Read the Archives

Bye, Bye Mayaguana | 01.25.07
An excellent article by Ian Strachan on the irony of the Bahamas' government administration giving away its land to foreigners. The article discusses the 9,999 acre giveaway on the island of Mayaguana.

Sidney Poitier and Lance Armstrong | January 18 , 2006

Acclaimed Bahamian actor Sidney Poitier and bicyclist Lance Armstrong recently visited Baker's Bay Club. According to insiders, Discovery Land Company is attempting to requisition one of them as an ambassador on their behalf, and has apparently asked both of them for help in the battle against the native islanders.

Details remain sketchy, but experts are certain neither Armstrong nor Poitier would endorse Discovery Land Company's megadevelopment in any way whatsoever.

Poitier and Armstrong would never risk their legacy for this.

Sidney Poitier can be reached through his publicists:

Creative Artists Agency (CAA)
9830 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-1825
USA
Phone: 310-288-4545
Fax: 310-288-4800

Verdon-Cedric Productions
P.O. Box 2639
Beverly Hills, CA 90213
USA
Phone: 310-274-7253
Fax: 310-278-0482

Lance Armstrong can be reached through his publicist:

Publicist: Mark Higgins
Capital Sports & Entertainment
98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 430
Austin, TX 78701

This letter was written to Lance Armstrong.

Mr. Armstrong,

I have been an avid fan of yours for some time. However I have also been following the Guana Cay development struggle, which is why I'm writing this letter. I was very disappointed to hear that you recently were a guest of the Discovery Land Company.

The development on Guana Cay does nothing but promote deforestation, chemical runoff, and coral bleaching, not to mention the fact that it is hazardous to human health. I am a college student, and in research, I have interviewed several golf course employees, from spray technicians to people who monitor irrigation, about their health. They all reported symptoms such as rashes, fevers, and even vomiting blood, all associated with being exposed to the carcinogens dumped onto the golf course every day. Those men and women were all employed in the United States, who has much stricter laws then those in the Bahamas. The repercussions of exposure in the Bahamas is likely to be much worse because of weaker limits on the amount of pesticides used daily and also from the use of more harmful chemicals that are not legal in the U.S.

You have now seen the cleared trees and land. I can assure you, that Land was previously beautiful and undisturbed. The damage the developers have already done by clearing the trees has just gotten the ball rolling, promoting dangerous chemical runoff. The trees are no longer there to reduce soil moisture, and it is not only ugly, it also accelerates soil erosion and surface runoff. Please don't endorse the Guana development, it will only help the developers take more steps towards endangering the environment and human health.

Thanks for your time,

(Name Withheld)

Bakers Bay Club Employees & Golf Cart Accident | January 18 , 2006

The Golf Cart rammed into Dolphin Beach Resort

In 2002, the Santa Clara County planning commission discovered that Cordevalle was in violation of its 1996 use permit. First, the commissioners contended, the golf course never honored its commitment to reserve 60% of the total rounds on an annual basis for public use.[3] Instead, it offered invitation-only individual memberships priced at $250,000. Second, it failed to carry out a host of environmental protections promised in 1996. The Planning Commission held a series of public hearings to determine whether to revoke or revise Cordevalle’s use permit. "

Read More

Bakers Bay Quells Protests with Money | January 16 , 2006

In the weeks leading up to 10 AM, Friday, January 5, workers at the Baker's Bay Club organized and planned a formal protest against the golf club work site in the Northern Bahamas.

Press of event

According to Bakers Bay workers, Discovery Land Company had been attempting to cut the worker's hours and their pay. The economics of the Bakers Bay Club is set up so that if the project is completed in 5 years, the senior brass in the organization will get rich. At 10 years, the outfit will break even. Beyond 10 years, the outfit will lose money. Because of this, Bakers Bay employees are boosting the worker schedules to almost slave-like conditions, and often only giving extremely short notice of when workers are to report to work or not report to work.

Workers have taken the ferry all the way from Marsh Harbour to Guana Cay only to find that they are told they are not needed that day. They are forced to wait three hours for the next ferry.

Bonuses went unpaid, and workers were critical of differences in expected pay, according to a Nassau Guardian article.

The company also allegedly declined to give the workers Christmas bonuses they had promised them.

Guana Cay embraces for the 2007 defense of its culture

But adding to the worker's claims that they were working in slave-like conditions, many claimed they were forced to dig holes with their bare hands because of a lack of tools.

The goal, some believe, is to drive down the will of the Bahamian workers, and create an environment that allows Bakers Bay Club their much preferred use of foreign labor from Latin America.

After the 30-40 workers protested in front of the Baker's Bay Club office, pointing out the slave-like conditions they are subjected to, the Discovery Land Company backed down and offered them additional benefits and a promise to treat them more fairly.

Anybody interested in the subject of Baker's Bay Club will find numerous articles and oral explanations of the Baker's Bay Club mistreatment of Bahamians.

New Paper on Global Impact of Golf Development | November 24 , 2006

"A Global Perspective on the Environmental Impact of Golf" by Kit Wheeler and John Nauright discusses many of the same social and environmental aspects of the dangers of golf development as appear in the battle between the Guana Cay locals and the Discovery Land Company:

"Local communities are routinely excluded from the decision-making processes regarding course development. These problems are more pronounced in developing countries where there are few laws or regulations requiring full disclosure of information. After losing their battle against developers, local residents often lose their land next. They end up either working as labourers on the course or moving to big cities, as there are no other employment opportunities available. These types of changes can wreak havoc on rural communities while also exacerbating urban problems of slums, pollution and congestion.

These facts have not been lost on all citizens as groups continue to fight against irresponsible development in both the developed and the developing world. A proposed course in Sagaponack, New York, for example, was contested in the late 1990s by a conglomeration of local citizen groups because of fear over the impact of chemicals on their drinking water supply. They had good reason to object as the environmental impact statement for the project included proposed use of the defoliant
2,4-D, an ingredient that comprises 50 per cent of Agent Orange, the herbicide used
during the Vietnam War and linked to health problems suffered by veterans.[50] Residents of Carefree, Arizona, protested against a nearby golf tournament because the development company annually pumps twice the amount consumed by all residential wells combined out of the regional groundwater aquifer."

Guana Cay Files its Notice of Appeal | November 24 , 2006

From the Press Release dated November 24, 2006: The Save Guana Cay Reef Association has filed its Notice of Appeal against the Judicial Review judgment of Acting Justice Norris Carroll.

The Association intends to pursue its appeal as soon as the Court of Appeal can hear it. In the meantime, the Association is battling a claim by the Government and its developers for payment of their costs in the Supreme Court trial.

Justice Carroll refused to recuse himself on the costs application. That too will soon be dealt with by the Association.

The Association remains steadfast in its commitment to resist this abusive and inappropriate mega development to which the pristine natural environment of Great Guana Cay has been subjected.

The developers have commenced extensive civil works again.

The Association is now considering other actions and the possibility of an application for an injunction to restrain the developers from continuing with the works in the meantime.

Attached is a copy of the Notice of Appeal and the recent order by Justice Carroll.

Aerials Show EIA Recommendations Out the Window | November 22 , 2006

The following photographs examine the dangerous gamble Discovery Land Company is making with Guana Cay.

Impossibly close to current developments, the Bakers Bay Club marina is being shelled out of Guana Cay's mangrove areas.

Constant development threatens nearshore waters

The development of the marina continues dangerously close to the reef-side of the cay with no use of plastic barriers between the construction area and the coral reef. Guana Cay's porous limestone means pollutants, nutrients and construction-related chemicals will almost instantly leach out into the reef: a potent combination which scientists indicate will devastate this reef, one of the last remaining truly healthy reefs in the Atlantic-Caribbean.

Detail of marina construction on the Sea of Abaco side.

Baker's Bay Club's Tent City. Foreign worker's lounge in an isolated camp in the northern sector of the island while native residents are terrorized by the Baker's Bay Club.

Supreme Court Decision Flawed, Likely Corrupt | November 21 , 2006

Justice Carroll insults Abaco Sailing Community in illogical Argument

Justic Carroll's supreme court decision to have the local's case against the Bahamian government and the Discovery Land Company was made in a judgment that went on for over 200 pages. In all of those 200 pages, discussion of the environment was limited to just one paragraph. Before reading the paragraph, remember that the environmental arguments made by the locals of Guana Cay are supported by an international consensus of coral reef and conservation specialists, including top-level conservation NGO's. All Bahamian environmental NGO's support their position. Here is Justice Carrol's reasoning:

Great Guana Cay, at any one time, has about 20 visiting sailboats or yachts, most of which are visiting the main settlement harbour, a natural harbour which has been traditionally used for commerce and tourism since the earliest days of the cay. At any one time, about 8 of those 20 visiting boats, most of which are sailboats, can be seen moored in the pleasant Baker's Bay. Baker's Bay itself is one of the attractions that brings sailors to Guana Cay. The peaceful Bay's incredible beauty attracts perennial visitors.

Baker's Bay itself is a seagrass area, facing the Sea of Abaco. It is filled with turtle grass, starfish, and roaming nurse sharks. The environmental impact of about eight sailboats a day on these seagrass beds is next to nothing. These boats drop an anchor, probably leach some gasoline. To suggest that the Abaco sailing community dumps their personal and domestic waste in the seagrass shores of Bakers Bay is illogical and ignorant.

International regulations about disposal of waste are strict; and the sailing community, which itself is an environmentally responsible community, tends to follow these laws carefully. It is undoubtedly extremely unlikely that sailboats in Baker's Bay dump their waste in the bay, ever. Even the chance of being caught by fellow boaters would be enough to dissuade an isolated litterbug.

To compare these 8-boats-a-day to the dangerous megadevelopment being constructed by the Discovery Land Company is preposterous. The Bakers Bay Club will terraform the northern 2/5's of the island, dig out a giant 250 slip marina, build 500 buildings, a hotel, tennis courts, recreation facilities, and invite...yes invite the so-called megayachts - 100-300 foot super-yachts, into Bakers Bay. Their megadevelopment will destroy the coral reef, mangroves and important fisheries associated with the island's only estuary.

Instead of 8 small sailboats a day, there will be access for 250 yachts, plus 4 moorings for super-yachts staffed by armies. A single one of these megayachts weighs more than all the eight sailboats that enter the bay at any given time. And megayachts are not sailboats, either.

This irresponsible comment, the Judge;s sole environmental judgment in this case, indicates he did nothing to learn about the environmental issues in this case. In his 200 page judgment, he does not even mention the words 'coral' or 'reef' one time. 8 small sailboats in a giant bay simply do not, in any way, cause any environmental red flags whatsoever.

Recent news indicates this Judge's decision is not independent. Carroll, who is politically aligned with the PLP party, likely fell to the layers of corruption and deceit now being uncovered about this administration.

Justice Carroll Not Independent | Updated November 21 , 2006

Photo by Erik Gauger. The Guana Cay reef is in imminent danger, according to several well known conservation groups.

A thunderstorm of press has gathered in the Bahamas over the latest of many twists and turns in the Bahamian court case against the Bahamian government and Michael Meldman's Discovery Land Company.

Justice John Lyons, in unrelated court cases, has determined that the Bahamian constitution has been severely compromised. Supreme Court justices must constitutionally have tenure to make Supreme Court decisions - but Justice Norris Carroll is not tenured, and is therefore influenced by the political atmosphere that keeps him employed.

This press release from the locals of Guana Cay comes out as Discovery Land Company asks them to pay for the billion-dollar project's legal fees. This move is another example of the developer's ill will toward the people of Great Guana Cay. While the developer admitted that the local's case against them has helped them change some of their most unsustainable components of their development, they still insist on crushing the local's right to defend their island. In this latest move, the locals also claim that Acting Justice Carroll is not independent of the politics and powers that be.

The allegations of corruption in the current Bahamian administration are making the rounds in the newspapers as it becomes clearer that these allegations of corruption are bringing down the administration. Here is the press release from Save Guana Cay Reef:

At a hearing before Justice Carroll in Freeport today the Save Guana Cay Reef Association took 2 preliminary objections as to the court’s jurisdiction to hear any aspect of the matter and in particular to deal with applications by the Government and the Bakers Bay Developers for an order that the Association pay 2 different sets of costs of the Developers’ and the Government, and asking for them each to be certified fit for 2 counsel each, i.e. 4 sets of counsel costs against the Association.

The Developers were represented by Robert Adams of Graham Thompson and Co, and Leif Farquharson represented the Government. Fred Smith appeared for the Association. No appeal has yet been filed by the Association on the Judicial Review ruling of Justice Carroll as the costs issue had yet to be ruled on.

Mr. Smith objected to the hearing on 2 points. Mr. Smith submitted that,

1. based upon the reasoning in the recent rulings by Justice Lyons in Neymour vs. Attorney General, The Queen vs. Pratt and others, and Moss vs. Bahama Reef and Attorney General, Justice Carroll was not an independent judge of the Supreme Court as required by the Constitution and as such Mr. Aubrey Clarke and the Association were being deprived of a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court in breach of their Article 20 (8) fundamental right and freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and that therefore Justice Carroll did not have jurisdiction to hear the Guana Cay costs application; and,

1. because Justice Carroll was only an acting judge, he did not enjoy security of tenure as required by the Constitution for  a Supreme Court judge, and therefore SGCR was being denied, once again  a fair trial by an independent and impartial court. Mr. Smith said he did not have to raise the point earlier at trial because a person could not waive a Constitutional right.

Justice Carroll ruled against SGCR and continued with the hearing of the costs application. The Developers and the Government submitted that costs are normally paid by the loser and this case should not be an exception.

Mr. Smith argued that this was a case of major and general public importance and that his clients should not be penalized in costs. He said;

 “The Association is comprised of citizens who were simply standing up for their local rights. The courts are not there just for the rich or powerful. If the Court orders the Association and Mr. Clarke to pay costs it will send a chilling message to people in the Bahamas.”

“It will mean that there is a big huge gate at the entrance to the halls of justice, and you can only unlock the gate with money. If you do not have money, or if you are not big and powerful, stay away because you will not be able to afford justice.”

“This is unconstitutional. People will thereby be deprived of their right of access to the courts for determination of their rights. What’s the sense in having fancy laws and courts if you cannot enjoy their protection…if you get chased away because you cannot afford them? If you cannot afford to get through the gate because you cannot afford the membership fees?”

Mr. Smith also submitted;

“The Developers have already put into evidence that Mr. Clarke and the Association have no assets, so why bother to ask for costs? I’ll tell you why! Because, once the court orders costs, they will put in big fat huge bills, get their certificates and demand payment; then they will hound Mr. Clarke and the Associations into bankruptcy. Then we will not be able to appeal, or if we do huge security for costs will be sought which will again be another roadblock to justice.”

Mr. Adams and Mr. Farquharson submitted that justice should be blind; “The court should not take into account whether you are rich or poor”

Justice Carroll adjourned to make his decision. In the meantime he invited the Developers and the Government to consider being “gracious” to their neighbors and citizens.

In the meantime, Mr. Smith asked for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the 2 objections to jurisdiction.

If Mr. Smith is correct in his second objection as to Justice Carroll not being institutionally independent because he does not have security of tenure, it will mean that the Judicial Review application will have to be heard again by a new judge.

In addition however, if Justice Lyons is correct, and the independence of the judiciary has been compromised by Cabinet’s failure to comply with the provisions of the Judges Remuneration and Pensions Act, there may be no judges with jurisdiction to hear the retrial of the Judicial Review Application. Indeed, the Court of Appeal judges may suffer from the same constitutional infirmity.

“That is the conundrum. That highlights the constitutional crisis” said Mr. Smith. “Until this issue is finally determined by the Privy Council any litigant from 2003 onwards may be able to challenge any ruling or judgment of the Supreme Court on this issue of judicial independence. That is why we must get this determined as soon as possible so that the people of the Bahamas know where we stand.”

“We cannot continue in this Constitutional limbo land!”