PHILIPSBURG:--- Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs Jr. has defended recently approved high-rise building permits while acknowledging that Sint Maarten needs clearer, more consistently applied rules governing development.

At Wednesday’s Council of Ministers press briefing, Gumbs referred to criticism of permits he approved in Maho and another hillside area. He said the parcels in question allow that type of development under the draft zoning plans.

However, he acknowledged a broader problem: many residents do not know what development is permitted in their neighborhoods, and decision-making has treated the draft zoning inconsistently.

“One reason for this may be that zoning is binding for some, but just a policy for others when approving permits,” Gumbs said. “This needs to change.”

He added that any departure from planning policy must be properly substantiated.

The minister’s remarks came with a renewed call for bids to prepare an updated zoning plan. The submission deadline is Friday, October 30, 2026.

Gumbs said the plans delivered in 2014 are now 12 years old and no longer adequately reflect development patterns or the needs of a growing country.

The new process will include public hearings and town hall meetings after the city selects a consultant.

According to Gumbs, zoning should provide certainty about what landowners can build, what residents can expect around their homes and what infrastructure government must provide.

That includes roads, drainage, wastewater systems and utility capacity.

Pressed on whether Sint Maarten needs a pause in development to allow infrastructure to catch up, Gumbs called for an honest discussion but expressed caution about stopping construction broadly.

He argued that construction supports economic activity and provides work for residents, while acknowledging that immediate employment does not automatically translate into lasting benefits.

“Are they benefiting in the 20, 30 years long term?” he asked.

Gumbs cited Cupecoy as an example of a mismatch between older planning assumptions and present development pressures. He said areas envisaged for homes with a nine-meter height limit now face very different market conditions.

The central issue, he argued, is whether permitted development is supported by adequate infrastructure.

The zoning review will therefore have to address more than building heights. It will shape where additional development can occur, which areas require protection, and how government plans the infrastructure needed to support both.

PHILIPSBURG:--- VROMI Minister Patrice Gumbs Jr. says private developers are financing several public infrastructure projects in full, as government turns to partnerships to address financial shortfalls.

Speaking at Wednesday’s Council of Ministers press briefing, Gumbs distinguished between projects receiving government money and those fully funded by developers.

He said the government contributed funding to the Billy Folly Road partnership. However, he identified the rehabilitation of the Simpson Bay dock, repairs to the Rolandus Canal and bridge works in the Sucker Garden area as developer-funded projects.

According to Gumbs, the government’s role in those arrangements includes approving designs, providing support and exercising oversight where needed.

The minister acknowledged that some works can directly benefit a developer’s own project. However, he said the partnerships should also deliver improvements beyond the immediate development site.

“These partnerships are a company’s way of contributing to the country they operate in and benefit from,” he said.

Gumbs pointed to the Sucker Garden initiative as an effort to extend benefits to communities outside areas traditionally associated with major private investment, such as Simpson Bay and Cupecoy.

The approach reflects the ministry’s limited financial resources, he said, while efforts continue to improve revenue generation.

The briefing did not include project-by-project costs, completion schedules or the terms of the partnership agreements.

Those details would allow the public to assess the value of the contributions, the standards governing the works and the government’s responsibilities after completion.

PHILIPSBURG:---  Collective Prevention Services, St. Maarten Medical Center and Radboudumc in the Netherlands are inviting parents and expectant parents to participate in a community survey on vaccination perceptions and awareness of respiratory syncytial virus, commonly known as RSV.

VSA Minister Claret Connor highlighted the survey during Wednesday’s Council of Ministers press briefing.

He said the research seeks insight into public awareness, concerns, and perceptions about RSV vaccination, with particular attention to expectant parents and parents of young children aged zero to five.

The minister said similar surveys are being conducted in Curaçao and Aruba.

Connor encouraged eligible residents to share their views, saying community feedback is essential to strengthening public-health prevention efforts.

The survey is available in English, Spanish, Creole, and Dutch and can be accessed through the QR code on its promotional flyer.

Residents seeking further information can contact CPS at 542-1570 or St. Maarten Medical Center at 543-1111.

PHILIPSBURG:---   The Court of Appeal has sentenced Alexander Mario Ettrick Chandler, Alphonse Asa-Asher Charles and Diomedes Mendez Santeli to 12 years in prison each for their roles in the fatal shooting of 24-year-old Tion D’Sean Scott outside the Gentlemen’s Club in Defiance on April 13, 2025.

In judgments delivered on October 19, 2026, the Court found all three men guilty of jointly committing manslaughter and firearm offenses. The Court will deduct time already spent in pre-trial detention from their sentences.

The rulings increased the prison terms the Court of First Instance imposed on September 11, 2025. Chandler and Charles had each received eight years, while Mendez Santeli had received three years for firearm possession after being acquitted of the charge relating to Scott’s shooting.

The Prosecutor General sought 14-year sentences for Chandler and Mendez Santeli and a 16-year sentence for Charles. The Appeal Court instead imposed 12 years on each defendant.

Dispute Escalated Outside the Club

According to the Court’s findings, the shooting followed a longstanding conflict involving allegations about a stolen chain and missing vehicle parts.

Inside the club, an argument developed between Mendez Santeli and Chandler on one side and Scott and his friend on the other. The Court found that Chandler loaded his firearm and challenged Scott to come outside.

Scott subsequently left the club, mounted his scooter, and headed toward the parking lot exit. Chandler followed him and gestured for him to stop. Scott dismounted near the exit, while Charles and Mendez Santeli moved in that direction.

The Court established that Chandler then fired once at Scott from a distance of several meters. Bystanders scattered, and Scott fled onto the public road, leaving his scooter behind.

Charles moved onto a raised area on the opposite side of the exit and took out his firearm. When Scott returned to his scooter and attempted to ride away, Charles fired several shots toward him, the Court found.

Scott fell with the scooter and continued fleeing on foot. Mendez Santeli, who had climbed onto a wall overlooking Scott’s escape route, continued shooting toward him.

The Court concluded that all three defendants fired toward Scott in succession within approximately half a minute. One of the bullets struck him and caused his death.

Court Finds Joint Responsibility

Although investigators could not establish which defendant fired the fatal bullet, the Court ruled that this did not prevent all three from being convicted of jointly committing manslaughter.

The judges found that the men had worked closely and consciously together during the armed attack. Each made a substantial contribution by personally firing toward Scott, including as he attempted to escape.

The Court found that their actions amounted to a joint and, to some extent, coordinated attack.

The forensic examination established that Scott died from blood loss and tissue damage caused by a gunshot passing through his torso.

Chandler’s Self-Defense Argument Rejected

Chandler’s defense argued that Scott had threatened him, drawn a firearm, and fired first, prompting a defensive reaction.

The Court rejected that account, finding no support in the case file for the claim that Scott had fired at Chandler. Only one shot could be heard at the first shooting moment, and the Court established that Chandler fired it.

The judges also found Chandler’s conduct offensive: he provoked and pursued a confrontation while Scott was attempting to leave.

Although the Court could not establish or exclude that Scott had drawn a firearm, it ruled that Chandler’s provocative conduct and the circumstances of the confrontation prevented a successful claim of self-defense.

Funeral Expenses Awarded

The Court awarded Scott’s mother, identified in the judgments as M.B. Scott,  US$8,255 in funeral expenses. The three defendants are jointly and severally liable for that amount, meaning it is one shared obligation rather than three separate awards.

Her additional claim for psychological injury was declared inadmissible in the criminal proceedings because the available evidence did not sufficiently establish the required injury and causal connection. That portion of the claim may be pursued in civil court.

In determining the sentences, the Court emphasized that the defendants shot at a fleeing man in an area where other people were present, endangering bystanders and contributing to public insecurity.

The judges also highlighted Sint Maarten’s persistent firearm problem and the severe, lasting suffering inflicted on Scott’s surviving relatives.