A majority of the residents at the meeting vehemently objected to the project, dubbing it a "waste of taxpayers' money," unnecessary and beneficial only for the French side of the island.
Talk of a referendum surfaced during the meeting when a resident questioned why the people could not have a say in whether they wanted certain projects. That statement prompted Hendrik-Jan van Ieperen of the Department of VROMI to call for an impromptu vote to determine who was in favour of the causeway and who was not.
One hand went up for, but the majority of the hands went up against. Some residents didn't vote either way.
"It is a disgrace and shame that our government continues to destroy our lagoon," one resident said.
"We want our lagoon back," another resident added.
"Were alternative routes considered?" a third resident asked.
Van Ieperen told the filled room that all suggestions and recommendations, even their opinions, would be considered in the further development of the plans. He also said the plans would not affect existing land use, but were meant to regulate future development.
St. Maarten Pride Foundation President Jadira Veen asked Van Ieperen who exactly would benefit from the causeway – the people in general or just a handful of people who would be making money.
Van Ieperen explained that the premise of the causeway was primarily for traffic alleviation and a free flow of traffic through the district towards Philipsburg, Cole Bay and Marigot.
He went a step further and stated planning permits had been prepared for the Port de Plaisance end of the causeway to provide for an expansion of the hotel, a statement that raised a few eyebrows in Allan Halley Community Centre.
However, Minister of Infrastructure Theo Heyliger denied this claim last night when asked about it. Heyliger could not be present at the meeting, but when contacted by this newspaper stressed that the causeway, based on the traffic study and more, had been conceived to alleviate traffic. "Nothing else," he said.
Van Ieperen guided a structured discussion that also focused specifically on the areas surrounding the airport, Beacon Hill, Simpson Bay and Simpson Bay Lagoon. No details on individual land lots were discussed in this particular meeting.
Representatives of consulting firm Royal Haskoning, contracted by government, made the official presentation that touched on the need for new links to alleviate traffic, with the causeway being designated as Link 9. Opinions were also sought on how to deal with the Simpson Bay drawbridge, which would have to be either repaired or replaced in due time. An image of a road going under the bridge was shown as an option. The bridge canal also would be affected.
Focus also was placed on Princess Juliana International Airport (PJIA) and the fact that the airport is currently operating without the necessary space around the facility and has to expand. Regulations call for PJIA to have 150 metres of space (a safety zone), without obstacles, around the area. It was disclosed that PJIA intends to expand its taxi area for aircraft, which would require land reclamation.
In this context, it was explained that nothing would be "taken down," but international regulations would be enforced. However, expansion of PJIA and its landing strip will be necessary in about 20 to 30 years and this will call for cooperation with government. The maximum height of buildings around the airport and for boat masts in the lagoon also will be enforced.
Van Ieperen said the plans presented on Thursday night would be available online soon for public perusal.
The meeting started around 7:00pm and was expected to end sometime between 10:00 and 11:00pm, but reportedly ended abruptly around 9:00pm when several residents not satisfied with the proceedings walked out.
Norway International criminal court US economic growth and recession Digital media Classical music Energy bills
No comments:
Post a Comment