Submitted by LegalEagle
Let us strip away the politics and emotion from this transaction, instead we must focus and discuss the facts.
David I have been following the Savvy issue from its onset. I have read the documents supplied by Ms Sarah Taylor, which in my view need to be discussed in simple terms and without prejudice. The public needs to understand the facts of the issue and dismiss red herrings that may be floated by parties.
First let us start with what was bought by Mr Kinch for the $4 million Barbados dollars. Listed below are the lot sizes taken from the conveyances provided by Ms Taylor (1 sq m equals m2)
Lot A 4873.9 m2
Lot B 5254.9 m2
Lot C 1749.2 m2
Total 11878 m2
Keep in mind 1 sq m (m2) is 10.764 sq feet therefore the total area made up by the 3 lots translates to 127,854.79 sq feet. Hence with a purchase price of BBD$4 million, Mr Kinch was paid $31.28 a square foot plus legal fees. Those are the facts and I have attached the 3 signature pages of the signed conveyances to confirm the numbers. These were based on the surveys done by Mr. Ken Ward and accepted by the board of Barbados Tourism Investment Inc (BTII) to which the directors in seat signed off.
For those not familiar with conveyances for land, these would also include the buildings on the said lots. As a result the BBD$4 million included the eye hospital and the building south of it. These buildings would have a floor area of around 410 square meters, so even if you valued them at $250 a sq ft, below would be the building value.
Building 410 sq meters to sq ft = 4413.24 sq ft x $250.00 a sq ft would give the buildings a value of $1,103,310.00 approximately.
In summary Mr Kinch paid $4 million for 127,854.79 sq ft of beach front land which breaks down to $31.28 a square foot, while getting buildings worth approximately $1,103,310.00.
Is there a good argument for deal above to be the basis of any future purchases by the state, bearing in mind what was paid by the buyer? Added to this must be additional cost to Mr Kinch, for example interest bank cost an other expenses borne for the period of ownership. Cost however for amounts spent by him to develop the area being acquired cannot be billed to the state, as these would have been done without planning approval and hence would be deemed as illegal development by the state not fit for purchase.
Let us strip away the politics and emotion from this transaction, instead we must focus and discuss the facts. Ms Taylor has supplied a considerable amount of information that needs to be broken down and discussed sensibly.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.