When the PPM was the elected government in 2007 the proposed Emerald Sound development – complete with canals, relocation of the South Sound Road, dredging of the marine replenishment zone in the South Sound and development of single family homes and apartments – was proposed and a meeting was held in the South Sound Community Centre at which Mr. Burns Connolly gave an outline of the proposal.
The meeting was attended by about 80 concerned residents many of whom spoke passionately against this proposal objecting to the whole concept of a canal that would breach the natural storm ridges along South Sound and leave both the inland residents and the marine environment in South Sound vulnerable to flooding and pollution.
Since then, Caymanian residents island wide have continued their objections stating many reasons for these objections. These reasons have been recently outlined in the DoE report of July 2011, in letters to the CPA, letters to the newspaper and concerned residents voicing their objections on the radio.
These reasons include but are not limited to:
Risk of flooding
Damage to the marine replenishment zone
Pollution of the South Sound water with swamp water and sewage flowing into South Sound
The setting of a dangerous precedent
The moving of scenic coastline road solely for a developers benefit
No benefit to the Cayman Islands except the very short term gain
Concerns about water circulation and waste management, with particular reference to the outflows and problems in Randyke Gardens
The inability of all professionals consulted to date to come up with a consistent view of the true impact a development of this sort would have on the land and marine environments
Loss of property value for current property owners
Loss of the use of South Sound for all who swim, fish or just enjoy the unpolluted beauty of the waters
Lack of a cost benefit analysis to establish net benefit to the country as a whole
It appears that our objections are not being listened to.
This is borne out by the fact that the CPA has chosen not to change the date of the hearing for this proposal despite repeated requests by the objectors asking for a date only four weeks later than the August 3rd hearing in order to allow for people away on vacation to be present. Surely in a democracy all sides should have the chance for a fair hearing. As it stands the CPA is clearly favouring the developer by refusing to change the hearing date so that more concerned people can attend.
Please listen to your concerned people, please listen to your elders who have already objected to this, please do not ignore the need for democracy and a free and open hearing for all concerned.
Jennifer Walker Woodford