Dear Editor,
With regards to your editorial titled "The Bigger Picture" (http://www.thedailyherald.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52536:editorial-the-bigger-picture&catid=32:editorial&Itemid=68) as published in The Daily Herald newspaper of Saturday Jan 3rd, 2015, I would like to respectfully disagree with certain conclusions arrived at by the editor and will elaborate below.
In said editorial, the Daily Herald writes regarding the causeway bridge:
"However, just as was the case with the beautification of Philipsburg and surroundings using the harbour share-buyback funds, the project did add to the visitor experience in general. It not only became sort of a "new attraction," but helped relieve traffic jams at least somewhat in the area where most Dutch-side resorts and the airport, as well as the main drawbridge accessing the lagoon and local marinas are concentrated".
Kindly be reminded that:
- The causeway bridge project was never approved by the then Executive Council, therefore making it illegal.
- The causeway bridge project is a major infrastructural project and therefore should have been executed by Government, not a Government owned entity (Harbor). Making things worse is that this entity has not been reporting to her own shareholder (Government) violating her own statutes and corporate governance policy.
- A loophole was created by having the Harbor finance and execute the causeway project, taking direct supervision by the public representatives away and hiding it behind an impenetrable wall that can be called the Harbor. The question can therefore rightfully be asked: did the causeway bridge cost more than necessary?
Was the causeway bridge project necessary? Yes for sure. Same can be said about the beautification of Philipsburg and surrounding areas. But these are Government tasks, not a Government owned company's task which only has shrouded the project (and its beneficiaries) in secrecy.
Yes, the Harbor has been a success story in term of cruise port business. And I commend all that have been involved for getting St. Maarten to this point. However, that does not mean that the Harbor should stray away from her core task (cruise / cargo) and undertake major infrastructural projects (causeway, ring road) which add no revenue and are jeopardizing the Harbor's financial position, sell fuel, buy and develop land etc. etc.
If the causeway bridge is to be named, the people of St. Maarten should decide the final name for it. They are ultimately the owners and responsible for the debt in case, God forbid, the Harbor goes bankrupt one of these days because of the continued mismanagement. That would be much more fair instead of naming it after the person that masterminded the 'Harbor loophole' and is therefore responsible for the unaccountability of the project.
John L. Veritas