Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Miss Ram and Karma Meet

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

The issue is, how can the Court decide, there is NO SERIOUS ISSUE to be heard? The government only comes into play because they were the acquirers, and a politician, Dale Marshall, spoke to the matter. When this story broke in March, I fully expected a court challenge. The news it has been declined is beyond belief. It is one thing to hear the case and have a result, another entirely to find “no serious issue to be tried”.

Northern Observer

It is fair to disclose our hand on the subject of Miss Ram. The way she has done business in Barbados over the years does not recommend her to this blogmaster. She has generously donated to both major political parties i.e. BLP and DLP. Her training as a lawyer allowed her to grease the system for the benefit of all.

However it will not prevent the BU household from creating blog space to invite opinions on the matter at hand. Government has moved full steam ahead to acquire the property known as Liquidation Centre owned by Ms Ram on Lower Bay Street to facilitate the construction of the Hyatt Hotel.

For years she has operated businesses in Barbados with questionable working working conditions. Hundreds of words can be posted about Furniture Limited. There is an instant in 2012 it failed a health inspection and was forced to suspend operations.

For years Ms Ram was allowed by authorities to operate a hardware cum retail Store on Lower Broad Street. It was a common sight to observe forklifts, 10 wheelers and other heavy duty vehicles loading and offloading items to support the business. The fact that it was an inconvenience to pedestrians and vehicular traffic in the area seemed inconsequential.

The preamble notwithstanding it is important government treats with citizens fairly. The issue at hand is that government and Ms Ram have been unable to reach an agreement on a price for the property where the Liquidation Centre is located. The inability of the parties to reach agreement has prevented the mobilization of the Hyatt project. She sought injunctive relief from the High Court last weekend and to quote a local press report:

In response, the owners sought injunctive relief through the High Court, which dismissed the application on the basis that there was no serious issue to be tried. The company then sought a stay of execution, which the court also rejected.

Some are arguing that government has no bone in the fight between Ms Ram and the Hyatt developer. The Land Acquisition Act  Section 5 (1) 3 is very clear:

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the acquisitions of lands for public purposes by private treaty.

However the other side to the debate is that the Lower Bay Street area has been included in government’s redevelopment plan and others businesses previously located on the strip north of the Liquidation Centre have vacated.

As it stands the police and government have taken control of the property. The country waits to see if the warehouse will be razed or whether Ms Ram will do what she has been adept at through then years; litigation.

#karma

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

266 responses to “Miss Ram and Karma Meet”

  1. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Hal
    But that’s not what the 1949 Land Acquisition Act says. It’s what YOU think, but it isn’t the law. If you are going to talk about the rule of law, you might begin by reading the law.

  2. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    Lawd fadda. Only few days ago I said that the biggest talkers on BU often don’t know what them talking bout. Ah lie?

  3. Hal Austin Avatar
    Hal Austin

    @PLT

    What is the legal or philosophical interpretation of public purpose? For an interpretation, do not only go to case law, but to the intention of parliament (or in the case the Executive Council). Read Hansard for the intentions of parliament. Case law may win you a case, but it does not make it morally right. The rule of law is not based on case law (that is incidental), but on the principles of our democracy.
    I am surprised you are depending on 70 yr old colonial legislation to reinforce your argument. Is this a failure of over 50 yrs of independent law-making?

  4. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    Here begins the veiled capitulation, with the shifting. The usual MO. Now we’re on to what’s morally right; but I would stay far from going down the morality road when Mrs.Ram is the subject. Murdaaaa 🤣🤣🤣

  5. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    Here begins the capitulation, with the shifting. The usual MO. Now we’re on to what’s morally right; but I would stay far from going down the morality road when Mrs.Ram is the subject. Murdaaaa 🤣🤣🤣

  6. David Avatar
    David

    The man hates to be proved wrong.

  7. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Hal
    Philosophy does come into it. The law is the law. We are not discussing justice, we are discussing law.
    “3. (1) Whenever it appears to the Minister that any land is likely to be required for any purposes for which the Crown is authorised by any Act to acquire land or for any purposes which, in the opinion of the Minister, are public purposes…”
    There is zero ambiguity. If the Crown is authorised by ANY Act and it APPEARS to the Minister that the land is LIKELY to be required for ANY purposes… then the Minister may acquire the land. Public purpose does not have to enter into it at all. The second clause that deals with public purpose does not define same and leaves its determination entirely up to “the opinion of the Minister.”

    I think the Act is utterly ridiculous in the breadth of power it gives the Minister, but this was par for the course under the Colonial regime. Ridiculous or not, it is the law.

  8. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    Of course the fact that we are governed by 70 yr old colonial legislation Is this a failure of over 50 yrs of independent law-making… but we are governed by the rule of law. Justice be damned.

  9. Wily Coyote Avatar
    Wily Coyote

    Wily has only ONE QUESTION — why is government expropriating(compulsory acquiring) land for a PRIVATE DEVELOPER. Having a private developer build a hotel does not fall into the category of NATION INTEREST. May fall into the HELP ME LINE MY POLITICAL POCKETS at the expense of TAXPAYERS though.

    FOOD FOR THOUGHT

  10. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @PLT
    I accept now, the law gives the Minister such powers. Scary as they might be. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

    It means that every decision boils down to social context? If the owner is liked, all is good. If not, watch out. The comparative value of other transactions is really irrelevant. Once an area is designated by Government, your land is basically worth less than any market value, because you better beware they may seize it at whatever they consider a fair price. And everybody else knows this.

    AS an aside. Is the GoB selling or leasing this land to Hyatt developers? Or is this the Cuban model, where the Government owns the land, and allows you to use it, one you pay to build and commit to a certain specific use?

  11. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    One for the ages…..PM of Canada creates a new Ministry of….drum roll…..Middle Class Prosperity.
    Cannot wait to see actual areas of responsibility.

  12. GP Avatar
    GP

    re Only few days ago I said that the biggest talkers on BU often don’t know what them talking bout. Ah lie?

    THESE FOLK ARE BRIMBLERS

    I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT ON BU FOR YEARS! AND I AM HATED FOR SO SAYING Ah lie?

  13. Sargeant Avatar
    Sargeant

    @NO

    Well he didn’t name a Minister of Loneliness as the Brits have done…..

  14. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    PTL NEEDS to reference the Constitution and read where the rights of govt might supersede the rights of an individual in reference to eminent domain
    He like Mottley resorts to policies of smoke and mirrors
    Ptl for instance no private citizen can go into that building when completed on official govt business
    pTL your comments are misleading and half truths
    You ought to be ashamed of self.
    I would send u a link to prove u are wrong

  15. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    Taken from an article. History of eminent domain

    Eminent domain has been utilized traditionally to facilitate transportation, supply water, construct public buildings, and aid in defense readiness. Early federal cases condemned property for construction of public buildings (e.g., Kohl v. United States) and aqueducts to provide cities with drinking water (e.g., United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Company, 112 U.S. 645 (1884), supplying water to Washington, D.C.), for maintenance of navigable waters (e.g., United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913), acquiring land north of St. Mary’s Falls canal in Michigan), and for the production of war materials (e.g. Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341 (1903)). The Land Acquisition Section and its earlier iterations represented the United States in these cases, thereby playing a central role in early United States infrastructure projects.

    Condemnation cases like that against the Gettysburg Railroad Company exemplify another use for eminent domain: establishing parks and setting aside open space for future generations, preserving places of historic interest and remarkable natural beauty, and protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Some of the earliest federal government acquisitions for parkland were made at the end of the nineteenth century and remain among the most beloved and well-used of American parks. In Washington, D.C., Congress authorized the creation of a park along Rock Creek in 1890 for the enjoyment of the capitol city’s residents and visitors. The Department of Justice became involved when a number of landowners from whom property was to be acquired disputed the constitutionality of the condemnation. In Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 (1893), the Supreme Court affirmed the actions of Congress

  16. WURA-WAR-on-U Avatar
    WURA-WAR-on-U

    Wuhloss…Ram from the Darkest Hole in Calcutta….with her one-eyed crocodile tears.

    https://www.facebook.com/jackie.stewart.965/videos/1172021829674021/?t=0

  17. WURA-War-on-U Avatar
    WURA-War-on-U

    And this is why MINORITY CROOKS in Barbados can never be trusted, they are all in bed together. ..them and sell out governments.

    https://www.facebook.com/100005986451739/posts/1172003389675865/

  18. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @enuff
    my apologies, on my phone, I occasionally miss a post as I did yours.
    “Urban regeneration is a public exercise that serves a public purpose and delivers public benefits.”
    True. At least in theory. Urban renewal, is different from regeneration.
    A Government is expected to set the planning and development guidelines, and to designate areas where they intend certain uses to dominate.
    I imagine there is no project nor method which is beyond the broad interpretation of public purpose and public benefit?
    If other bloggers are accurate, and, the developers currently own no land, and the government already owned properties adjacent to Mrs Ram, it may “appear” they were other lands which could be used?
    In any case I await to see how the land is sold/leased, if the GoB re-enters the hotel market and how, and how many other properties they acquire. This clearly sends a message to all landowners in a “designated area” that land value is based upon whatever value the GoB’s expropriation value will be.

  19. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Mariposa
    Nonsense as usual. American law and precedents do not apply in Barbados until AFTER Trump invades.
    Please go and read the constitution then point out to us where the 1949 Land Acquisition Act will be found to be unconstitutional. I’ll wait.
    I would actually love to be proven wrong about this because I think the 1949 Land Acquisition Act is dangerous over-reach… but it’s the law.

  20. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @Sarge
    lol…loneliness was a remit of the Ministry, not the title of. What do you think are the remits of “Middle Class Proserity” are? Taxation? Wages/Salary? The PM already has defined MIDDLE as not being the top 1%. I think the new Minister of MCP is in charge of all but the top 1% of income earners?

  21. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    Boss man that area IS designated for hotel and tourism oriented development, not warehouse retail and certainly not an old musty building. Urban renewal and urban regeneration is the same thing. When the Dems were pushing the Hyatt I talked about land consolidation i.e land assembly to deliver a better scheme.

    Look what obtains in Hal Austin’s neck of the woods. Note land assembly and urban regeneration is large off as a benefit.

    “A CPO is a forced sale of a property to the Council, authorised by the Secretary of State. CPOs are an important tool for local authorities to use as a means of assembling the land needed to help deliver social and economic change. Used properly, they can contribute towards an effective urban regeneration and revitalisation of communities.”

  22. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @ Mariposa
    Here is the part from the Barbados Constitution that you are looking for:
    “16. (1) No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken
    possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any description
    shall be compulsorily acquired, except by or under the authority
    of a written law, and where provision applying to that acquisition or
    taking of possession is made by a written law…”

    The written law is the 1949 Land Acquisition Act.

  23. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    PTL don’t u try blowing smoke in my face
    The long and short being govt does not have a Constitutional right to use eminent domain as privilege to buy land or property and tranfer said parcel into the hands of private developer
    It is taxpayers money used to ourchase the property and therefore the transfer is deemed illegal
    It is wrong !wrong! and illegal
    Only a political parasite would go along with such illegality

  24. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Mariposa
    If you want to argue that something is illegal you need to read the actual law… it isn’t illegal because it makes you feel bad.

  25. John A Avatar
    John A

    As usual many here are concerned more with racism and dislike for the party than precident. Let me try and help you out that dark hole so lets now consider the below scenario.

    Mrs Brathwaite a 80 year old black Barbadian lady owns a small chattel house on a west coast beach that has been in her family for over 100 years. Her grandfather paid £20 for it back then.

    A large hotel wants to build to her South and they want to buy the land, but old Mrs Braithwaite has grandchildren that love spending time at the beach. The hotel investors then go to government and say “now listen here we got $500M to invest and this foolish old black woman in we way, so you all deal with it.”

    Government then uses compulsory acquisition to force Mrs Braithwaite off her land at what price they deem fair. She is told ” left by month end nobody ain’t entertaining you no more.” Government then proceeds to sell the land to the investors thereby acting as a property broker.

    You mean to tell me some of wunna so blasted foolish and blinded by yardfowlism that you don’t see a serious precident being set here?

    I hope neither of you all fowls don’t have a granny with a desirable piece of land, because today it is Mrs Ram but tomorrow it could be Granny Fowl!

  26. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    ,JohnA
    Your comment makes no sense because the two scenarios are not the same

    PLT
    Thanks!! The jackass talking about US law–eminent domain–when the land acquisition act is the reference point. But here is a query, if government shouldn’t acquire land to facilitate a private developer building a Hyatt, why should government be allowed to sell public land for a private developer to build a Hyatt?

  27. David Avatar
    David

    What was the land arrangement at Coverley?

  28. WURA-WAR-on-U Avatar
    WURA-WAR-on-U

    BLACK Bajans have to be educated to the fact that unless they STOP THESE SPITEFUL NASTY GOVERNMENTS FROM TAKING UP THEIR PROPERTIES…it will continue…

    EDUCATION = when you purchase a property YOU REGISTER IT OFFSHORE…create a company and set up your porperties in that company….it is done in Caymans, Bermuda, Turks & Caicos and a few other jurisdictions…ask all the crooked thiefing ministers and lawyers…that is where they put what they tief…

    it is understandable that the elderly victims of both governments would not have known this and NO ONE WOULD HAVE TOLD THEM…so naturally they all got robbed.

    but now everyone knows how to sidestep government theft of properties..

    BTW the criminal Ram got nothing stolen from her, she is holding out for more millions for the property….that is all…they should take everything from her and only pay her for one.

  29. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @JohnA
    you forget to mention the area in which the Brathwaite’s property was located, had been designated as a “special use area”. This is the key to making your comparison.

  30. John A Avatar
    John A

    Enuf you are even a bigger yard fowl than I thought previously if you can see the precident being set!

  31. John A Avatar
    John A

    @ Northern

    So true and as The act of compulsory acquisition covers the entire island under the 1949 law, then an area of ” special use ” is where ever I say it is!

    All hail Hitler!

  32. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    Ptl. Do not have a dog in this issue outside when govt by pass Constitutional law at taxpayers expense to pave the way for private entities
    Now u might think that is ok.but then again it is not what u think but what the Constitution deems is right

  33. John A Avatar
    John A

    @ Northern.

    I hope when this same approach is used on the west coast to take beach front property from small black Barbadians to satisfy the foreign investors, all are satisfied. Before those that know no better start to say that black bajans don’t own west coast beach front land, take a drive down the west coast and check it first. Now how did small black bajans come to own beach front west coast land to begin with?

    Well in 1940 beach front land on the west coast or what was ” the crab land cross the road”, was selling at 6 cents a square foot, dead serious! You see the white planters who owned the estates deemed this land worthless as it couldn’t grow cane. In fact a piece of beach front land then was some of the cheapest available. A piece of land for instance in ” the sugar belt” would have been several times more expensive then. So black bajans like Granny Fowl and Mrs Braithwaite had parents who bought this land, not because it was beach front, but because this “crab land” was some of the cheapest on the island!

    So when wunna start with the Indian woman don’t complain when the next victim might be a black bajan second generation beach front owning granny, whose father paid 6 cents a square ft in 1940 for the land their family chattel home sat on!

    All that still want to argue all is well with this move, I hope all wunna family land in st George and st Thomas. Although a few years back a politician did offer the people in st George a beach in front Gun Hill and a fishing village with a pier! LOL

  34. David Avatar
    David

    https://barbadosunderground.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/ram-pm.mp4

  35. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    It’s important to remember that the 1949 Land Acquisition Act predates the constitution by 15 years. It was used extensively to acquire and pay for several plantations and other large tracts of land which were vested in the Housing Authority and later the National Housing Corporation for development and sale in lots to low and middle-income earners at lending rates substantially below the market. There was a 1999 case in which Parsons Pest Control successfully challenged Government’s compulsory acquisition of 17 acres of land. However, when Michael Lashley was a minister in the last government he made the case that the Act was out of date and favoured the Crown too strongly, but they never sat down to write replacement legislation.

  36. David Avatar
    David

    For those interesting in reading the Land Acquisition Act to plug the hot air from escaping from the nether regions.

    https://barbadosunderground.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/land-aquisition-actpdf.pdf

  37. Miller Avatar
    Miller

    @ Enuff November 20, 2019 5:34 PM
    “Boss man that area IS designated for hotel and tourism oriented development, not warehouse retail and certainly not an old musty building. Urban renewal and urban regeneration is the same thing. When the Dems were pushing the Hyatt I talked about land consolidation i.e land assembly to deliver a better scheme.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Now “enuff” of those urban planning technicalities!

    Even though the unfinished hotel site next to the KFC on Hastings would make for a better appeal to the Hyatt-type clientele than the proposed one on the perimeter ring of a dirty rundown dying Bridgetown.

    Of course only those stupid conservative Bajans would try to oppose the construction of any modern-looking hotel which is being promoted to bring hundreds of millions in foreign exchange with the creation of hundreds of ‘real’ jobs ‘designed’ to stimulate bustling commercial activity and to attract all the CSME whores to the Bay Street arena to rekindle the halcyon days of Harry’s Nitery.

    So let us get to the juicy meat of this long-standing matter of a promised erection.

    Why can’t the Maloney fella put an end to this controversy and show Bajans the money needed to build his Hyatt Centric now Ziva USD $175 Million dream of a Bay View lighthouse of God?

    Please Mr. MM, tell us the source of the financing of your dream world Ziva project.

    That should put a final lid on the boiling mouth of Mrs. Ram & Co.

    Would the settlement of this ‘forced’ land acquisition be made from the taxpayers’ hard up kitty or would the land be immediately sold on to the Hyatt Ziva project with the lawyers taking their cut?

    At least she would not have to wait for over 20 years like other Bajans for the proceeds from the compulsory acquisition of their properties.

  38. John A Avatar
    John A

    @PLT

    Don’t get me wrong I am not challenging the 1949 Act. Yes it is law and hence is applicable. My concern like Michael Lashley’s, is that it could be misused and in fact work in the exact opposite of the purpose for which it was created.

    Further complicating the issue is that it appears the government is now using a 70 year old unrevised law to act as a property broker.

    I can’t but wonder who will be the next victim of this approach.

  39. David Avatar
    David

    STATEMENT ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LIQUIDATION CENTRE PROPERTY OWNED BY RAM MERCHANDANI

    The Democratic Labour Party has watched with alarm as one of the icons in merchandising in Barbados is being summarily stripped of her property and business.

    Mrs. Ram has serviced the working-class sector of Barbados and has been a fixture of the local retail sector for half a century and should be celebrated for her contributions over the years. In fact former Barbados Prime Minister, the late David Thompson, is one of hundreds who acquired a vacation job at one of her businesses during their school careers.

    The action of forcing her out before Christmas affects not only her but also the members of staff who suddenly find themselves on the breadline compliments of the Government of Barbados.

    It is the DLP’s understanding that the Merchandani property is being acquired to make room for the Hyatt Hotel.
    But this is a private sector enterprise, and the Democratic Labour Party is at a loss as to how this Government has continually used the force of law and tax payers money to push the agenda of private developers in this matter.

    This Mottley Administration must come clean and live up to its promise of transparency and tell the people of Barbados what is the public purpose here.

    A town hall meeting is called for today, Tuesday by the Hyatt developers and we would wish to know if the environmental impact assessment which was one of the so-called impediments to construction under a DLP administration, has been completed?

    We would wish the Government to tell the country why the Government is bullying a businesswoman out of her business and putting Barbadians on the breadline at Christmas on behalf of a private project.

    It is to be noted that Mrs. Ram did not refuse to move. An extension into the Christmas season was requested. Had they the company required a further extension following the holidays such actions as we are witnessing now could be understood.

    This is a stunningly high-handed and uncaring move which is becoming characteristic of this government.

    The Barbados Labour Party (BLP) marketed itself as caring but at every turn has been disappointing the electorate which placed such overwhelming confidence in them.

    It is becoming increasingly apparent to many Barbadians that this BLP Government cares only for a small sector of the society in which we all must survive.

    Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, close-up
  40. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    What beautiful picture no doubt she is 100% of the female gender

  41. SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife Avatar
    SirSimpleSimonPresidentForLife

    @John ANovember 20, 2019 6:49 PM “Well in 1940 beach front land on the west coast or what was ” the crab land cross the road”, was selling at 6 cents a square foot,”

    Well land values go up and go down. I was told that my father’s grandmother (born in the 1850’s) owned land at Gibbes Beach, and that she operated a bakery there.

    6 cents a square foot then.

    With global warming and sea level rise it will be 6 cents a square foot again by the time my great grand chidren are adults.

  42. Enuff Avatar
    Enuff

    JohnA
    Stuupse! Talking shyte, therefore resort to yardfowl. Nothing new. You’re missing the fundamental argument that’s driving the acquisition. Most laws if abused would result in unfair treatment to an individual(s). Weak argument! The point is that there is public purpose here underpinned by what appears to be a comprehensive approach to addressing Bridgetown.

    Miller
    What’s with the rambling? What does the word regeneration portray? That’s why in an earlier post I mentioned the word catalyst. Regeneration has to start somewhere. I don’t get your pints. You need to avail yourself of government’s plans. It is not just Hyatt!!

  43. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    What Hyatt
    Well keep waiting what Hyatt
    How come all of a sudden Hyatt named is used within govt utterances for more land space
    Right now i am looking at Ghana nurses and housing space
    Would not be surprise if the land would be use for condiminum to house Ghana nurses

  44. Piece the Legend Avatar
    Piece the Legend

    @ the Sage Annunaki

    They have finessed the money through a consortium of whom a well known person is part.

    Heheheheh

    But I ent tell you nuffin

  45. Piece the Legend Avatar
    Piece the Legend

    @ the Honourable Blogmaster your assistance please with an item here for the Sage Annunaki thank you

  46. Donna Avatar
    Donna

    Losing a job at Ms. Ram is the equivalent of emancipation. I encourage the former workers to look inside themselves and dream bigger. Then set out to make it happen. They deserve better and can do better.

  47. Mariposa Avatar
    Mariposa

    It is easy for u to advice people who have lost a job on how they should be happy
    One can easily bet that your pantry has food and your bills are paid
    Sometimes it makes for wonder how people can soeak on behalf of those whose shoes they have never walked in
    Those people made a statement because they are looking at a siruation where they might not be able to meet their obligations for who knows how long
    But here comes another long neck goose telling these out of job workers they should be happy

    ######jesus

  48. NorthernObserver Avatar
    NorthernObserver

    @JohnA
    Don’t fret yourself. While this could create problems down the road, nobody cares.
    Projects like Four Seasons, Harlequin, maybe Sam Lords, the skeleton at Caribee, the one across from the Rocks, these are some of the challenges. FDI wants to know “what happened”.
    If B’dos can get additional groups to invest, all the power to them and, Irish You Well.
    While some may argue tourism is not a solution to create social or economic change, it can help and is a path of least resistance.
    We still have Blue Horizon, other Gems properties, plus a group of currently non-operating, but once vibrant hotel properties.
    The locations are there, the owner\operators harder to find.
    Unlike some, maybe even you, I give the PM a better than average score. That doesn’t mean one must agree with everything.

  49. WURA-WAR-on-U Avatar
    WURA-WAR-on-U

    Miller.. i have always known that Ziva is a jewish name so Hyatt Ziva is likely connected to some unsavoury, as usual investor, more than likely from Israel or some other country with jewish claim..

    Bajans more than ever have to be very vigilant since neither governemnt nor crook Maloney are saying who is running that side show in secret..it’s long time the jews out of IsNOTrael were trying to get into Barbados through the unsavory Altman to spread their filthy RACIST poison and ya done know the house negros looking for bribes will never stop them….so just keep watching in case this is the long CON they were all working on for decades..

    “Where is the name Ziva from?
    Name: Ziva. Gender: Female. Usage: Ziva, of hebrew origin, is not a popular first name. It is more often used as a girl (female) name. People having the name Ziva are in general originating from Czech Republic, Israel, Slovenia.”

  50. David Avatar
    David

    What is brand differentiation?

    https://nohomejustroam.com/what-are-the-hyatt-brands/

    #stuespe

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