PHILIPSBURG:--- Member of Parliament Francisco Lacroes says he read the social media complaints about his proposed 25- or 50-cent Causeway Bridge toll. He says the public is missing his point: people who never cross the bridge may already be paying for it through costs built into grocery prices.
The public has its own point. St Maarten’s people have been paying for public decisions all along. They pay whether they own a vehicle or take a bus, whether they own a home or are struggling to find one. They live with the consequences when money committed to one obligation is unavailable to another.
During Tuesday’s parliamentary budget debate, Lacroes said he had spent the previous evening reading complaints about the toll on social media. He characterized much of the criticism as coming from the Dutch side and repeated his assertion that vehicles with French number plates are major users of the Causeway. He said his aim was to lower “throughput fees” that he believes contribute to higher supermarket prices.
Lacroes gave the example of a woman without a car paying more for groceries because of a bridge she does not use. It is a fair question to raise about how infrastructure costs reach households. But his proposed answer needs evidence. Parliament has not been given a calculation showing which throughput fees are linked to the Causeway, how much they add to food prices, or how toll revenue would reduce them.
There is no assurance that removing a business cost would produce an equal reduction at the supermarket checkout. Nor has Lacroes presented a traffic count showing how much of a toll would be paid by French-registered vehicles, Dutch-side residents, commercial operators, or visitors. A few cents per crossing may sound small; the effect on frequent users and the cost of collecting the money still matter.
Lacroes also raised approximately Cg 22 million in loan repayments and said he wanted to ask the Minister of Finance how much of that amount relates to the bridge. That question deserves an answer. The Cg 22 million should not be described as the bridge’s bill when the MP himself is seeking to establish what portion, if any, belongs to it.
The bill that already reaches across generations
The draft 2027 budget provides a sharper example of a public cost borne beyond its direct beneficiaries: St Maarten’s commitment to the ENNIA resolution.
Government previously announced an expected contribution of NAf 2.08 million annually for 30 years starting in 2027, or approximately NAf 62.4 million at that stated rate. The Central Bank has described the annual contribution as approximately Cg 2.1 million. The draft 2027 budget sets aside up to Cg 3 million; that higher budget allowance does not establish the final annual payment. www.sintmaartengov.org
The resolution has a serious purpose. It was designed to protect ENNIA policyholders whose insurance and pension rights were threatened by the company’s financial problems. Those policyholders include people whose future security depends on payments continuing. www.centralbank.cw
But many residents have no ENNIA policy. Young people who will live with future budgets may never have held one. Residents without homes or cars will not receive a personal ENNIA payment simply because the country contributes to the resolution fund. They nevertheless have a stake in every year that public money is committed to it. The public may gain from protecting policyholders and financial stability, but that broader benefit must be explained alongside the cost.
That is the point the toll debate must confront. Asking whether bridge users should pay more is a legitimate policy discussion. Telling residents they must begin paying their “fair share” overlooks the obligations they already carry. Public money also supports Parliament itself, including official travel and allowances. Residents are entitled to clear accounts of those costs and the work produced by them before they are asked to accept another charge.
The Causeway and ENNIA have separate financial obligations. One cannot be used as an invented figure for the other. Together, though, they expose the same test for elected officials: show the public who pays, who benefits, how long the commitment lasts and what measurable result it delivers.
Lacroes has put forward an argument about fairness. He now needs to show the bridge figures and the grocery price calculation. Meanwhile, the government needs to state the final ENNIA contribution and account for the commitment across future budgets. Sint Maarten’s people should not have to guess at either bill. They have been paying all along.
