Tweet
Development at what price?
Monday, January 22, 2007
There's no denying the fact that Jamaica needs more investment - both local and foreign - to increase the vibrancy of the economy. For job creation is one of the major planks in any serious attempt to effectively counter the crime and violence gripping the country.
We, therefore, welcome investments in any sector of the economy, once the investors conform to our laws and are sensitive to the concerns of Jamaicans living and working in the communities in which they choose to establish their businesses.
It is for these reasons that we are gravely concerned about the reported design error of the RIU hotel planned for Mahoe Bay in Montego Bay.
Yesterday, our sister publication, the Sunday Observer, reported that Jamaica's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has warned the Spanish RIU group that its proposed six-storey design for the hotel will put the building in the flight path of the Sangster International Airport.
Hotels in that area, the CAA explained, are not allowed to build above three storeys because of the close proximity of the Sangster Airport.
According to a CAA representative attending last Friday's public presentation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed hotel, the error was made because his agency was not consulted during the project's design phase.
We have no reason to doubt the CAA's claim, and if it were not true, the RIU group had sufficient representation at the meeting to say so.
That the claim was not challenged, as far as we are aware, leads us to ask why the CAA, which has regulatory authority over civil aviation safety here, was not included in the discussions?
It may have been an oversight. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the local authorities, eager to ensure the investment, deliberately ignored the necessary checks and balances.
Whatever the reason, the fact is that it has created an unnecessary hassle for the investors and suggests that the St James Parish Council was less than thorough in its responsibilities on this matter.
We note as well the concerns of Jamaica Environment Trust founder and chief executive officer, Ms Diana McCaulay, who basically pointed out the hollowness of Friday's meeting.
For according to Ms McCaulay, what's the point of having a public presentation of the EIA when the developers have already started clearing the land and have been granted a beach licence to dredge the property?
It seems to us that these complaints, added to other environmental concerns, as well as the claim by the Rose Hall Community Development Committee that the land was set aside as community property and that there were discrepancies with the transfer of the property, will haunt this project.
Environmental concerns were raised before in relation to other hotel projects, but they were largely ignored. We need to be very careful that we are not paying too high a price for development.
Talk Back
No comments have been
Monday, January 22, 2007
There's no denying the fact that Jamaica needs more investment - both local and foreign - to increase the vibrancy of the economy. For job creation is one of the major planks in any serious attempt to effectively counter the crime and violence gripping the country.
We, therefore, welcome investments in any sector of the economy, once the investors conform to our laws and are sensitive to the concerns of Jamaicans living and working in the communities in which they choose to establish their businesses.
It is for these reasons that we are gravely concerned about the reported design error of the RIU hotel planned for Mahoe Bay in Montego Bay.
Yesterday, our sister publication, the Sunday Observer, reported that Jamaica's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has warned the Spanish RIU group that its proposed six-storey design for the hotel will put the building in the flight path of the Sangster International Airport.
Hotels in that area, the CAA explained, are not allowed to build above three storeys because of the close proximity of the Sangster Airport.
According to a CAA representative attending last Friday's public presentation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed hotel, the error was made because his agency was not consulted during the project's design phase.
We have no reason to doubt the CAA's claim, and if it were not true, the RIU group had sufficient representation at the meeting to say so.
That the claim was not challenged, as far as we are aware, leads us to ask why the CAA, which has regulatory authority over civil aviation safety here, was not included in the discussions?
It may have been an oversight. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the local authorities, eager to ensure the investment, deliberately ignored the necessary checks and balances.
Whatever the reason, the fact is that it has created an unnecessary hassle for the investors and suggests that the St James Parish Council was less than thorough in its responsibilities on this matter.
We note as well the concerns of Jamaica Environment Trust founder and chief executive officer, Ms Diana McCaulay, who basically pointed out the hollowness of Friday's meeting.
For according to Ms McCaulay, what's the point of having a public presentation of the EIA when the developers have already started clearing the land and have been granted a beach licence to dredge the property?
It seems to us that these complaints, added to other environmental concerns, as well as the claim by the Rose Hall Community Development Committee that the land was set aside as community property and that there were discrepancies with the transfer of the property, will haunt this project.
Environmental concerns were raised before in relation to other hotel projects, but they were largely ignored. We need to be very careful that we are not paying too high a price for development.
Talk Back
No comments have been
Comment