Scandals Whitehouse

[RichD]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

Originally posted by evanovitch:
[qb]

Originally posted by RichD:
[qb] so you think that the US$700 Million is a valid figure?


[/qb]

no...i don't think it is valid....but am leery re the collaboration of parties that seem to be racking up some serious losses at tax payers' expense....

am troubled by the fact that that figure was cited with no correction so far even though an article today dealt with reaction to counterclaim of where blame lays....

guess 'if a no so, a near so' is in me mind [/qb]

is the sandals lost revenue at tax payers expense?

[evanovitch]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

well UDC is a partner in this venture and with all the blame that is being tossed about, it would seem that it is being intimated that blame lies on squarely not on the chain's side...sooooooooooooooo and if one is to take AirJ as an example, and if nothing else, we r creatures of habit back in the homeland when it comes to certain bizniz decisions, welllllllll......

i have mentioned how jaded i have become [img]/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[RichD]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

what is lost in all of this seems to be an explanation on why the projet had a $US30 Million cost overrun ..now that is at the taxpayers expense.
(from what they are saying Sandals put up only about US$10 Million for this project)

[evanovitch]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

well i read something about the name of the project...and i am still trying to figure out what naming the project has to do wid any delays in construction....i admit that i am too long from the daily runnings of yaad to make sense of the changes in wat now passes for standard operations or the components of said, yaad style. but that one has me floored...

an yet again i want to know why tax payer money being used as is, when problems were cropping up elsewhere in 'a' portfolio....

once i heard a phrase along the line of trowing good money afta bad, used of course in no way re anyting to do wid dis [img]/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] but it came to mind as i read the goings on

[RichD]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

Originally posted by evanovitch:
[qb]
an yet again i want to know why tax payer money being used as is, when problems were cropping up elsewhere in 'a' portfolio....

[/qb]

expalin that one to me...

[evanovitch]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

Originally posted by RichD:
[qb]

Originally posted by evanovitch:
[qb]
an yet again i want to know why tax payer money being used as is, when problems were cropping up elsewhere in 'a' portfolio....

[/qb]

expalin that one to me... [/qb]

well, if u know u know.... if u don't know, then u not in the know about wat to know about the know [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ...it is the know that is there to know if u choose to know the know that is out there to know...
[img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] pollen getting to me

[RichD]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

criptic

[evanovitch]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

Originally posted by RichD:
[qb] criptic [/qb]

honey, once bitten , twice shy

den u ha gun shy

an u ha dem whe no shy fi cawl, email, write go seh u a seh bout whe fi seh bout di sehing an mi no eena dat no more....

all discussion is good in the abstract...

[evanovitch]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

'Whitehouse clean' - No corruption at hotel project, says PM - Taxpayers won't bear cost overruns
published: Wednesday | May 18, 2005

Robert Hart, Parliamentary Reporter

PRIME MINISTER P.J. Patterson yesterday declared there was no corruption at the controversial Sandals Whitehouse Project in Westmoreland and that taxpayers would not be burdened with the immense cost overruns on the multimillion-dollar venture.

The Prime Minister, responding to questions tabled by Opposition Leader Bruce Golding last week, told Parliament that Government would not be writing off the project's massive US$33 million overruns, noting that the equity partners would have to find their own solution.

JOINT VENTURE RESPONSIBILITY

"We believe that in this case, the joint venture has acted responsibly," Mr. Patterson told the House of Representatives as both the Opposition Leader and the shadow spokesman on finance Audley Shaw posed further questions.

He added, however: "Any problems or concerns that have arisen as a result of the variations which have been ordered are matters which have to be addressed by the board of Ackendown Newtown, but it will not be at a cost to the taxpayer."

Ackendown Newtown is the joint venture company formed by Government entities, the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ), and the Gordon 'Butch' Stewart-owned Gorstew Ltd., to run the construction of the hotel.

ADDITIONAL COSTS

The NIBJ and UDC share a 70 per cent stake in the hotel project that has moved from an initially estimated US$73 million cost to US$106 million. According to the Prime Minister, US$96 million has been spent on the project to date.

Mr. Patterson said the additional costs, to date, have been met by the shareholders' advances from the NIBJ and UDC, but that the bearing of the final costs will be a matter for the shareholders to agree on and settle.

In responding to Mr. Golding's queries, which were not due to be answered for another two weeks, the Prime Minister revealed that the contractors and suppliers on the multimillion-dollar hotel project were not subject to evaluation by the National Contracts Commission (NCC) when the project team and main contractor were selected.

The establishment of a sector committee and the register of approved public sector contractors were established between July and August 2001, the Prime Minister noted.

"By August 2001, the project team and main contractor had already been selected for over a year," Mr. Patterson said.

"Negotiations, preparations and commencement of work were already well advanced."

The Prime Minister also scoffed at suggestions that the list of sub-contractors was a 'who's who of the People's National Party'. Providing the list, he said if that were true, the Opposition could give up any hope of winning the next general election.

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

PRIME MINISTER P.J. Patterson yesterday declared there was no corruption at the controversial Sandals Whitehouse Project in Westmoreland and that taxpayers would not be burdened with the immense cost overruns on the multimillion-dollar venture.

Ha ha how can it not be public money (hence corruption) that will be used to pay for the cost over runs, when the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ)are public bodies?

[Tuff Gong]

Re: Scandals Whitehouse

Wed May 18, 2005
Opposition challenges reasons for Sandals cost overruns

The Opposition has challenged the reasons offered Tuesday by Prime Minister P.J. Patterson that were contained in the Ministry Paper for the cost overruns on the Sandals Whitehouse project.

The challenge was mounted by Opposition Spokesman on Commerce Karl Samuda who raised objections Tuesday.

Mr. Samuda told the House Tuesday that there was evidence available to him that the Prime Minister's statements were erroneous.

He was ordered by Speaker of the House Michael Peart to provide documented proof to substantiate his assertions.

Mr. Samuda surprised the House with the swiftness of his response.

Speaker of the House Michael Peart advised Mr. Samuda to table a resolution in this regard and has given his undertaking that he would ensure that the matter would be dealt with expeditiously.

Opposition challenges reasons for Sandals cost overruns