Submitted by Looking Glass
That Pickering might not be starting soon because NRDC is unable to attract investors to raise the $1.7bn needed (Arthur: Nation August, 1, 2010) is untrue. The amount cited is loose change for the real owners of NRDC. The reason(s) for seeking an investor, which is not at all unusual, is beyond the comprehension of the economist. Involvement with companies like Cellate is nothing new. Look back at similar projects you facilitated in the last decade or so. Is the pot calling the kettle black? And what about the hospital in St Peter that was sold some years ago (I believe in 2005). Check out how many blacks are on staff and the last time a Blackie was treated there.
First let it be understood that I am not opposed to foreign investment per se, but against projects not in the better interest of the country. Lands at Long Beach, St. George and Brighton acquired by Americans to build homes for Americans and other foreigners can hardly be said to constitute sustainable development. Our most famous soul, recognized by Her Majesty, was denied access to the American owned golf course and nothing was done about it. It is foolish to believe that nig-nig will have access to the homes and or the surroundings.
The Pickering plan did not come off the drawing board overnight. It is a minor version of a massive Ontario project– 450 room hotel, 5000 seat performance venue, movie theatre, residential, office retail centre etc– schedule to begin later this year and be completed in five years which is four years sooner than Pickering.
Related Link
Correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it negotiations with the North American bank to purchase the land began last January. The Bank’s focus was never “on developing the Nestfield site” as suggested (Nation 20/06/2010). The Bank not NRDC purchased the property. The company was created and registered about five months ago, after agreement to purchase the land had been reached. No wonder doubt was said to be disappearing, the economy ‘strengthening and turning around.” (Advocate 4, 27,19).
That NRDC is a “group of Caribbean and United States entrepreneurs” (Nation 5, 25, 10) is falsehood. No Americans were originally involved. It is a trifle misleading to say the project was a private sector initiative by “local and overseas investors.” The original owners of the company are the Bank, two foreigners from up North and a Saudi. The latter, connected to the Lime (Holetown) project, is reported to be interested in building a Dubai style offshore hotel.
One of the two Northern investors, a holder of dual citizenship, has done more and continues to do more for the country than most of you probably will ever do. I have no problem with that person being considered a local. But to state that the owners “had refused to pander to the policy of tribalism that had been encouraged in Barbados,” (Advocate, 20,06,2010) is insulting and requires an explanation. Is this from the PM or the angels of mercy? Either way, if loyalty to ‘tribal values’ is a sin then enticement (golden handshakes) is a virtue most worthy of investigation.
It is unwise to tie development to building ‘cities’ and homes for foreigners. In resource thin countries emphasis is placed on growing food and related products for local consumption and export. Collectively the projects are not value-added and will contribute little to job creation, consumer spending income and sustainable development. The demand for utilities, imports etc will increase and so too the cost to locals. Yes Pickering if completed will complete the transformation of the North, and along with the other projects transform the country socially and culturally and induce social instability. Like Kellman the PM is convinced the region “may get a long overdue airport and cruise terminal.” The second airport will not be located there.
The Merricks project–3 hotel blocks, 8 apartment blocks, 18 plantation houses, 42 one-bedroom cabanas, 500 seat conference room, restaurants, shops and spa village– required Town Planning permission (Nation 10,07, 2009). Pickering was said to be consistent with “agreed planning regulations…and the right of every parish to a share of the international development cake.” (Advocate 20,06,2010). This suggests that the plan was evaluated and approved in its entirety.
It is hard to believe that Town Planning assessed and granted permission to Pickering in just a month or two. If so it says a lot about the department. A few questions:
1) Among other things the business of land sale calls into question Lend Lease. Has this been factored into the land purchase agreement(s)? Do the purchasers now own the land in perpetuity?
2) Was the Pickering (and Lime) project assessed and approved by Town Planning and or ‘evaluated’ by other sources as should normally be the case. And who determined the projected revenue(s).
3) Would the projects intended for Long Beach, Brighton and St. George be approved?
4) I take it the purchase came with conditions attached to the agreement. There is good reason to believe that the Pickering project might not be completed if at all in the stated time period. If so will the company be held liable and penalized for non-completion and or for damage to environment and property etc?
5) Does the Physical Development Plan, the one said to be “consistent with the agreed planning requirements” really exist in written form?
6) Are we going to facilitate hotel building in the sea to accommodate friends?
It appears that smaller parcels of land went for more and or are being offered at prices much higher than Pickering. It would be nice to know the prices were determined, the true cost of the lands, the party and or parties involved and who got what. To him to whom it was promised a golden handshake and Constant P are underway.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.