Submitted by David Comissiong, Citizen of Barbados
SO  FAR as the Hyatt Hotel is concerned, I — David Andre Comissiong – – have no “olive branch” to offer to anyone!
I wish to state for the record that I have never said anything about offering the new Barbados Labour Party (BLP) government any so-called “olive branch” in relation to my case challenging the permission granted by former Prime Minister Freundel Stuart to Mr Mark Maloney’s company to construct a 15 story Hyatt Hotel on beachfront land at Bay Street.
The term “olive branch” — used in relation to the so-called Hyatt Hotel case — is entirely the concoction of the Barbados Today online newspaper: and I would appreciate it if that newspaper would adhere to basic journalistic ethics and refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Let me make my position very clear in relation to the so-called Hyatt Hotel case:-
In March 2017 I filed a Judicial Review application against the then Democratic Labour Party (DLP) Government, in which I requested a Judge of the Supreme Court to review the manner in which Mr Freundel Stuart, the Minister responsible for Town and Country Planning, had processed Mr Mark Maloney’s application for permission to construct a 15 story Hyatt Hotel on the Bay Street beachfront.
I maintained in my Judicial Review application that Mr Stuart had committed a breach of the Law of Barbados by failing to require Maloney’s company to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and that , as a result, the grant of permission to build the hotel should be squashed.
Mr Stuart responded by questioning my right — as a Citizen of Barbados — to bring such a Judicial Review application against  the Government of Barbados.
And when the presiding Judge — Madam Justice Dr. Sonia Richards — ruled in my favour, Mr Stuart appealed to the Court of Appeal against the Judge’s ruling.
This is where the matter stood at the time of the change of government on the 24th of May 2018.
Now that we have a new Government, I have been questioned by the news media as to the fate of the Court case, and I have made my position absolutely clear :-
 
If the new BLP Government wishes to see the back of this Court Case that they have inherited from the previous DLP administration, they would have to do the following things:-
(1) Firstly, they would have to DISCONTINUE the Appeal that was lodged against Dr Richards’ ruling! (This is important because the Judge’s ruling confirmed that we, the Citizens of Barbados, DO have the right to challenge in a Court of Law nationally important decisions and actions of our Government that affect us — not in our personal capacities– but that affect us in our capacities as Citizens of the country.)
(2) Secondly, they would have to CONCEDE that former Prime Minister Freundel Stuart was WRONG in Law when he granted permission to construct a 15 story beachfront hotel without having carried out an EIA ( inclusive of the holding of Town Hall meetings) in respect of the proposed construction project..
(3) Thirdly — and most importantly — they would have to CANCEL the permission that was wrongly granted to Maloney’s company, and would also have to give an undertaking to require the staging of an EIA in the event that Maloney’s company makes a new application to construct the said Hyatt Hotel.
If the new BLP Government is prepared to carry out these actions, then I would have no need to continue the litigation against the Government, and the way would be clear for both sides to negotiate a discontinuance of the litigation.
How any of this can be construed as “offering an olive branch” is really beyond me!
Permit me to also state for the record that I am convinced that once Maloney’s application is subjected to an objective EIA that the findings of the EIA  WILL confirm that the construction of any such 15 story hotel is NOT permissible because:-
(1) It will do tremendous damage to the physical and architectural landscape of Bridgetown;
(2) It will cause Barbados to be stripped of its UNESCO World Heritage Site designation;
(3) It will create massive problems for the Bridgetown and South Coast sewage systems; and
(4) It will impinge severely on the Barbadian people’s access to and enjoyment of one of their most prized and favoured beaches.
In other words, the staging of an objective EIA will disqualify the proposed 15 story Hyatt Hotel.

220 responses to “David Comissiong Has No Olive Branch to Offer on the Hyatt Case!”


  1. David BU and the blp yardfowls /birds were crying bloody murder when Carrington was alledge to have not carried out the court order placed against him to pay Mr.Griffith
    Even after Carrington honoured the court order the voices of theft was lodged against him
    But now there is open allegations levelled against FakeGeorge Walton Payne and his side kick Dale fake AG the voices by the blp yardfowls including David has become muted
    with all sort of excuses to protect the fraudster in charge of running govt affairs
    How low can barbados go when those on charge of prosecuting the corruptors are corrupt themselves


  2. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/28/british-nurse-guilty-of-sex-trafficking-nigerian-women-to-germany

    Piece…we should not be hearing about any black governments in Barbados or anywhere in the Caribbean allowing british citizens to enslave, trafficking or commit any modern day slavery crimes against black people right, not with these new laws in place for UK to lock the up in any country they are accused of these crimes.

    I hope the Mia government knows about this and are staying on top the new laws regarding victimizing the population…… because I know a lot of local and foreign minorities on the island carry british citizenship and can be arrested for believing they can continue the practice of playing slave master…

    “A British nurse has become the first person to be convicted under new modern slavery laws, after being found guilty of trafficking five Nigerian women to Germany to work as prostitutes.

    Josephine Iyamu was prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act involving victims who have no connection to the UK but have been victimised by a British national.”


  3. The possibilities are endless..

    We can now investigate to see which of the crooks who have been abusing the elderly, stealing their land and properties and money…rendering them paupers….and the minority business people who treat black bajans as slaves….are british nationals.

    Just gather all their names and give to the home office to get the info about their british national status through diplomatic channels, problem solved, the days of these slimy, bottom feeding wannabe slave masters in Barbados will be numbered, we can finally wipe their blighted, parasitic and cursed presence off the island’s landscape and out of the lives of bajans.


  4. Mariposa

    You need help. lmao


  5. The trouble with cutting and pasting is that there is no analysis or understanding. Once again it is a black person convicted on a dubious charge – the long reach of UK law. This is not the first time. A book can be written on how juries convict black people on these charges: the first to be convicted under the Race Relations Act; the first to be convicted under the no smoking legislation on the underground; the case that led to restrictions on challenging juries; I can go on. It is picking low hanging fruit. White juries simply convict black people. The police know this.
    The same with the criminal histories of many young black people: first conviction, riding bicycles on the pavement; resisting arrest, when stopped on bogus grounds; etc. The idea is to get that first conviction.
    To mis-interpret this is the idea. The communities notorious for trafficking prostitutes are the Eastern European and Chinese, through nail shops and so-called traditional Chinese massage centres which operate as fronts for prostitution. The same with so-called county line drug dealing.
    It is easy dealing with the supply chain, young unemployed black boys looking for make money; but the demand is what is driving the business – young, white, professional people hooked on drugs. Stop the demand and the supply will go away.
    But if copying and pasting and Googling crap is your game, plse go ahead..


  6. lol..exyardfowl is limited intellect, tunnel visioned and can only focus on one useless topic at a time..lol

    She has no sense of timing at all, now we know who caused the 30-0


  7. Hal…ya missing the point…she got caught in shit she got convicted, her problem.

    The bigger picture here is the actual existence of the law which few would have known about had she not been convicted..

    That act can now be used to rein in and damn well convict those British nationals in Barbados who practice modern day slavery…which by the way is now a long list of crimes…

    Now if I had to choose between believing a Guardian UK story, a world renowned credible newspaper and you….well ya know….Windrush is still world class reporting and still up for a world class award…

    but you?..steuuppps

    trust you, the self proclaimed journalist to miss the whole damn point.


  8. Wuh loss they say Mariposa need help in the meanwhile they are worshipping a govt that have two shisters running the affairs of barbados one a fake solicitor whose certification cannot be found in the UK and another an AG who is alleged to be complict in stolen property.
    Phew


  9. Do not forget a PM who does not have a LEC.


  10. Five videos and on full blast the heat would continue the views and shares on social media would overwhelmed the deafening silence of George Walton Payne and Dale the sidekick Marshall
    David where is all the transparency talk u hoisted on BU.
    I dare you post all the videos that exposed George Walton Payne misdeeds against the old lady
    George Walton Payne there is a bulls eye pointing in your direction
    and not looking good
    David ha ha .hate to see you laying in bed corruptors and trying to cover up the stained mattress


  11. I know the british social engineering is a real thing, but for black people to be still so blind, should be a crime.


  12. David do you not feel somewhat ashamed of self by trying to distract attention from the George Payne issue when there is an old lady looking for justice for the misdeeds which were done against her by two ministers of the crown who know can perform ministerial duties in light of fradulent allegations levelled against them by a poor old lady and her daughter
    David dont you not feel a liittle bit of compassion towards them
    What if these misdeeds were done to your mother
    Would you still be silent and used methods by way of distraction to protect the offenders
    I have dare you more than once to follow up on other videos posted on fb and to repost them om Bu but to no avail
    I hate to belive that all the long talk coming from your mouth about transparency was as fake as George Payne and his side kick Dale AG Marshall


  13. What ac who is screaming without any intelligent plan should do is find out if George Payne and Marshall are british nationals..lol

    look ac…I just threw you a. bone, now stop harassing the Blogmaster and start digging for information…ask their fellow crooked lawyers in the now defunct DLP…as fellow thieves in the legal fraternity, they will know..

    …get advice on how to move forward from there, because I will not tell ya…and stop being a pest and trying to act like the blog should be doing your job for you..

    Ask Michael Lashley..


  14. Instead of asking Lashley i would prefer to ask Mia what advice would she give the two scams in her ministry that are involved in alleged land fraud accusations
    Also doesnt it bother her that those apponitments in the areas to which they have been assigned is too close for comfort to the allegations of which they have been accused and is it not as if the fox is given free acess to guarding the hen house


  15. The two imbeciles can run but cant hide. The campagain of alleged fradulent charges levelled against fake George Payne and fake AG Dale Marshall would keep rolling the shares on the video has doubled
    Soon the campagain would be extended to Public view
    These two scroundels must be held accountable they ran of the foundation of transparency and accountability
    On another note Barbados Today has also questioned Fake George Payne doings as he make an unilteral decision to fire past govt workers without fair an due process when such allegations were levelled against past govt hell broke out with Unions calling out their workers to march
    One can rest assured that no such actions would be called for by the Unions who now is feels comfortable to lay down with lions and be mauled at every oppirtunity
    The measly 5% which the unions have accepted on behalf of their workers is only the beginning to a route of self destruction by the Unions
    In the meanwhile Fake George would flip the script and act as dictator large and In charge of who gets fired without due process while the Unions look the other way with eyes wide shut


  16. Mariposa,

    Barbadian voters had a chance to reject all lawyer/politicians and failed to. They got the political culture they nurtured.

  17. Talking Loud Saying Nothing Avatar
    Talking Loud Saying Nothing

    “The Hyatt Centric resort, a 15-storey hotel earmarked for the Barbadian capital is a go, said the government agency marketing Barbados abroad.”

    It will be opened in 2020!

    https://barbadostoday.bb/2018/10/02/hyatt-in-2020-btmi/


  18. “Proceed at your own risk.” This word of caution to Hyatt developer, Mark Maloney, comes from social activist and Ambassador to CARICOM David Commissiong, who is warning that any plans to construct the 15-storey hotel could very well result in major losses.
    Following the reports surfacing this last week that construction could begin in 2019; Comissiong told Barbados TODAY this morning that he has no intention of backing off from his legal challenge to the planning permission for the US $100-million project, which was filed in 2017.
    The attorney-at-law explained that while there was nothing legally preventing the hotel from being built as permission was granted by then Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, the pending court ruling on whether that permission was lawful, could result in the forced abandonment of the project midway.
    “If the developer starts building then most definitely I will approach the courts to have the matter brought forward because obviously I will not sit back and allow the developer to complete the construction without the case being concluded,” Comissiong stressed.
    Back in March 2017, Comissiong filed for a Judicial Review of the permissions granted by Stuart to Maloney for the construction of the hotel based on a perceived failure by Maloney to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) at the construction site.(Quote)

    Is Ambassador Commissiong on a collision path with the government? Could Hyatt be the cause of a split in the Mottley government? Is the proposed Hyatt building part of the Corridor of Hotels, or is that in addition? Has government pinpointed the spots for the 12 proposed hotels? Has it got planning application already or is it now going to sell planning approval? We need clarity from this the most autocratic and secretive government in recent memory.


  19. What split in the Mottley government are you referring?


  20. KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
    268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.
    Syllabus

    Opinion
    [ Stevens ]
    Concurrence
    [ Kennedy ]
    Dissent
    [ O’Connor ]
    Dissent
    [ Thomas ]
    HTML version
    PDF version
    HTML version
    PDF version
    HTML version
    PDF version
    HTML version
    PDF version
    HTML version
    PDF version

    Syllabus
    NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
    The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
    See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT

    No. 04—108.Argued February 22, 2005–Decided June 23, 2005

    After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings.
    Held: The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 6—20.
    (a) Though the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6—13.
    (b) The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan’s comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court’s review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.
    (c) Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U.S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a “reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U.S., at 26. Pp. 13—20.
    268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.
    Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading