Trust suggests expand GT dock, limit population

| 20/08/2024 | 44 Comments

(CNS): The National Trust for the Cayman Islands (NTCI) is urging the government to think about limiting population growth rather than building a cargo port to accommodate the projected figure of 250,000 people living here by 2084, pointing out that this number would totally overwhelm the Caymanian people, who even now make up less than half the current population.

The consultants hired to draft the outline business case for the project insist that the Cayman Islands Government needs to start planning now for a new cargo dock in one of the various locations proposed, and that the CIG should expand the existing dock in the George Town Harbour and the Cargo Distribution Centre.

In presentations made to the public, they said this would allow Cayman to manage the population growth for the next 15 years, which they estimate will be 133,000 people by that time. Upgrading the GT dock would take about five years, the consultants said, and this will support the islands until 2039, by which time the new dock will be built. What would happen to the old dock after that is unclear.

However, in its submission to the consultants drafting the OBC, the Trust suggested that, instead of upgrading the existing dock just enough to manage a population of 133,000, the CIG should look at how to maximise its utility so that it can handle a population of 150,000 and take steps to limit the population to that figure.

“The current business case includes two options for the George Town port: ‘do nothing’ and ‘do minimum’. The NTCI feels that a ‘do maximum’ option should be included which improves the current site so that it could support a more realistic population level capped at 150,000,” the Trust said in a release.

“George Town has been the site of Cayman’s port for hundreds of years due to its favourable conditions; it sits in the lee nearly every day of the year, deep water comes close to shore, and after all this time as the port, its proximity to population and man-modified status make it an appealing location to remain as the port into the future.”

The Trust pointed out that a population of 250,000 would include over 150,000 non-Caymanians at the current birth rate, which is “not only unsustainable but undesirable and cannot be supported by the country’s infrastructure or by Caymanians who would become even more significantly outnumbered under these projections”.

Instead of planning for a population of 250,000, the non-profit organisation recommended that the OBC include multiple population scenarios “for a more informed decision-making process as part of an overall plan for the future of the Cayman Islands”.

“The recent population growth has strained the natural environment and necessitated major infrastructure projects driven by a desire for economic growth,” said Frank Roulstone, executive director of the National Trust. “As Cayman’s population growth is due to immigration rather than birth rates, it is within our government’s power to control the growth rate.”

The Trust also noted its concerns about relocating the cargo port to a new location, particularly the options at Breakers quarries, and highlighted the environmental damage to both terrestrial and marine life and surrounding ecosystems. It also raised concerns about traffic and the additional burden on infrastructure in the Eastern Districts and the viability of a port with a north-south channel, given the prevailing wind patterns to function safely throughout the year.

In its submissions, the Trust noted that building the dock at the Breakers quarries would cut off the existing coastal road to Frank Sound and East End. “Since one of the much-touted goals of the East-West Arterial Extension is to ensure that there are two routes to East End, this would seem to eliminate that added security as it was explained that a bridge over the canal is infeasible. This further demonstrates the problem that we face in Cayman, whereby different agencies and ministries plan projects without taking into account other planned projects in other remits.”

“We would like Government to take a cautious, data-driven approach to the port expansion and advocate for full transparency, including an Environmental Impact Assessment before any construction begins,” said NTCI Chairperson Melanie Carmichael.

“We also strongly believe that the population scenarios considered for the port should be applied across all government projects, including development planning, waste management and transport so that there is more correlation between these large capital projects which will have an enormous environmental, social and economic impact on all three islands,” she added.

See the NTCI’s full submission in the CNS Library.


Share your vote!


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

Tags: , ,

Category: development, Local News

Comments (44)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Cayman should put the missing $2.1 billion into the liabilities column of the Balance Sheet and get real, before the FCO comes knocking. We don’t have the money for any of Juju’s wish list infrastructure debacles. The whole island is underwater by 2050, and by then what’s left of Cayman is a little debt-saddled town in Scotland.

  2. annon says:

    So National Trust dictating national policy now re population growth to suit their position- thats interesting. I would certainly welcome a national discussion on population and immigration policy for sure as that is the our main challange but the tax system is driven by consumption and development/real estate…

    CNS: Offering feedback on a public consultation is not “dictating policy”. The Trust has done what every single person and entity has the right to do.

    2
    7
  3. Kman says:

    The question remains, who are we building for? The rich will continue to getting richer, the middle class will cease to exist, the poor will get poorer, and native Caymanians will either become extinct or luving in ghettos. In 2025 vote everyone of them out,demand more from politicians, don’t condone corruption, poor leadership, greed,and incompetence.

    22
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      Cayman needs a Government for its people. Any fool can sit back and let the developers set the pace. We need good men who stand firm and make the legislative and policy changes that preserve the environment, the culture and heritage and protect us from the negative impact of what this government claims is success.

      18
  4. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, let’s bring in 200K people with 10K Caymanians.

    These people have lost their minds and need to lose their jobs.

    People need to start suing these corrupt people.
    Caymanians won’t benefit from these plans that cig has.

    22
    1
  5. Anon says:

    The cargo port and the airport should be moved east with a new road. What other place in the world sticks the airport and cargo dock in the middle of the central town?

    8
    11
  6. Anonymous says:

    anything that makes common sense, the CI government runs in the opposite direction. How on earth did we really get to this point, to even be speaking of 250K population is madness. I wonder if the government thinks it will mean anything to be “Caymanian” when that happens. We’re slowing becoming like the American Indian, shaking hands and smiling with the people who will in turn conquer us. SMH.

    LTD Da Unboozler.

    27
    1
    • watcher says:

      We CAN limit population. The question is whether the government of the day will see more value in work permits and cruise tourism headcounts vs. the actual woes and interests of the voting population.

      As we grow, “Caymanian” seems to be more diluted. I don’t mind a bit that other peoples qualify and become so, because they worked for it, and in doing so, they become us. What I worry about is that those who can call themselves Caymanian and thus vote, will become such a small fraction of the whole population that they don’t really matter.

      In some ways, we are there now.

      27
      • Anonymous says:

        From a completely objective perspective, it would be foolish to completely ignore the majority in favour of the minority. We, as Caymanians, are already the minority. If we become even less of the overall population, do you think our government has the cojones to do anything in favour of us if it went against the majority?

        Look at our political leaders over the years. When I read Aristotle and see this line I begin to wonder if we have employed tyrants to lead us.

        “Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him.”

        • Number 1 Best Seller says:

          “Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him.”

          This sounds like the foreword for a really fun children’s book entitled “Big Mac The Drunken, and his Greedy, Grubby Crewe of Pirates”. Vol 1 “White Paper, White Rum”

  7. Anonymous says:

    Once again overstepping the bounds of their remit.

    13
    16
  8. Anonymous says:

    Careful now. Trust about to get its annual CIG budget slashed…

    8
    2
  9. Anonymous says:

    so now the national trust is essentially advocating for something along the lines of a cruise pier? huh?!?

    I think I need a pinch because I don’t really understand what’s going on here.

    5
    9
  10. anonymous says:

    During the summer when huge numbers leave the island, it becomes clear that the infrastructure of the island is only set up to deal with around 70% of our current population.

    If we even get close to 150,000 residents this place will be a full blown third world country

    58
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      Use Singapore as a model.

      All scenarios and systems won’t fit or apply culturally but plenty can be learned.
      Observe closely the trajectory of their population growth and what it took from a governance standpoint.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore

      There are many similarities- the most obvious is Singapore has been dealing with significant growth through net immigration since the 1880’s. Current population is 5.6 million in 2022!!!

      One key difference that stands out at first glance (having visited numerous times) is their ability to enforce laws and policies- a helpful action when rapid growth is occurring.

      It will take vision, commitment, and discipline- the time is now. The past is dead and gone.

      9
      2
      • Anonymous says:

        Singapore isn’t a good model, imo, because it uses structure and discipline and there are real and dire consequences for infringing upon their laws.

        Our laws….. meh. Many of them are entirely uninforced. We are so far from the regulated society of Singapore. Me, I would love to live in a place that was safe, where lawlessness carried serious consequences, where government was regulated by the people, where nearly everyone had a role in the fabric of the place.

        Alas, that is never going to be here.

        19
        2
    • Anonymous says:

      WHy do you think that the infrastructure would not grow along with the population?

      1
      16
      • anonymous says:

        Because the infrastructure and the people who make decisions regarding this are totally incapable of making such plans –
        The traffic is a nightmare all of the time outside of the summer holidays
        There is no policing of anything
        The rental market cannot cope with the current demand
        None of our government systems work
        There is crushing poverty for many
        There is flooding in heavy rain due to over development

        I could go on

        23
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Agree with 4:40 below, but to flesh it out: Very rarely do our capital projects — or really any of them — also have a budgetary line item for maintenance. Nope. That is passed on to the next administration, who often kicks that can down the road, because it wasn’t part of their initial budget.

      • Anonymous says:

        @12:48 you only need to look at government’s management of the dump situation, for a hint to the answer to your question!

        5
        1
    • Anonymous says:

      Bodden towns East and West plus GTC and Mac’s West Bay are already third world.
      The disease is spreading .

      20
      2
    • Anonymous says:

      If we had a government that raised the minimum wage to a living wage, and enforcement of sponsoring permit employer responsibilities, there would be a mass reset button pushed and the resident population would contract to only those skilled enough to work here and deliver excellent results/service.

      15
  11. Anonymous says:

    The sad thing in all this is that the only real population growth is in the form of imported low wage workers living six to a room and two or three to a single bed occupied in shifts.

    Generational Caymanians are certainly not reproducing.

    So who is the growth for? A handful of developers.

    Cayman must do better for its own people.

    61
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      While developers certainly benefit, Cayman could not exist without imported labour, even if some of it is low wage. Who do you think will do those jobs that Caymanians wont or cant do?

      3
      27
      • Anonymous says:

        “Who do you think will do those jobs that Caymanians wont or cant do for unlivable wages?”

        FTFY.
        The only reason that immigrants agree to those wages is because they still make much more than they would back home, and can send money back there to live like kings when their permit is up in a few years. See a very recent example: “National Minimum Wage Increases to $15,000JMD ($95.48 USD) per Week June 1 ” (source: https://jis.gov.jm/national-minimum-wage-increases-to-15000-per-week-june-1/ )

        This anti-Caymanian propaganda BS has to stop.

        29
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          I am Caymanian and this still does not answer my question. You presume too much.

          1
          16
          • "Caymanian" my bunkeh says:

            What jobs do you think exist that Caymanians won’t do for a fair wage? We have Caymanians in every single field on the island. Construction, waste management, cleaning (janitorial, laundry, removal services etc.), garbagemen, security, tour operators (watersports and on land), divemasters, food/beverage service, FOH, BOH, education, banking, technology, medical including doctors, nurses, dentists, mental health, dentistry etc etc.

            Tell me specifically what fields you think there are no Caymanians busting their asses in, day in day out. Just because we cannot afford to take minimum wage jobs now does not mean we are unwilling to do the jobs, we just won’t do it for borderline slave wages. We have (or at least want to have) mortgages so we can be homeowners. Which bank will accept minimum wage + gratuities when considering loans for a basic 1b/1b apartment which nowadays goes for ~300k in any half-decent location?

            16
            • Anonymous says:

              remember 6 $ p h is better than nothing per hour, take it and try to climb up the ladder, and NOT DEPEND on NAU for everything, have proud like the oks Caymanians had..

  12. Anonymous says:

    yawn….its all waffle from all parties. fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
    cayman needs a national development plan that includes real sustainable development towards eastern districts.

    16
    1
  13. Anonymous says:

    The Trust makes many good arguments, however unless the Trust can show how the current crop of kleptocratic politicians and their cronies can grow even richer from what the Trust proposes, the Trust will be ignored.

    We need a new politicians, new stringent anti-corruption laws, and actual enforcement of those stringent anti-corruption laws.

    31
    1
  14. Anonymous says:

    250,000 people is nuts. In fact it’s already more than enough now.

    I’m lucky, I have a couple of options other than Cayman, but for those that don’t, it’s a miserable projection.

    At least we’ll have more realtors and property managers 😑

    33
    1
  15. Anonymous says:

    100,000 people on such a small island is too much as it is and they want to increase the population?

    Our forefathers who were in government and made decisions for this island – to make it what it is today, must be turning over in their graves!

    We have to remove all of these people from this Government and elect people who care about the island. Caymanians, we have to stand and make our voices be heard. Have a protest and make the Government know, ENOUGH is Enough!!

    Don’t these people in this Government and the previous governments have grandchildren, great grandchildren that they should be thinking about? What kind of future will they have – with this island being so overcrowded? Government where are your brains what are you thinking about?

    36
  16. Anonymous says:

    Wouldn’t want anything to happen that might put a damper on the cruise tender business now, would we?

    17
    6
    • Anonymous says:

      but they are as they have commissioned the referendum on a cruise port……

    • That's not very nice says:

      Why would you point out the obvious conflict of interest on the supposedly “good” side of this argument?

      3
      3
  17. Anonymous says:

    The roads are clogged with traffic as it is , along with tourists that can’t drive on the left.
    The supermarkets are clogged with shoppers, elbow to elbow on some days. There is sometimes barely room to move about in the stores without getting run over by a trolley.
    Owen Robert’s airport at peak travel times…standing room only.
    Then you have the physical land of Grand Cayman, now just a permanent condo construction zone with open space dwindling .
    Dredging in North Sound now has the green light for “Go”. Fast forward to 2039.

    44
    1
  18. Kman says:

    Most likely Uncle Dart is the owner and Caymanian investor and he’ll have NCB and a few good old politicians involved in Directors roles. The dock at this point won’t make a difference if it doesn’t involved massive dredging,an EIA is definitely required. But I’m being pragmatic that it won’t be done and the dock will be approved.

    18
    1

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.