonymous says:

      No, the day after the law passes, the police should be there and the ropes removed.

    • Anonymous says:

      Alden gave him a cabinet grant for status,,so not a damn thing is going to happen there..

      For years that beach was left alone. Now he comes along and builds the ugliest building on Seven Mile Beach and then simply ropes of a big chunk of the beach for himself..What was Planning thinking to allow that structure along our beautiful beach? The Turner home next door was another Planning disaster and is so close to the water now it will only take a good Nor’wester to put that in the ocean.

      Come on Cayman, are these the type of people we want to be giving out free status to? Tell me what he has done for Cayman except torment the owners of Regal Beach until they sold off their properties to him on the cheap just to get out of there. There were many owners there, that can attest to this..google him and see the many lawsuits..He ran these good people away who were investors just like him but no one talks about that at all. Now he has decided the beach is his and he has no intention of removing the area he has now roped off which is making the area of beach even more narrow.

      Cayman has become so corrupted because of the love of money and corrupt politicians. I hope next May brings us a sea change and we are able to get some young/younger smart Caymanians to get elected and get this island cleaned up..I can only pray!

      10
      • Anonymous says:

        If his ropes are still there after the law changes, he may have committed an offense. His status could then theoretically be revoked.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Beach access and what constitutes private beach use in Cayman must be sorted once and for all. The prescriptive right to accessing the beach is clear, once a Highway always a highway…if you’ve used that route unimpeded for over 20 years, you can have government make it an official legal access route for ever. Of course, they’ve tried to stop you doing that by demanding you go to court at your cost, but crowd funding should sort that issue

    The bigger problem is the ongoing theft of the beach.

    There is no such thing as a private beach. The high water mark is often used as the marker for ‘private’beaches but infact they don’t exist…all that means is the condos or hotels on seven mile beach can put out chairs and tables above the high water mark infront of their property and refuse you permission to use the chairs…but they cannot refuse you permission to use that beach…infact all the ‘roping off’ does is point out the part of the beach that the condos or hotels have permission to maintain.
    It’s true
    Any sign you see behind a roped off area in seven mile? Ignore it if it’s telling you it’s private – it’s not. The equipment and furniture is, but bring your own chair and sit wherever you want

    13
  6. Lennon Christian says:

    A small but long-overdue issue!
    Shame that it has come to this..there should be a fast and mutual solution.
    – Lennon Christian

    11
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      No need for a mutual solution Lennon. The rights of all persons are indefeasible. No room for compromise. We all get to peaceably enjoy ALL the beach.

      14
  7. Anonymous says:

    The unrecorded beach accesses are imaginary unless and until someone like the government or a member of the public files a suit and wins it. Each one will require evidence. They don’t prove themselves. Good luck with that.

    2
    12
    • Anonymous says:

      20 years use baby. That’s all it takes. We got 200 years of it.

      14
      1
      • Anonymous says:

        You need to prove the 20 years – and some of these haven’t been used since the developers built there. Could be problematic for those

        1
        3
  8. Anonymous says:

    I don’t get it. Why can’t people get to the beach? Never had a problem.

    7
    8
  9. Anonymous says:

    Fundamental lack of understanding by MLAs and the public as to what rights exist. Prescriptive rights are only theoretical until proven and accepted in court. Until that time they don’t legally exist.
    And the public doesn’t have the right to use the beach – most of it is within the private parcel boundaries .
    Only general use is regarding the strip right close to the water line.
    People are being misled.
    Typical Cayman – sell the beach land for a fortune and then demand that Caymanians have the right to access it all- which they don’t.

    8
    36
    • Anonymous says:

      I imagine you are a realtor, or took your legal advice from one. Either way, you are very very wrong.

      27
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        If the poster is wrong, why is Eden trying to get it passed the the LA? Surely if you’re right, the access issue is already enforceable and without any doubt, which clearly it isn’t.

        1
        1
    • Anonymous says:

      Please let us know where you live on the beach. I want to be sure to peaceably enjoy it, and give you an opportunity to test your false legal theory.

      20
      2
  10. Anonymous says:

    “the opposition member for Savannah, is taking the long-running beach access battle to the Legislative Assembly with a private member’s motion calling on government to make blocking access a criminal offence” I thought it already was.

    19
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      Not a criminal offense therefore the police won’t/can’t do anything when people block them..

  11. Sandra van der Bol says:

    May the spirit of Nike …JUST DO IT…invade the halls and offices of power.

    You know it is the right thing to do…so do it. Make sure that all Caymanians, and others, have unfettered access to the shoreline of our islands.

    We cannot become one more place where the 1% has all the privileges at the expense of the rest.

    DARE TO BE DIFFERENT…DARE TO HONOR THE TRADITIONS AND PRESENT NEEDS.

    With all DUE respect…

    46
    6
  12. Anonymous says:

    My name is Sandra van der Bol…and I dont get all this anonymous stuff…
    And I don’t get this ongoing colonial mentality that fails so miserably to honor the traditions and needs of ‘indigenous’ Caymanians.
    Just do what you need to do and protect in perpetuity the right of Caymanians, and others, to have undisputed and reasonable access to the beaches.

    May the spirit of Nike (just do it) invade the halls of power.

    44
    8
    • Chris Johnson says:

      Good for you Sandra. I have been blogging for years in my name and am proud of it. Many blogs from anonymous are rude, inaccurate and unworthy of a response. More people should use their name and get the respect they are entitled to.

      I certainly agree with Anthony Eden and the ladies from my district regarding beach access. In particularly condos on seven mile beach need to respect our laws that they have chosen to ignore all these years.

      46
      5
      • Anonymous says:

        Thank God Chris, You live on 7 mile beach. You bought Mitch Miller’s old property and built one of the most beautiful houses on 7 mile beach. You should know, the public CAN use all of the beach up to the high water mark. Thats up to the vegetation line, where the bush starts growing. Similar at the Governors’ House a little bit wider. Anyone can use the beach as long as they are not partying? 24 hours a day 7 days a week? No bonfires, pickup your garbage and carry it home? Chris you have garbage receptacles or dumpsters, do Government pay for that or do you the landowner? If the public get nasty do they get fined, whose responsibility to clean it? Someone in the tread says landowner is responsible for maintenance?
        I agree no one should have owned the beach. But it’s too late now, I think the chance of local residence whether red or blue doesn’t make a difference. If most of the condos have been bought by elderly people it’s going to be a conflict with younger people.
        Maybe Government should buy beach property in each district for the future. We need a bigger one in Spotts, Red Bay, South Sound between each house. But without that we going to need beach access from Red Bay through South Sound?
        I have always wanted to know if the Iron shore is public? Can one walk across there or go fishing in the Marine Park. Money is a little tight right now, no tourism, no money to buy a boat.

        • Anonymous says:

          The iron shore is public. It has been used by the community to fish from for generations. Marine park laws still apply.

        • round and round in circles we go says:

          The position of the MHWM has changed several times over the years, but currently it is not the “Vegetation Line”, but the +1.0′ contour elevation as defined by the Chief Surveyor, L&S.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Alva is clutching at the grease covered last straw. Won’t be too long before low hanging fruit like this are gone. This is a taker’s market and will be till there’s nothing left and you’ll have to swim a half mile just to sit and wallow by the waterline. The next stage is a full transition to private beaches for all owners on the seafront. The authorities in charge of enforcing people’s traditional rights are just puppets controlled by conflict stacked boards.

    33
    6
    • Anonymous says:

      What you describe is corruption. #Legge was right.

      28
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      The voters will be the judge of that. That is something you have no control over! Tel us what you have done lately?

      9
      5
      • Anonymous says:

        At least I have a clear conscience and functioning ethical & moral compass and try to treat people as good or better than I wish to be treated. Who have you scr3w3d over today?

        12
        1
  14. Anonymous says:

    Wakes up every four years.

    24
    2
  15. Anonymous says:

    Yawn. Does he know that gays often use these beaches?

    28
    27
  16. Anonymous says:

    Down by Papagallo Restaurant they got two signs totally blocked off.

    24
    • Anonymous says:

      Fixing this issue is long overdue. I cannot understand why this practice is long overdue. Going forward if developers/ home owners have a problem with opening up these beach accesses then too bad for them. They all knew that these accesses existed and if they did not want to comply then perhaps they should not have build on the property. The government need to work along with the Opposition on this issue and fix it!, why are the so negligent? Why can’t they ensure that these accesses are open to allow all people to use the beach. This government and pass governments have been putting this off for years- don’t they care?

      The Premier is railing about the Opposition bringing their motions . This shouldn’t be. I see no reason why the Meetings should not be held over a longer time. Dealing with Covid 19 is difficult but surely the government should be capable of doing more than one thing. According to what is happening in the U.S. and most other places around the world this disease will be around for a long time. Should that mean that everything else in the country must remain on the back burner? We all better get used to living with it. I commend what the government/ private sector and all of us has done to keep the virus under control but I fear that it is beginning to look like the government is using it to ignore the Opposition and them doing their job. I wish they would not be so callous. We should expect better and the country deserve better.
      .

      36
  17. Anonymous says:

    Long overdue!

    56
    1
  18. Anonymous says:

    So if it’s not an offence to obstruct access then it can’t possibly be an offence to use whatever means necessary to unblock the access. Boltcutters, machete, whatever it takes. Let’s see the landowner bring a civil suit against the person doing the unblocking. But they won’t. They’ll do that tried and tested method ‘I’ll get you thrown off this island you piece of driftwood’.

    55
    9
    • Anonymous says:

      Except the foreign owners of West Bay and South Sound beaches don’t have the “I’ll have you thrown off the Island , Driftwood” thing.

      19
      4
      • Anonymous says:

        But the insult of “driftwood” is well directed at anyone that tries to shoo any person peaceably enjoying the coast. This crap has to stop. I look forward to this passing. We can at least then look to the police to enforce the law, and when they don’t, know who to hold accountable – before the last alternative of taking it into our own hands, which is where this is going if government does not act.

        28
        2
  19. Anonymous says:

    This is why election years are good. Politicians have to actually pretend to care about important issues like this. However as we all know very little ever actually happens. Remember when our speaker attacked a barmaid on a night out? He’s still not in jail, still pulling the strings in his robes and finery, still “Honorable” and still getting all the fat perks, salary and pension. If these preening buffoons can’t even break ranks with someone that evil, what chances are there that they will dare to upset the land developers?

    90
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      So what’s your suggestion ? That they all sit and moan and complain like you ? That’s going to fix it I guess smh

      8
      19
    • Anonymous says:

      7.26pm It is wrong to say nothing is being done with the speaker’s case. The matter is moving through the court system. No reason why it should be moved ahead of other matters.

      12
      13
      • Anonymous says:

        Would you not think that the Speaker of the House would get the highest priority in our system? He is not your average Bobo.

        12
      • Diogenes of Antioch says:

        Strangely enough his case seems to not be moving at all, whereas all those curfew violators are being pushed through the process on an expedited basis, even though there’s ( at last count) a thousand of them versus one man, and they committed their offences long after he is alleged to have committed his. Apparently there is a reason they should be moved ahead of his matter?

        15
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Is there a reason it should be repeatedly pushed back behind other matters?

        10
    • Anonymous says:

      It is that Buffoon who caused the beach problem, when he allowed the removal of the vegetation line to the high water mark, therefore limiting our use of the beach. That XXXXX has added insult to injury for all of us.

      12
      4
      • Anonymous says:

        He never got rid of our rights to the vegetation line. That right has continued to be exercised and is preserved.

        13
        3
  20. Anonymous says:

    A worthy cause and I am in full support of the historic beach access points being made available and even expanded.

    But, I doubt anything will come of this new action as the “men behind the curtain” are too connected and influential.

    Too bad our elected officials are corrupt.

    75
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      This time we have to insist! Never let it rest until it is done, one of our problems is that we give up too often. We need to physically get out there and support the ladies from west bay .

      14
  21. Sonia Starfish says:

    I fully support beach access and am not a dart fan but to be fair to dart they did not try and remove rights, they wanted to relocate and combine them and make them wider. CNS – please get your facts correct.

    35
    29
    • Anonymous says:

      And I seem to recall there was some consideration involved as well – part of the wider deal in which he built the continuation of the Esterley Tibbetts and the public beach car park and walkways. Not quite the same as the West Bay Road condo owners who plant trees and even fence off beach access paths.

      22
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        A 20 foot high concrete structure directly across an established beach access is not in the same category as planting trees in a right of way? OK then, we agree.

        17
        5
        • Anonymous says:

          Not if you replace it with other access elsewhere and provide additional public facilities, and above all if you do it by agreement. Those condos that block the paths are a) not providing alternative access b) not doing anything else to compensate the public and c) didn’t discuss their actions with anyone. You may not agree with the Dart approach, and you may not agree that the price paid was worth the loss of access, but yes, it’s clearly in a different category. Whether you block access with a concrete bridge or a chain link fence or a tree is not the issue.

          7
          6
        • Anonymous says:

          Said beach access has not existed for 50+ years. Prove me wrong

          5
          1
      • Anonymous says:

        9:34 Get a bobcat and bulldoze human, fence, trees or whatever. If we do not stand up for our rights, they will all trample us.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ms. Starfish, is a Dart PPM Bot.

      Dart would want Caymanians to believe your lie, however we know the facts published by CNS are correct – Dart wants to drive Caymanians away from the beaches and canals.

      DART, WITH GOVERNMENT’S PERMISSION, LEGAL DEPARTMENT SUPPORT AND APPROVAL HAS BLOCKED TWO VEHICULAR BEACH ACCESS POINTS AT THE KIMPTON HOTEL SITE. THERE IS NOW NO LEGALLY DEFINED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THESE TWO VEHICULAR BEACH ACCESSES!!

      At Royal Palms and Coral Caymanian the DART 80 storey building foundation / tunnels have illegally blocked two (2) pedestrian beach accesses.

      DART ADDITIONALLY HAS BLOCKED SEVEN (7) VEHICULAR BEACH ACCESSES AND CAMPING AREAS NORTH OF THE KIMPTON HOTEL.

      ALL MLAs are aware of these facts.

      DART PPM UDP BOT it is who knowingly sending out more wrong information.

      31
      11
      • nw pointer says:

        On the subject of Dart development, and beach access, is anyone aware that the piece of land directly behind the West Bay public beach (that used to belong to CIG, under the original nra-dart agreement, that the PPM chose not to accept), will soon be developed into another 3 star Kimpton affiliate hotel . Question which beach will that hotel occupy for its guest? better yet, where will Caymanians now go for their the public beach once the government approves the plans?

        13
        4
    • Anonymous says:

      Not only is your comment incorrect but what would I want with a double width beach access? A double width access is the same as ONE access. Width is irrelevant. Am I going to carry my paddleboard sideways to make best use of the new width? Bring my umbrella by holding it horizontal? This argument is soooo stupid. It’s about the number and location of beach accesses, not the width.

      15
      2
  22. Anonymous says:

    Blimey you really can see it is election time. Mind you watch for the small print, ‘heterosexual access only’
    Still vote him out

    41
    19
  23. Anonymous says:

    Good. It is long past time some of these bastards face arrest for their conduct. By the way, the guaranteed rights include a right to sit and sunbathe. It is not just a right of way, and extends all the way from sea to vegetation line!

    54
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      The legislation should be retroactive at least 15 years. That is when people first started to regularly try to chase people off the beach. It was already a common law offense so no one can claim it is unfair.

      13
      2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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