SHTA questions Government on Chinese project

shtalogo1

PHILIPSBURG – In an Open Letter to the Government of St. Maarten dated September 9th, 2016, the St. Maarten Hospitality and Trade Association, as representatives of the private sector, has posed 17 questions to Government and included the COM, Parliament, Ombudsman, SER and the community of St. Maarten.

Below the letter can be read in its entirety.

170782_ennia_web-banner_sxm-talks_2500-fm_468x60px_eng

 

Open Letter to the Government of Sint Maarten

 

Philipsburg,

Sint Maarten

September 9 2016

 

Honorable Council of Ministers,

Honorable Members of Parliament,

The Ombudsman, Members of the SER,

The Community of Sint Maarten

 

“The SHTA, being the largest private sector representative, has been closely following the media reports about the upcoming development of the Pearl of China. While the SHTA realizes that there could be a need for foreign Direct Investments and job creation, but lacking proper statistics there is no way to be sure. At this point we feel that we do not have enough information about the project in order to form a proper opinion. It would be a shame if one of the largest projects to reach our shores for many years doesn’t happen because of a lack of information.

A project of this magnitude that will impact the entire island should, besides broad community support, also enjoy broad political support, and the only way to achieve that is through an open and transparent process. As an example the SHTA would like to mention the Indigo project where many rounds of consultations were had with the stakeholders before plans were finalized.

The SHTA considers it of the utmost import that the community at large is properly informed when it comes to large developments.

In order to be able to assess the impact of this development, we as representatives of the private sector have a few questions. Not asking these questions would make us poor representatives.

  1. What are the credentials of these investors, how will the community guaranteed that they have the capital the ability to bring this project to fruition in an equitable and sustainable way?
  2. Was an environmental impact study performed and if so can it be made public now? This should, besides the effects on nature in the area also include impacts on infrastructure, utilities and the surrounding residential communities
  3. Has an economic impact study been done and if so can the results be made public?
  4. Does this resort plan to offer all-inclusive packages?
  5. Will this resort receive a casino license if they request one?
  6. Did government make any financial, fiscal or other commitments, like, but not limited to; Tax Holidays, permits for foreign employees skilled and unskilled, special utility rates, permits where it concerns concessions like i.e. watersports or beach chairs?
  7. Has this project been looked at from the perspective as outlined in the carrying capacity study as well as the draft development plan for the little bay area?
  8. Is there a plan to expand the airport in order to deal with the increased arrivals of long haul wide body jets?
  9. Is there any additional information on the “water source” mentioned? If so can we please have it?
  10. What is the intended location and scope of the “eco-city”?
  11. What measures will be taken to prevent harming current businesses that already handle Chinese products on both a wholesale and retail level, like clothing, electronics and other consumer goods?
  12. To what extent does becoming a “hub” impact government revenues when increased direct imports erode the TOT base?
  13. Will the to be established “competition authority” and “consumer protection” also apply to the Chinese showcase?
  14. Will this showcase be open to anyone or only to businesses active in particular market segments?
  15. Has advice from the SER been sought about the implications of this type of resort? If so can we review the request
  16. Is there an actual business plan that indicates how many jobs will be created post construction? And how many of these jobs will require Chinese speaking employees?
  17. What type of business licensing will be required of the companies using the showroom?

These are just some of the questions that arise from the limited information available at this time.

In the interest of transparency, Government should provide more information. The good, the bad and the ugly, so that the people and taxpayers of Sint Maarten can decide for themselves whether this is an economic development that fits our community.

The SHTA has read and shares many of the concerns as expressed by the Nature Foundation and other vocal personalities in the community. The SHTA also appreciates the Prime Minister’s concern that the opposition to the project, may scare off the investor.

This is, in the opinion of the SHTA all the more reason for some additional clarity. If this project is to be successful, buy-in from the entire community is required, and that can only be achieved once all the information is provided and the community at large is able to discuss the pros and cons in an open and democratic way, with due consideration for everyone’s needs and concerns.

Looking forward to receiving the requested information and constructive dialogue.

We Remain,

Sincerely

The SHTA”
c.c. The Council of Ministers

c.c. Parliament of Sint Maarten

c.c. The Ombudsman

c.c. The SER

c.c. Sint Maarten Media

 

5 COMMENTS

  1. All these questions are stupid. SHTA knows the answers so why ask them? Just come out and say that this project is not about sustainable growth in the interest of Sint Maarten. This project is about Minister Gibson creating favorable conditions to sell his Barbaron land, have it sold an giving the people a banana story as if we hit the jackpot. We didn’t. He did.

    • You would hope that our MP’s would have the caliber to ask these questions in a Parliamentary session with the relevant Minister(s) called in to answer these. Unfortunately, all we get is MP’s asking questions in the media. I’m glad the SHTA at least asks the right questions on behalf of all of us.

      Furthermore, Gibson did not own the Barbaron land which was sold to the Chinese. Another prominent businessman on SXM owned that land. Get your facts straight.

  2. They all sound like proper due diligence questions, professional and seeking transparency in order to reach proper conclusions. Let’s see how and if government will respond.

LEAVE A REPLY