Sundoc

{certain clown somewhere}

 

Chairman

[Agency]

 

Re: The Pear Tree Bottom Bahia Principe Resort

Dear Sir,

First of all, I wish to commend all those involved in the planning and implementation of the public meeting at the Runaway Bay United Church on April 28, 2005. It was a tremendous feat of organisation to have gathered so many stakeholders and informed individuals from official quarters at such short notice. The quality of information presented was high and the skill of the chairperson in managing the crowd superb.

However, public response was allowed only after about two hours, a tactic reminiscent of stonewalling techniques designed to quell debate rather than foster the democratic process. Such imbalance is indicative of a bias: ‘devilopers’ are favoured, given priority, their needs met, their requests processed with undue haste, while citizens may wait years for responses to their queries, often in vain. One important principle in planning and conservation is the maintenance of balance. Therefore, I suggest next time that equal time be given to the public and the presenters, and responses be permitted directly, not after hours of presentations.

How valid is an environmental impact assessment where so little time was allotted to gathering input from residents of the area (was it half a day, contacting ten people)? Outraged comments from residents suggested some misinformation was included in the report. This is not bad, as an EIA is merely a preliminary document. All the more essential is it for the document to be examined in detail and everyone be given sufficient time to respond. Information is the key to participation in the public debate necessary to safeguard against vested interests in decision-making processes which impact upon the future of all of us. As [Agency] is responsible for ensuring we are involved in developments occurring in our area, and the Access to Information Act requires your agency to now perform in a timely manner, you might []  Much frustration and wasting of time could be prevented this way.

Based on information available, I am most concerned about the impact of construction of such a large hotel complex on the health of the local reef. Sedimentation from construction sites is difficult to control and suffocation of the corals by uncontrolled sedimentation is a serious risk of the proposed development. How will your agency protect the Pear Tree Bottom reef, which, according to [expert] of the Discovery Bay Marine Lab, has very valuable and unique species? The [other hotel] construction site is an abominable garbage heap, with non-decomposable waste lining the streets and no doubt making its way eventually to the sea. How will this be prevented at Pear Tree Bottom?

Many hotels dismiss staff in the off-season and widespread seasonal unemployment is one disadvantage of the tourism sector. Some hotel workers earn less than minimum wage. Underpaid, seasonal work contributes to impoverishment and poverty has environmental consequences. Yet, these jobs are highly acclaimed as a great benefit. Employment involves costs. People who are impoverished and undereducated are handicapped in making decisions regarding long-term costs because they are motivated by short-term survival needs. By promoting this kind of ‘development’, Jamaica increases in poverty, ignorance and violence, not in beauty, fellowship and prosperity. More seasonal low income work will tend to exacerbate social imbalance. Therefore, it is imperative to know what specific compensatory plans the hotel has made for things like employee housing, waste management and community development before construction begins, not after.

Many unwise decisions are made by administrators and I am unconvinced of the integrity and sincerity of some who hold public office. I cannot make specific accusations regarding corruption, but I see evidence of mismanagement. We should not rush into destroying ‘irretrievable’ natural resources for short-term gain. Tourism is an extremely vulnerable (remember 9.11!) industry, so over-dependency on this sector for Jamaica’s development would be foolishly short-sighted. Although the Master Plan for Tourism sounds wonderful, what is being done is inconsistent with that plan. How is a 1900-room all-inclusive foreign-owned hotel ‘community-based’? What are the occupancy rates of the other hotels in Runaway Bay area and the North Coast? On what basis have [somebody] and the tourism authorities decided to expand by 5000 rooms? If community-based, why not develop a bed and breakfast sector utilising the many half-empty villas in Cardiff Hall?  These unanswered questions are relevant for any decision regarding cost vs. benefit of the planned hotel.

It was noted that a wall was already being constructed on the site prior to the public meeting on the environmental impact. Does the onset of construction before final permission is issued not constitute a breach?

The [certain people] group seems environmentally friendly and tourism development is to be welcomed, but is it not the duty of your agency to ensure that the cost-benefit equation of development comes out in favour of our natural resources, especially irretrievable ones?  Why not insist on a smaller, more appropriate development, for instance using bamboo and thatch houses on stilts, which would reduce construction site debris and sedimentation risk for the reef and preserve the unique quality of the last wetlands on our North Coast? This is just one example from a lay-person. The [big hotel] architects appear quite versatile, and surely your agency has experts cognizant of many alternatives for building in and near wet-lands which will impact less on the environment and preserve a unique Jamaican experience for us and the guests who will come to enjoy the beauty we have to share with them.

Ms. [somebody] of the Planning Institute of Jamaica described a study being done to assess natural resources and cumulative impact of development strategies, claiming it will be ‘better late than never’ and that as Jamaicans we will accept this. Well, as a Jamaican, I do not accept it. Money is being paid (wasted?) for this assessment; let us wait on the results of the study before making more decisions which may seriously, irreversibly impact upon the viability of our natural resources. Why doesn’t your agency call a moratorium on development until the study is completed? Then, we can protect the legacy of future generations by using wisely what we have now. It need not be ‘too late’, it can be now!

Please note, I am writing you within the thirty day limit. I hope you will consider my concerns and respond as our laws require you to do. As a clown, I have many ideas for interesting civil protest strategies if you do not act accordingly, but I hope I need not resort to any of them. Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely

 

[a clown]

Cc: [many people].