The following email was submitted by a concerned citizen who resides at Vaucluse, St. Thomas and we have reproduced without any changes to the content. It seems that this is an issue which the sitting MP Cynthia Forde for the area has been unable to resolve. Please note that this communication was also sent to Barbados Free Press and the Nation newspaper.
David
There are just a few things that motivate me to write publicly. When something is wrong, legally and morally, and it affects your community, should one be quiet, or should one place it before the society? When one has a small successful business in a supposedly also successful, happy Caribbean Island is it right to intervene in a community issue? What gives one the right to fight on behalf of community? People are doing a development at Vaucluse without Town Planning approval. For several years now I have led a campaign (quietly in our area) against the establishment of a race track in an area of Vaucluse Plantation, adjacent to Dukes, and close to the villages of Shop Hill, Christie Village, Dukes, Whitehall and Vaucluse. In the beginning it was due to the noise and the anti-social aspects of such a thing being established. A child was killed on the roadways by a truck, unlinked to the track. My family and I were nearly killed by a drunk driver in a line of traffic coming away from an event at the dirt track a couple of years ago. Now, with the mode of its development I observe a dangerous trend in Barbados, one that we should be extremely wary of.
At Christmas 2005 there was a Town Hall Meeting at Lester Vaughan School, where objections were voiced against retention of the dirt track, and further objections were voiced against a drag strip, and expansion, and paving, as proposed by the developer. Subsequently written objections were sent to Town Planning and the Minister. One of those who spoke out against this track being established was the Honourable Cynthia Forde, M.P. for St. Thomas. Ms. Forde has been a friend of those who are against the track, and has spoken out against it whenever we, the residents of the community, have asked. We mounted a petition, an unfinished petition, in our community and received 300+ signatures, covering half of Shop Hill and Dukes, which were delivered to the Prime Minister and to Town Planning: against establishment of this track, with grounds. Many of us wrote objections, which were never acknowledged, or responded to.
Town Planning has issued both ‘Stop Orders’ and ‘Enforcement Orders’ on this development, but to no effect.
Thus we see a picture of (on one hand residents, Town Planning and the M.P. for the area Cynthia Forde) speaking out against; and on the other hand we see the owners and developers doing a development without Town Planning approval. Is this OK? Is it legal? Is it morally correct? Should owners be allowed to retain something that has gone against all rules and regulations? Just what kind of people do things this way? The evidence
Attached are 4 Google earth pictures from 2006, showing the area of the track in 2006. As you will observe when you open it and magnify, the track at this time was a dirt track. The track shown was subsequently paved, which you will see in the 2007 Google earth picture in the following link: but even more construction has proceeded in recent weeks. There has been no approval for any development of this track, and it has been at Town Planning for years as an application. Is it OK for people to develop without permission in Barbados? During the last 2 years the people making this track have really gone ahead, by paving, and just this last month they have brought in backhoes, bulldozers, rollers and trucks. They are making real roads on this site.
I called Town Planning’s enforcement division on October 3, 2007 when I saw the heavy machines working, and they sent an officer to stop them, but they did not stop. I called again a day later, and they sent an order for them to stop, but they did not. I called Ms. Forde, who called Town Planning. By this time everyone was telling them to stop, and do you know what they did? They did not stop. Yesterday, November 9 2007 I took photos of heavy equipment working at the site, and I took pictures of roads they have made during the past month. I am sending these in another email after this one. From these photos, and looking at the Google Earth images you can PROVE that work is being done, and you can PROVE the time when it was done, and you KNOW that they do not have Town Planning approval. The pictures of the machines working show roads that are NOT ON GOOGLE EARTH- they are brand new!!!
We the residents said ‘No’. Town Planning said, ‘No’. Minister Forde said, ‘No’. The only person left who can say ‘No’ is the Prime Minister. Will they listen to him and stop?
I have lived in Barbados for 40 years, requesting and being granted citizenship in this special island. I have always believed that Barbados, above all countries in the world, was a place where one was safe from victimisation, where one was protected by the upstanding legacy of our heritage. I thought that all were equal in Barbados under the law. Today I ask a simple question: Are we the special place I thought we were, or not?
Thank you
U. Goodenough
Related Article
Is The Town Planning Office Of Barbados Delivering Its Mandate?
207 responses so far ↓
U.Goodenough // November 10, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I sent you 2 emails with attachments this morning, one at 8.09 AM and one at 8.19 AM.
These emails show and prove that illegal events are occurring and have occurred at Vaucluse. Town Planning has told them to stop, The Ministry has told them to stop, the residents have told them to stop.
Right now they are going all out as I write this, marling, bulldozing, and making roads.
ILLEGAL DANGER ILLEGAL DANGER ILLEGAL
…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—…—
Will you please publish the photos and the letter I sent with the evidence?
Waterboy // November 10, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Concerned resident if all you have outlined is factual, and you have provided some pretty damning evidence, it goes to show just how ineffectual and toothless the Town Planning Department is when faced with a shameless, lawless and brazen developer. You say:
“One of those who spoke out against this track being established was the Honourable Cynthia Forde, M.P. for St. Thomas. Ms. Forde has been a friend of those who are against the track, and has spoken out against it whenever we, the residents of the community, have asked.”
Well it is time for the Honorable Cynthia Forde, M.P to step up to the plate on behalf of her constituents. Let me make a suggestion. I saw her on the CBC evening news a few nights ago and in the press. What she needs to do is to take the CBC camera crew up to Vaucluse and invite the other media houses and hold a press conference and highlight the alleged illegal activity that is taking place. That is what a true representative would do for their constituents.
“……and has spoken out against it whenever we, the residents of the community, have asked.” Ask her to do the only thing left (press conference at Vaucluse) because the developer really has no respect for the laws of the land, Town Planner, residents of the area or MP Cynthia Forde.
Wishing in Vain // November 10, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I must first say that I sympathise with the residents of Vaucluse and its surrounding areas but what this is saying to me that we have a serious set of double standards happening in Barbados.
These double standards are clearly evident in this situation where Owing has a member of his party supposedly representing the residents of the area now she is supposedly trying to support their cause (now if she is or if she is not is another issue because by saying she is but does nothing really she is not) but despite her attempts to reach a settlement in favour of her people she has been stonewalled by the other part of the double standard and that is the Owing I like collect money Arthur side.
I will be so bold to state that Owing is prepared to turn a blind eye to this development because the white elite of Barbados are involved and he has been paid off to issue the permissions quietly to them in exchange for some election cash, and the lord knows he really needs another million or two really.
The movers and shakers of this project are the Coziers from Eastern Land Developments the bidders that want the 4000 odd acres of Barbados Farms lands and one Bizzy Williams another one of those vultures for the same lands.
So my friend in a nutshell you have not got a hope in hell to keep the race track out with these players being involved and part of it, your best bet is to seek the support of the candidate for the DLP and explain the situation to them and let them focus on it and make it a platform issue then the DLP will address it when they form the gov’t or for the blp to become so aware of the size of the issue that they have no choice but to address it right away(I wish you luck in this approach).
My best wishes are extended to you for a favourable result.
U. Goodenough // November 10, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Dear David
Thank you, thank you. Thank you for giving us a voice.
U.
David // November 10, 2007 at 4:06 pm
U~can you provide us with a copy of the ’stop order’ from T&P department?
Waterboy // November 10, 2007 at 4:08 pm
David, you say it went to the Nation as well. Great, then it will be in the Sunday Sun. This is news. And, the story has been written for them already.
David // November 10, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Waterboy the email addresses of Roxanne Gibbs and Vivianne Gittens were on the email we received.
Wishing in Vain // November 10, 2007 at 4:19 pm
you say it went to the Nation as well. Great, then it will be in the Sunday Sun.
You must be joking my friend, surely they would not like to anger Bizzy, COW and Owing would they???
U. Goodenough // November 10, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Dear David
No, I am a private citizen, but I know that both stop orders and enforcement orders have been issued many times going back to the year 2000.
anon // November 10, 2007 at 7:46 pm
As soon as I read this unbelievable story I knew Bizzy and/or COW must be involved. These two guys run Barbados. No matter what Owen says. Owen always says yes to them anyhow. He is in their pocket.
In fairness I want to hear the developers version of what seems the old white always right saga.
I expect Bizzy to say its his hard work and talent and he he is taking risks. He will also proclaim blacks looking for handouts. Cow going to state its his hard work,talent and he taking risks. He will also threaten to move his businesses to Argentina and other Caribbean islands.
Bush tea // November 10, 2007 at 9:01 pm
When it comes to moving the heaven and earth to please,we have to leave it to the Williams brothers and their boy Owen.
I note that in their Annual Report for 2006, Bizzy brags about facilitating the Flyover project. It is not clear how this was done, there is no clear transparent process that can be seen by which this project was awarded. There is no explanation for the MASSIVE cost over runs…
Obviously Bizzy is really BIG in Bim.
No wonder that the TCP would be ignored by such powerful people who are obviously above the laws and rules that guide ‘regular’ folks.
…thing is that like their colonial forefathers, they actually think that they have our best interest at heart and that we should be eternally grateful for their goodwill..
I will be surprised if someone don’t whisper in some ears and cause the TCP and MP to back off quietly…
..face it, our birthrights have been sold by those we trusted to represent us.
Frankology // November 10, 2007 at 9:46 pm
It seems that I must always act as devil’s advocate. First, let me clearly state that I am a motor racing addict. I love all types of motor sports and I hate people speaking of motor sports as a white man sport, and the various facilities are for whites only. Now you are aware of my hobby, I would like you to inform the public which of the below statements angers you.
Is it the location, noise and anti-social aspect? Or
Is it the objections of Town Planning, MP for the area and residents? Or
Do you have problems with the Williams brothers association with the raceway?
Anything you do we must object.
Mr. Goodenough, I presume you are a traveler and use the Grantley Adams International Airport. When you leave or enter the island, the airplane pass over many communities and keep endless noise, not once a week, once a month, but almost every minute. Are the residents from these areas have any rights to stop these noises? The various shooting ranges are located in residential areas and the blasts of gunshots are heard miles away; do these residents have any rights? Horseracing is located in residential areas; do residents have any rights pertaining to noise or the smell of excretion? The public endure these things silently.
Let me go further, Bushy Park Racing complex is closer to a community than Vaucluse, yes, some of the residents might be annoyed, but as a people, they put up with the noise for a short period because Car Racing is the biggest spectator sports in the island.
In your letter, it seems that you resent a racecourse in the Vaucluse area, thus your language of you having a successful business – that has nothing to with the raceway. A child killed on the roadways by a truck – nothing to do with the raceway; and you nearly killed by a drunk driver coming from dirt track – again no substance since every drivers are confronted with such occurrence daily.
Now, if you are against the developer ignoring the Town Planning department, I have a problem. However, again, I must beseech you to present a list of objectors from the communities regarding the said raceways and I will say the people are really against it.
The Barbados Football Association has land in the Gymnasium Complex to build a stadium and due to a certain community objecting, plans are on hold and the same language of noise and anti-social aspects were mentioned.
Why is it that residents of high end communities against certain sports being developed close to their communities, but the said residents will leave their communities and go to the Stadium, Kensington, the Garrison, the shooting ranges and jump in the various Kadooment bands and do not think about the other communities.
Do not believe the Democratic Labour Party will stop a sport that has potential to be a major foreign exchange earner? Were you one of the thirty thousands who trek to another community to see two Formula 1 cars entertain the public? Think about it.
Waterboy // November 10, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Frankology,
Goodenough has stated:
“People are doing a development at Vaucluse without Town Planning approval.”
and
“Town Planning has issued both ‘Stop Orders’ and ‘Enforcement Orders’ on this development, but to no effect.”
If these are facts then we should all be worried. You seem to be making a case for development without the requisite permission.
No matter how much we like motor sport the law is being broken.
Frankology // November 10, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Let me hear other residents about this development, lets see the two orders and the reason regarding the objection of these orders.
Shop Hill is over a mile to the south of Vaucluse and noise usually travel westward with the wind. This is not a community problem, this is a selected few who are objecting to this raceway. Next time you have racing at Vaucluse, visit the areas mentioned by the spokesperson and tell me the noise level. Due to the vast area, car parking scarcely reach residential areas.
This decision is badenough for a service economy. Elections is in the air. Will communities object to the shouting and entertainment from these platforms
Wishing in Vain // November 10, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Frankology Tell me are you about to condone people carrying out construction work without the proper permits being in place, I have no reason to doubt the honesty of this persons claim that the developers are acting outside of the law and should this be so our laws should make sure that they are charged before the courts and fined or jailed for breaking the laws of the lands, our problem is most people know that Owing and his cabinet have a price tag attached to them.
Bajan // November 11, 2007 at 1:29 am
I for one am a bit biased to motorsports because I am a fan of it as many others are but if in fact they are moving ahead without permission then it should be stopped and resolved. But on that note what are the real objections to its develpment? Noise, really…… Do you think the Kadooment route should be changed because of all that noise cause not everyone like the partying atmosphere but it is a big tourist attraction and part of our culture so people deal with it for a WHOLE day. Racing is at Vaucluse is probablt once a month so can’t you deal with it or is it that bad? Come on now, people need to see that if all the golf course getting approved then who is to stop the advancement of motorsport as a tourist attraction as well because poeple don’t like racing. It is growing and it will continue to grow to so why not let help the economy and yes the people who own it and par-take in it.
The View From Here // November 11, 2007 at 4:17 am
“Today I ask a simple question: Are we the special place I thought we were, or not?”
I give a simple answer: NOT!!!
Bizzy // November 11, 2007 at 7:20 am
My dear Goodenough,
why have you left where you were born to come to our island to try to impose your will on us whose families have been here from the time Barbados became Barbados. Why are you campaigning against a project that provides harmless entertainment for many thousands of Barbadians and visitors. The Vaucluse race track does no harm to you but provides thousands of Barbadians with something to do that they love and it is legal. There are racetracks in your country so why do you want to come here and deprive us of the simple pleasure of taking part in a sport that we love. Would you prefer that we amuse ourselves smoking and shooting dope instead or getting angry with people like you and developing a national sport of beating you. Young men and women need healthy outlets for their energies and every other sport has government provided facilities that are paid for by the taxes of the thousands of motor sport participants and fans in this country and we don’t fret about that. All we ask is to allow us to have two small areas in our island Vaucluse and Bushy Park where we can enjoy our sport. We are not asking for tax payers money but just to be given permission to practice our sport and pay for it ourselves. I would suggeat that you stop you little campaign against our sport or better still get on your broom and fly back to your country and campaign there against whatever you wish but leave us alone in our little island.
Motor sport fan
David // November 11, 2007 at 7:46 am
Bizzy the issue for BU is not the building of the race track but more about the approval or lack of which was highlighted in the letter from the resident of the area. We are aware that motor sport has a large attraction in Barbados and it must be catered to in the same way that we cater to all the other sports which do not generate the same kind of interest or revenue.
Please respond to the approval issue from the T&P. Is it in place? Are there stop orders since 2002? This is our concern because it speaks to a governance issue which BU is concerned about. Further if the concerned resident is a citizen of Barbados they have a right to disagree or petition against anything they see fit in the country, it is their right!
U. Goodenough // November 11, 2007 at 7:52 am
CRIME:
an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law
Frankology // November 11, 2007 at 8:35 am
Lets deal with class.
Suppose the said Vaucluse area was landmarked to be a Golf Course, would you be in the forefront to bring an injunction to have it stop? I bet the answer will be a resounding NO!….why, only the status quo will be able to partake in this upperclass sport. We have our children and grandchildren, regardless of colour, creed, sex or faith who wait for months just to see one day of quality motor sports. The ratio of public participation versus violent crime at any motorsport event is zero, yet we see comradie amongst every social sector.
Yes, I disagree with the developer going ahead with construction, but everyone must ask and I am dealing with the rationale behind the said Goodenough since he state “For several years now I have led a campaign (quietly in our area) against the establishment of a race track in an area of Vaucluse Plantation”. Was the reason to object and continue to object based solely on a certain class that will be badenough for an area that should be goodenought for people of his kind.
Now, this entire area is almost rab land, if the Williams and the Coziers had embarked on Villas and sprawling multi million country houses, I bet my last dollar, everything would have been goodenought.
Green Monkey // November 11, 2007 at 9:03 am
Vaucluse area residents, don’t worry about the noise factor. In a few years, the new race track will only be used for holding bicycle and donkey cart races, the same vehicles which will be the primary user of the ABC highway and its magnificent flyovers (if they do manage to get them built).
Peak oil: BP, Conoco and IEA all say it’s there
Waterboy // November 11, 2007 at 9:57 am
Frankology,
Let’s deal with facts not emotion.
Goddenough is not bringing any injunction he is merely asking for the enforcement of the law by those who have the responsibility to do so.
The developer has rights and the resident(s) have rights. There is a planning process and in this case it seems to have been abused in a most cavalier manner by the developer.
Right now we have only heard one side if the story and it would be great to have someone from the developer’s side contribute and not the emotional piffle about “our children and grandchildren, regardless of colour, creed, sex or faith who wait for months just to see one day of quality motor sports”.
We may all love motorsports but when the lawful authorities and planning process are ignored we are surely half way down a abyss from which there is no return.
“In the state of nature…all men are born equal, but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the law. ”
Charles de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)
Straight talk // November 11, 2007 at 10:00 am
Frankology:
The thread is not about whether or not Vaucluse Raceway should be developed, the Chief Town Planner according to Goodenough has temporarily ruled No.
The issue is the blatant disregard for the legal process, a point Bizzy totally disregards in his comment.
It may be OK for him to wake up one morning with flyovers spinning in his head, a scheme which the government (may have) adopted and sanctioned.
It is quite another to develop his land in this way, against some local wishes, without the necessary permissions.
It sounds a good idea to me, if done with due regard to his neighbours and our law.
Frankology // November 11, 2007 at 10:23 am
Waterboy I am not emotional, I am dealing with the primary cause. You all might be emotional because one person states that a ’stop order’ was issued, yet we see no evidence.
What I am trying to divulge from the objector is
his rationale to object. I admit that going against the direction of the TPD is incorrect but can we not be ojective to get the truth. There is no legality with someone collecting signatures. What we need to find out if these signatures are legitimate residents close to the said raceway and might be effected by noise or uncharacteristic behavior. Again, let us see the signatures and their locations. As I said, the area that he is speaking about are areas far from the racecourse where noise will not impact by the residents far less illegal parking. Which part of Shop Hill is he speaking about, the upper class development or the middle and lower section. These are questions that must be answered before we get in bed with Mr. Goodenough personal agenda. We are only hearing from him.
Adrian // November 11, 2007 at 10:42 am
could we not discuss motorsports? This is about the willfull civil disobedience to a lawful stop order. It shouldn’t matter to us what they were building and for what purpose. That was for Town and country planning to rule on and they did. Why are these citizens not abiding the ruling? Are we a country of laws or the lawless? How am i suppose to view this latest action against, let say the the Goodridge Highgate beating? Where in that case we were all emplored to wait on the law and justice. In the latter justice was not needed as an out of court settlement was prefered, in the aforemention a legal ruling was made only to be ignored. Why is it that one set of citizens are told to observe and abide by the law, and another set thinks that they can ignore it?
Frankology // November 11, 2007 at 10:47 am
Let us hear from the people of Town Planning on this matter or the developers. We are hearing only ONE VOICE.
Frankology // November 11, 2007 at 10:50 am
I would also like to hear the views of the Opposition candidate for St. Thomas.
Wishing in Vain // November 11, 2007 at 10:55 am
I am appalled at the arrogance of Bizzy in his submission, because he controls the PM does not mean that he can control the minds and the wishes of the people of Barbados, he may have the money to buy the likes Owing and Forde but he is not able able to manipulate the masses as is trying to do.
Another annoying aspect of his submission is his call to the writer to go back to where he came from and to leave he and his friends alone to corrupt the peaceful nature of the place, he is absolutely and completely out of place with his arrogance in this call it is disgusting and annoying why should he want this person to leave this island if he is a citizen of this island grossly unreasonable.
Then again we have learnt that power corrupts and power comes in many forms and money being an etremely powerfull one, and Bizzy and the Coziers do not lack in that department hence their bulldozer mentality.
More-than-interested-bystander // November 11, 2007 at 11:21 am
Truly, there really is no nice response possible to the blatant arrogance from Bizzy. Who does he think he is anyhow to tell caring citizens of Barbados to go back to where they came from?? Looks to me like if Mr Bizzy had his way anyone coming into our island would have to pass a test that demands that the new-comer pledge obedience and obeisance to any wishes from demanded of the drag/car racing addicts of the island. Lord help us!
Anonymous // November 11, 2007 at 11:21 am
Motorsport is moronic anyway!
Get the people out doing some exercise for a change!
Big fat boy-racers we don’t need!
Wishing in Vain // November 11, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I am truly disappointed with Bizzy’s response to this affair for someone that is so intimately involved with this project I would have expect a more conscious reply from him.
It makes me wonder if he has consulted with his new wife Shelly before attacking these lowly Barbadians she to would have grown up in places such as this and I wonder how she feels about her husbands bulldozer mentality in a nice village like Vaucluse.
Squatter // November 11, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Bizzy’s arrogance knows no limits. I have listened to Bizzy over the years . The man shows no humility just rude crude arrogance. Mind you Bizzy is the spokesman for the white minority. Dont let anyone be fooled about that. Richard Hoad and Loveridge are only whites courageous enough to disagree with his arrogance. Bizzy’s reply to Goodenough is a carbon copy of his disgusting attacks on Whittingham the English engineer who dared to question the flyovers. Frankology is an apologist for Bizzy. No need to guess his origins.
Desperately poor squatters are unceremoniously evicted by TCP yet rich whites break same laws with impunity. Power thru the millions he rakes in from black taxpayers has gone to Bizzy’s head . He thinks he is invinceable and he speaks and acts that way. In his crude submission as usual he acts as though he speaks for all Barbadians. He certainly does not speak for me. Unlike the Highgate gardens Goodridge race matter the Vacluse affair should remain in public domain until resolved. The public awaits word from TCP and Minister in charge.
Waterboy // November 11, 2007 at 2:02 pm
It is quite possible and most probable that the “Bizzy” comment was not by Mr. Ralph “Bizzy” Williams. Just someone using his name.
No Name // November 11, 2007 at 3:55 pm
How anyone in their right mind could be convinced that the REAL Bizzy Williams wrote the post is beyond me.
Were I a betting man I would lay my life on the line that Bizzy did not write that post. I have seen far too many letters written to the mainstream media by Bizzy that were professional. Bizzy would not post crap like this. He might say the same thing but it would be grammatically, spelling wise etc perfect.
What I think has everyone upset about it is the tone of the post and no one has thought about how the post was actually written. There are too many errors of all kinds from small letters instead of capitalized ones being used and other such give aways to convince me the post is a hoax.
This is one of the downsides to blogging. You may have an opportunity to say your piece but it has to be done as though we were white and black shadows and in the end accomplishes little.
Another thing that discredit blogs are people using other Posters names.
I noted a post on Vaucluse by “Green Monkey” a monicker I used on the DLP blog but the post on here by that name is not me I can assure you not that I give a s—-t. I just want to show you why in many cases Blogs are not in my opinion taken seriously other than to provide a forum for people to vent their frustrations.
Straight talk // November 11, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Green Monkey has posted on environmental issues long before you joined the DLP site.
I know it must be hard for you, No Name, to keep check on all your various noms de plume but this time you are the one hoisted by your own petard.
I don’t think the real Green Monkey will protest.
No Name // November 11, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Stright talk
That is just my point are you “Straight Talk” or are you “Green Monkey” responding. I rest my case sir!
Straight talk // November 11, 2007 at 6:36 pm
And would it matter.
Frankology // November 11, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Squatter, I am a born black bajan ’cause my navel string bury hey!. I am not Bizzy apologist, nor Owen and the BLP apologist, nor David and the DLP apologist, nor any blogs apologist. I deal with issues not with political agendas. I agree with NO NAME regarding the writer saying he/she is BIZZY. The real Bizzy Williams will have to be totally stupid to make such antagonistic remarks.
I am awaiting the posting of these TPD orders and the bona fide signatures. Otherwise, my feelings of class segregation based on statements will never change.
U. Goodenough // November 12, 2007 at 6:43 am
The petition was carefully done, and the signatures came from Dukes tenantry, Shop Hill, Shop Hill Terrace, and Eastern Land Development production. Anyone who knows the area is now beyond a shadow of a doubt as to who signed. We haven’t finished yet either- there is still the rest of Shop Hill, Grand View, Christie Village, Whitehall. We hope to butt Liz cross there.
And probably coincidently, just a couple of weeks after signatures were submitted, Government census takers came round and determined who lived in the area and in the houses of the Village.
Barbados Undergound we thank you for publishing the facts.
U. Goodenough // November 12, 2007 at 7:09 am
And doesn’t anybody find it amazing to read pages 50 and 51 of the Sunday Nov 11 Advocate, announcing future track paving works and development? Knowing that there is no Town Planning approval? It is on the club website too.
This is the area I grew up in- Shop Hill and Vaucluse. This special place, this wonderful place, Barbados, my home, our unique, special Island. We’ve got cancer.
David // November 12, 2007 at 7:10 am
BU wishes to confirm that we can’t confirm that the commenter under the moniker ‘Bizzy’ is the Bizzy we all know and love. What we can say is the BU household was out and about yesterday and say Bizzy and family having a rollicking good time. So if the ‘Bizzy’ commenter visits BU again and can indicate where he was at 1.30PM yesterday we would all know that the ‘Bizzy’ poster is the real mckoy!
David // November 12, 2007 at 7:22 am
U.Goodenough~until we get a read of the’ stop order’ we will be going around in circles on this one.The big premise on which you have built your argument is the illegal development of the race track.
We need to see the ’stop order’.
Waterboy // November 12, 2007 at 7:36 am
Sunday Advocate, Sunday November 11, 2007, page 50
Headline – Weather proofing for RallySprint track at Vaucluse
Excerpts form story
“No more mud or clay will be on the surface of Vaucluse Raceway when the 2008 RallySprint cup rolls off next year”
That is what chairman of the Vaucluse Raceway Motor Sports Club (VRMSC), Greg Cozier said they have planned……..
“The surface will be compacted and semisealed with the secret RallySprint formulae,” said Cozier in the closing remarks.
Snip
Cozier said that there are plans to have motorcross, which is circuit racing for rally cars , once again at the facility.
Snip
“……… our long term plan is to have six events per year…..”
Snip
“….Building a club house and planting trees “, are two of the things they have for the future.
Read the full story in the Sunday Advocate
U. Goodenough // November 12, 2007 at 8:25 am
David
I am a private citizen.
Would you like to see DVD footage of works, dated works, done over the past 30 days? There are 4 of them now. How would something like this get onto the website?
Could doing work without Town Planning permission also be worth consideration? Not being a lawyer could place residents and objectors at a disadvantage, but one would consider doing unauthorised development to be against the law. I can prove this with extensive footage, have proved it above, but for the blogs have only submitted a bare couple of pictures.
Let’s see how it plays out. We have faith that doing things through the right channels will vindicate us, whereas at this stage a developer of some kind may be seeking to look for a convenient legal loophole, some big-up contacts, and some really good spin. We are watching.
U. Goodenough // November 12, 2007 at 8:34 am
By the way, dozens of copies are in circulation. It will do no good to search for someone to beat.
4morevalves // November 12, 2007 at 10:54 am
Clearly you’re NOT Goodenough…
How about a little proof regarding all the stop orders that TCP allegedly issued.
How about a copy of the petition with 300 names on it. You are able enough to take photos, use Google Earth and burn videos to DVD. Clearly you must be able to use a scanner also.
While on the topic of Google Earth, the map in the attached link shows nothing different to your attached photos.
So Mr. GoodEnough, please bring us some proof of your allegations before flinging any more unqualified accusations around.
frankology // November 12, 2007 at 11:03 am
Can you get one of the signatures to submit a copy of the enforcement order to David. We need to get to the substance of this objection.
By the way, will 6 out of 365 days caused you such agony. The residents below Mount Stinkero lives it daily, The residents from as far as Maxwell Hill right below the airport must endure the noise daily, you have been waking up since 2000 with this raceway on your mind. you have 359 days of relaxation. Enjoy it and give thanks.
Bush Tea // November 12, 2007 at 11:28 am
So why does the ABC and Flyovers bother you Frankology? there are other roads you can use too…
frankology // November 12, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I have no problem with the dual carriageway, I have a problem like you with the $360 million, I have a problem with The Impact and Environmental Study along with the proposed meeting, I have a problem with the weakening of our limestones, thus, a true status from Hillis Carnes. I also have a problem with a company without any prior road building or flyovers construction, I have a problem with all this money being spent of Flyovers that will never solve our traffic problem. This is a clear example of partisan politics as display by commenters of your kind. You need to get the facts about this blog, what I am seeing is simply a personal vendetta and using all of you as pawns.
U. Goodenough // November 12, 2007 at 1:46 pm
They are marling, bull-dozing and making roads as I am typing this, as they have done all weekend, despite your having read this thread.
They have no permission.
Has it always been this way and we simply did not know?
Something inside of me is dying.
SILENT OBSERVER // November 12, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Before we go any further with this issue which is simply if permission was given or denied…..does anyone have any substantiated proof that TCP denied approval? If available, please post. The person who brought this issue to light should have been responsible enough to obtain a copy of TCP decision.
4morevalves // November 12, 2007 at 2:05 pm
“They have no permissions.”
“They have been issued stop orders.”
“We signed a petition.”
Nothing but talk, and talk is cheap. Show us that they have no permission. Show us a copy of the stop order. Show us anything. If there even IS anything…
Wishing in Vain // November 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I would hazzard a guess that if the did not have the permission before they will have today, once Bizzy took the time to call Owing and promise him a million or two with half being allocated to the party and half allocated to Owing’s personal bank account all issues will be resolved with one swipe of his pen.
Frankology // November 12, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Let’s look at this story in a realistic frame of mind. Mr. Goodenough states that he was working silently to stop this race course, he include mishaps that have nothing to do with TCP permission, he compiled 30 days of development, he have 4 DVD’s of pictures. If this matter had any factural substance, would this good guy not retain a major piece of evidence, which are the two orders from TCP? How come none of the 3oo objectors step forward to comfirm his statement? I am an insane bajan waiting for answers so that I can be smarter.
Frankology // November 12, 2007 at 3:42 pm
WIV, I hope when the DLP win this election, if you will have the guts to make such statement. Your bias is killing the blog. Deal with the issue and stop keep casting negatives continually at the other party. Was that the same offer made to “you know who”, after the Transfer Taxes of a certain conglomerate were deferred?
Wishing in Vain // November 12, 2007 at 4:07 pm
My friend I speak from a point of knowing exactly how Owing has been operating for somewhile now, when he can send someone out to engage a person with a piece of land for sale and he instructs the person making the offer to tell the seller that the gov’t will pay twice the asking price for the piece of land once the seller kicksback the excess between the asking price and the purchase price.
These are facts as to the manner in which your trusted friend Owing has been operating this is not hearsay these are real, do not stick your neck out to defend him because you may loose your head.
Your pal is not the most honest person around actually he is as dishonest as they come.
Wishing in Vain // November 12, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I maybe killing your hopes and wishes for a 4th term but so be it, for me the demise of Owing and his corrupt gang of crooks could not happen to a better bunch.
What amazes me moreso than anything else is that despite their blatant corruption and raping of the treasury you still have the gall to support and wish them another 5 years of stealing, that really amazes me no end!!!
Frankology // November 12, 2007 at 4:20 pm
He is not my pal, and I have no intentions of having any politician as a friend. You made a serious statement regarding underhand dealings by an official of government. If you know that it is a fact, where are the evidence so that this official can be brought to justice? The propaganda machine has been oiled and all pistons are firing. Sound like a scene from the Antigua election.
U. Goodenough // November 12, 2007 at 4:24 pm
If that project had approval why are you blogging so shrill-ly?
‘Bizzy’ would simply have said it had approval instead of getting busy on the typewriter early in the morning with some threats and commandments.
So draw your own conclusions…
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Nation in 2006 entitled “Our rights are important Ursula Goodenough”. It was responded to in exactly same way in another couple of letters to the editor, where the writer said exactly the same things, i.e. to get out of the country. Check the archives and see if you can find it.
The Nation knows whether this is “Bizzy” or Bizzy. They will even be able to know who the person is, because ‘Bizzy’ is Leon, or someone else.
All one can do is to await the final word from the PM, and then to see what the action will be. It must be tremendously occupied with estimates and with Parliament, but soon we do hope he will turn his attention and vindicate us.
The struggle continues. We have no fear. Yes, there is a good chance we will lose because of our limited strength, but it will not be through the use of our opponents’ methods of deception or lawlessness.
Frankology // November 12, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Check my posts. I criticise the Barbados Labour Party left, right and centre. I am not of your kind who defend a party morning, noon and night. I always believe that tow terms is enough for any party. I believe in changes so that any wrongs would be to a minimum.
So with that, stop aligning me with the BLP. I hope you defend your family like how you defend the DLP.
Wishing in Vain // November 12, 2007 at 4:35 pm
You stop and think about your statement for a minute, it sounds really great. it sounds like something you would hear in a big country,If you know that it is a fact, where are the evidence so that this official can be brought to justice.
Where and what do you do with evidence of this nature? when the police are unable to get involved when the revelation of that cheque arose, why would you think that they would step in now with some thing such as this?
That was a very nice call made by you but the reality is that this is Barbados and Owing is allowed to do as he likes without question.
The question that needs a reply is how many more of these same deals has he made with the Sandy Lane and other elite on this island?
What is the kickback in each of these cases?
How has the St.Peter development committee bank account grown at such a rate without the help of kickback deals?
I doubt very much that most people believe or know that Owing is a dishonest scamp, let us not forget the land deal at Holders if for no other reason he should be charged this is it.
Then we can toss in VECO, 3S, DANOS, the CHEQUE and the whole package comes together, BRIBERY,FRAUD, CORRUPTION all before the courts and who is in the forefront in all of this your trusted friend Owing.
Make a lovely story does it not?
What not to do when entrusted with the power and control of a small island state.
Wishing in Vain // November 12, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Why choose to get nasty and refer to family?
That was uncalled for, I honestly thought better of you, because we differ on the merits or demerits of the Owing admistration does not require you to get nasty with your comments.
Frankology // November 12, 2007 at 4:49 pm
No man is above the law, whether it is a large country like the USA or a small state like Barbados.
Yes, we know that money talks, but eventually, someone will fall. Think about Enron Scandal, no one expect something like this would have come to a conclusion.
The more we accost these people without bringing the facts, the more people will be undecided on voting time. Let’s work in a chronological way and deal with them one by one.
Frankology // November 12, 2007 at 4:57 pm
You would not get off the partisan bandwagon and reason. I use the analogy for you to slow up and deal with the no-show of such orders from TPD. Also your constant unnecessary bashing of the BLP, because someone will take up your position to bash your party if it win the next election. My statement is What goes around, comes around. Sorry about the family part, but it was not used to discredit you. You are still my friend.
Wishing in Vain // November 12, 2007 at 5:01 pm
They need bashing and bashing hard they are a dishonest bunch.
Thanks for the apology I was dumbfounded that you would resort to that level when I first read it.
U. Goodenough // November 12, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Did a search for Vaucluse. Here’s ‘Bizzy’ for you:
http://bararchive.bits.baseview.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=./pubfiles/bar/archive/2006/March/16/Editorial/16942.xml&start=0&numPer=20&keyword=Vaucluse§ionSearch=&begindate=1%2F1%2F1994&enddate=12%2F31%2F2007&authorSearch=&IncludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=1&IncludeImages=1&mode=allwords&archive_pubname=Daily+Nation%09%09%09
Frankology // November 12, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Mr. Goodenough, please ensure that you have the facts right before posting. The writer in this Nation letter is a Leon Phillips
POLLY // November 12, 2007 at 10:02 pm
According to representatives from the TCP department the Vaucluse Raceway is situated on land that is considered to be the best land for Agriculture. Namely Vaucluse and Airy Cot in St. Thomas because of the elevation and rainfall. The land is to be reserved for agricultural purposes. Also according to the TCP any request for change of use would be definitely against policy.
Secondly, the company hired by Vaucluse Raceway Project to conduct an Impact and Environmental study listed concerns about the impact of waste on our water given that Vaucluse is a Zone 1 for water collection.
The TCP representative stated that the racing circuit started before proper approval was given. Work going on is in contravention of an Enforcement Notice and Stop notice(s). Statements made by the Coziers are to intentionally mislead the public – they give the impression that the Prime Minister is in bed with the Coziers. We have no proof of this.
The attitude displayed by the Coziers is one that is similar to those you see or hear about from the past. A Cozier referred to our Civil Servants as lazy and ineffective. He said that Barbados has the largest Civil Service and still are unable to get the job done and it was basically not his fault if paper work was held up on someone’s desk. He stopped short of saying if the person was being paid to hold the paper work up.
The Coziers have continued to misrepresent people in the surrounding areas and have gone as far as stating publicly that Dukes was not impacted by noise or anything else. His reports are basically not truthful and should be disregarded.
Dukes is primarily affected as we are across the gully from the racetrack. We can hear everything going on at the raceway and the noise is from the crowds as well as the cars. What we are afraid of is once allowed then there is no telling how many races will be allowed to run there – it can be every weekend.
We have lived in Dukes for over 150 years and this little settlement has remained virtually unchanged. We’d like to keep it that way and we do not think we are asking too much given the about of time we’ve been here. We’ve earned that right!
People here still go to bed relatively early and keep to themselves. They do not like publicity and would prefer if everything would be resolved quietly. This is not going to be the case because we are dealing with some arrogant men and they care little about fellow darker skins in Barbados. Permit me to digress a bit – but note: You are only considered WHITE in Barbados and that’s why you have not left. I thank God that you are only BLACK like me and that’s all we have in common.
If our Prime Minister wants to sell us all back into slavery for a higher position in the Massa’s house then who can stop him? The so-called Whites will never stop looking for ways to keep us enslaved. Let’s show them that our education was not wasted on us.
Back to the real issue:
The complaints against the race way are genuine. We are concerned about our health, property values, damage to our environment, long-term damage to the water supply in Barbados, damage to the surrounding infrastructure (additional traffic on our collapsing roads). What’s even more worrisome is the fact that we have developers in Barbados who blatantly disregard our citizens, laws, civil service. This is not just happening in Vaucluse and the persons behind the building seem to be the same ones.
Let’s hope that this can be dealt with professionally with due care and consideration for those who have lived in the affected areas for hundreds of years.
Wishing in Vain // November 12, 2007 at 10:36 pm
POLLY I can feel the passion in your comments, this is the sad truth of life in Barbados now, we for sale to the highest bidders that is why there are so many instances of gross slackness abounding around this island.
It is for this same reason that the west coast clan can feel like they can walk over any and everyone because they have bought the gov’t out from under us.
There is some uneasyness between the Bajan white rich and the foreign white rich no wonder the local white rich are getting so hyper and in your face, no wonder they are so active in trying to buy the large parcel of land that Barbados Farms owns they want to create a few more golf courses to sell to their partners and push the piece of the rock further away from our grasp.
Wishing in Vain // November 12, 2007 at 11:28 pm
4. Didn’t you benefit too from the over $13 million in foreign exchange that the Barbados Rally Carnival generated last year or were you on another planet?
How and where would this magical figure arrive from ?
This sounds like Noeless Lynch reincarnated on this matter very much like his 90,000 visitors arriving for CWC on 700 yachts and 36 cruise ships being in port, what a lot of hog wash.
When people try to prove a point they will stretch the truth to the extreme to do so.
I put it to you that this rally carnival may not even have contributed a $ 1 million BDS to the economy further more $ 13 million in foreign exchange, it is even worst than I first guessed because the writer is now stating that they are referring to US dollars or Sterling and not even BDS dollars this is a fabrication of mistruths of a vast extent.
It begs the question just where would this person have gone to arrive at numbers so blatantly out of wack with reality to be considered seriously?
Maybe this is Noeless Lynch AKA Muscle Mary reincarnated.
frankology // November 13, 2007 at 12:40 am
This story sounds so pathetic and well executed, but it is laced with lots of questionable jargon. You are so lucky to hear from a representative of the land use policy for the Vaucluse area and how it the best agricultural area based on its elevation and rainfall. Nonsense, the best arable land is the valley area, namely the Belle, St. George areas, St. John area around Wakefield. Secondly, if that was the case, the TCP would have made that public and in writing to the developer. You said the Impact Study contained concerns about Zone 1 water. Again, nonsense, motor racing cannot affect water supply since emission lessens as the cars go faster. There are no constructed toilets on the compound, only chemical toilets and that’s a fact. I wonder if you would approve a Golf Course on this site, possibly, you will ignore the dangers of a golf course just to expand your egotism. This seems to be a continuation of the first objector of Enforcement Orders which up to now has been placed in the public domain. Yes, Duke is in the area, but I will tell you openly, to let the public know that the noise is that excessive as you are stating, the most you will hear is the backfiring of some high performance cars. What about the noise residents have to live with in the airport area every hour and this is what you call noise.
You said that residents go to bed early, you might only be inconvenienced six to ten time the most per year. Forget about massa and the slave trade, motor sports is the best vehicle for the mixture of colour and class; and most of all, it is violent free, check the legal authority for confirmation.
Everyday we come out of our homes or worst yet, you don’t have to leave your home to be affected with the environment, going to work will be more health hazardous than speedy vehicles on a raceway. Remember, traffic jams caused more health problems. What rubbish of collapsing roads caused by vehicles, you are behaving as though spectators will be using ten-wheeler trucks and excavators for transportation. Property values are not in the equation, some countries build villas around such sporting facilities for guests who would like to be near the action. Would you say the homes around Kensington has been devalued, would you say homes around the Stadium where you might go to have a laugh or a scream has been devalued, would you say the route for Kadooment where everyone jump and behave bad, consume gallons of liquor and entertainment so loud that you might hear when the people move off from the Stadium. That is what you call noise.
Polly,instead of pathetic writing, bring the evidence. This is the only way we will be able to verify your statements, otherwise, I will be on your case. I am not like WIV who might empathised without facts.
frankology // November 13, 2007 at 12:43 am
WIV, motor sports can be a vehicle for the movement of people. One overseas race car can bring in ten to fifteen people.
Wishing in Vain // November 13, 2007 at 12:59 am
Give me a break 13 million is extreme by any stretch of your thoughts!!
Iput it to you that this figure has been massaged to look good.
I honestly feel that these folks have real concerns and do have the right to a hearing, since when have we started turning a blind eye to the average citizens concerns.
If they feel that by setting up a car racing track in their area and choose to protest it what makes them wrong to do?
Or is because of who is setting it up that no one should be prepared to ask any questions about the track?
Last time I checked we were still living in a free society and this freedom still allows us to voice an opinion.
peltdownman // November 13, 2007 at 7:01 am
Frankology, your arguments hold no water ( a bit like the leachate ponds at Greenland). The airport analogy is false, because the airport was there long before most of the residents in the area actually moved there, so they established themselves knowing that there would be noise. Kadooment is once a year, but the Vaucluse raceway will be used every week by somebody with a big exhaust to show how “cool” they are, just like grown-up rally drivers. Last time I heard, this was supposed to be a democracy, and that gives any person the right to object to their way of live being disrupted by any activity, especially excessive noise. People like yourself feel that they can “shout down” legitimate objections even though they represent a minority in this country. Being the most popular spectator sport does not entitle motor racing to disrupt people’s way of life – it just means that properly planned facilities need to be provided for it, not some haphazard, environmentally destructive development placed willy nilly in a prime agricultural zone. As for ground water pollution, you are not aware that the materials used for the race track will actually seep into the ground water supply? The same for oil and other waste material that will just be dumped on the ground at the site during racing meets. Finally, the fact that the St George’s valley may be considered as the best agricultural land, we all know that Vaucluse is far from being rab land. It has been abandoned by its owners for the pure purpose of increasing its value as real estate. Instead of insisting that the objectors produce copies of the stop orders, which I think may be a very difficult task, why don’t you and the apologists for this monstrosity produce a copy of the planning permission. Cozier et al would surely be happy to produce this and put an end to the whole argument.
David // November 13, 2007 at 7:58 am
Peltdownman~you have made some good points but here is our concern which we will reiterate:
If the concerned resident of St. Thomas is bringing the case to the public and intends to win, they should try to bring the pertinent information which will garner support. This is very important when one considers the influential lobby which motor sport has in Barbados.
In a real world the majority often gets what it wants. So yes the resident is in the minority it seems so he or she must do all that they can to win support and not to rely on the scales of social justice.
peltdownman // November 13, 2007 at 8:22 am
David
The motor sport lobby may be powerful, but I would not say that the residents of St Thomas are necessarily in the minority, despite the widespread popularity of the sport, though I agree that they must garner support from wherever they can. My last point was, however, in response to the rather strident position taken by Frankology over asking for the stop orders to be produced. Surely it would be easier for the owners of the raceway to produce the planning permission if they have it, thereby rendering the whole matter moot.
4morevalves // November 13, 2007 at 8:41 am
POLLY clearly needs a cracker.
Get off your “poor black man” pedestal and get on with your life. People like yourself will never amount to anything because they spend their entire life crying out for pity; give me, I deserve, I never got, etc, etc, etc.
Here’s a novel idea: WORK FOR IT. Lazy BUM!
If any Cozier did call our civil servants lazy and ineffective then BRAVO – He’s absolutely correct. Nowhere else in the world have I encountered the piss-poor service, asinine attitudes, and general lack of interest as I have with Barbadian civil servants. It is downright embarrassing.
You’ve taken a discussion on the whether the raceway has a right to be built or not and turned it into an ignorant, racist, narrow-minded point of view.
It is no wonder some people are so cynical.
U. Goodenough // November 13, 2007 at 8:47 am
There is no way that we will be bated to give up what we have. I could never give Frankology the ability to read the signatures of the humble citizens, because he would then carry them to his friends the developers, and then they too would be tagets to “Bizzy’s” threats. Thus I will not give you access to the petition- not yet. But you can read about it in the Nation archives when it was happening, so you know they have verified it.
The REAL evidence is up at the top of the page. No amount of red herring cvan convince anyone with any sense that this is NOT an illegal development, and we can all see who it is.
Criminals will use any means they can to justify what they do. A blogger above asked whether anyone can justify doing anything in Barbados now, and if Frank’s logic runs true, the answer is Barbadians are the wild west, and we are all cowboys. And our neighbourhood the Indian village, Isn’t it?
CBC has the evidence, the Nation has the evidence. Our M.P. and all the Governmental agencies have the evidence. We are watching.
When I say the country has cancer I mean that it is gravely ill, seriously ill. No doubt the readers who get this far recognise it. Corruption and greed is eating us from the inside out in this (un)fair land.
Something is dying within me, and that something is Barbados.
You are lost.
anonymous // November 13, 2007 at 8:50 am
So the rich car rallying folks are telling us car rallying brought in more than World Golf Champioships. How come Dr. Marion Williams did not state this in her glowing reports on our economy? Lynch told us WGC would be a financial bonanza with lots of tourists. He has not gloated about the golf championships so we know as we saw for ourselves it flopped. The pictures on telly did make Barbados look pretty even in the rain. Lynch recently said he has something big in store for the car racing people. Typical opportunistic pandering. Vacluse maybe part of that.
When I see the crowds at those insane ear splitting car racing events whites are grouped together and blacks grouped togehter. You wonder why young blacks who cannot afford those expensive play toys leave home in droves to watch the Bizzy’s, Cozier’s, even Leon Phillips and their fellow rich white loafers have”fun”.
4morevalves // November 13, 2007 at 8:58 am
Leon Phillips is as black as the ace of spades, not a rich, white loafer.
Typical example of your ignorant assumptions clouding an otherwise simple discussion.
anonymous // November 13, 2007 at 9:10 am
4morevalves // Nov 13th 2007 at 8:41 am POLLY clearly needs a cracker.
Get off your “poor black man” pedestal and get on with your life. People like yourself will never amount to anything because they spend their entire life crying out for pity; give me, I deserve, I never got, etc, etc, etc.Here’s a novel idea: WORK FOR IT. Lazy BUM!
You left out one sentence 4morevalves “blacks always looking for handouts.” There now we complete.
No Name // November 13, 2007 at 9:39 am
Clearly this debate has reached the counter productive stage where no solution or clear and constructive dialogue is now possible.
I tend to agree that too often color is brought into a discussion when it really has little relevance to the core of the argument.
What little I know about this project one would think that the main focus of the discussion should be on the issues that put it on the board in the first place and those are.
Is the facility being constructed and operated within the legal guidelines and requirements of all Government Departments responsible and if it is not in compliance, then why is this being allowed?
How we go about determining these facts intelligently and factually is the main thrust to solving the concerns of all involved. Why are Opposition MP’s not wading in on this dispute to see if what is being alleged is true and then make political points on it? Is that not a valid thought?
Ranting on this blog and insulting each other has clearly shown me at least that this is another subject getting out of control because of innuendo.
peltdownman // November 13, 2007 at 10:30 am
No Name is correct. Race has nothing to do with this issue, nor has it anything to do with attitudes within the public service. These are all red herrings designed to move the argument away from its real purpose. I suspect that the developers of the course are ploughing ahead so that it becomes a “fait accompli”, and then try and force through permission on those grounds, probably after the next election. If it is granted, then it sets Barbados on a very slippery slope indeed – it will development anarchy, and every person breaking the TCP regulations will be able to quote this case as justification, or cry “discrimination!”
Wishing in Vain // November 13, 2007 at 10:46 am
There is hope on the way CBC of all sources is investigating and will report on it providing the PM , DPM, AG, Hoyos do not intervene and halt their reporting.
Frankology // November 13, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I will deal with the above posters one by one. First Peltdownman….your post “Why are Opposition MP’s not wading in on this dispute to see if what is being alleged is true and then make political points on it? Is that not a valid thought?
………………………………………………………………….
This is the point I have be pleading for as a neutral poster. These people need to start investigating certain problems within the society; instead of sitting back and the pounding of chests after seeing, certain apologists crucify the government side. Things like this win election.
Now to other sections of your post, the airport analogy is not base on time factor, but reality. The kadooment aspect is not only one day of the year, but almost a month, remember we have tents, competitions and the finale. These noises will affect communities, but no one complains. You talk about ground water pollution seeping into our water supply. The analogy of the airport has more substance than your statement of water pollution. Based on your logic, the whole of Barbados would be contaminated because we have thousands of vehicles on our roads and places like Bridgetown would be the first to be affected due to the many traffic jams that causes air-borne pollution, I don’t even want to talk about gas stations who service vehicles.
WIV, you are a smart writer and you have a wide cadre of info which I respect, but, and I stress on “BUT”, your actions reflect those of the old days when children gets a lickin’, on the day of question, we would have broken the leg of a dog. Our foreparents will lick us for the dog and include all the wrongs we would have done for a month, so you know the amount of lashes we will get… I say that to say this, you are so smart that you will deal with this issue and pelt in endless things to fire your submission. Anyway, I am still going to oppose when I see your slips showing. These are the reason why the language of being the minority, would not melt my reasoning until I see some sort of facts.
All this pathetic writing might be based on personal vendetta between two wealthy land owners. Am I wrong Senor Goodenough? Or you want me disclose to the public your ultimate motive.
This is what you said to David….
“Dear David
…No, I am a private citizen, but I know that both stop orders and enforcement orders have been issued many times going back to the year 2000”.
You also mentioned to David..
“Would you like to see DVD footage of works, dated works, done over the past 30 days? There are 4 of them now”.
This is what you said about the “stop orders” you states…
“By the way, dozens of copies are in circulation. It will do no good to search for someone to beat”.
THIS IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION:
“I could never give Frankology the ability to read the signatures of the humble citizens, because he would then carry them to his friends the developers, and then they too would be tagets to “Bizzy’s” threats”.
Since 2000, TCP delivered many “stop order” you said so. You also said many are in circulation that is another fact, because you said so. Yet, you are so excited to make 4 DVD’s but not able to secure one “stop order”. And finally, you write about not giving me signatures and the nonsense of me giving friends the developer.. What utter rubbish, I never told you that I need them personally; I want you to post them in the newspaper, blogs or even CBC.
Frankology // November 13, 2007 at 1:42 pm
NO NAME, my apologies these are really your words.
“Why are Opposition MP’s not wading in on this dispute to see if what is being alleged is true and then make political points on it? Is that not a valid thought?
…………………………………………………………………
And I fully agree and give you 100%.
Wishing in Vain // November 13, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Frankology,
Or you want me disclose to the public your ultimate motive.
Do not play with us if you know things that ought to on the table put them on the table.
I have supported this person because, I too would have a problem if after the refusal of the permits by TCP division someone were to break the law and continue to do so without the regard for the laws of the land, if you know otherwise you need to state the case.
Frankology // November 13, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Goodmorning WIV
If you realised, I prefer to have the actual facts/evidence before I any mouthings. This is the core factor that is missing in this blog. My mother instilled in me”If you don’t have facts, keep your mouth shut”
Wishing in Vain // November 13, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Good Afternoon Frankology ,
Am I wrong Senor Goodenough? Or you want me disclose to the public your ultimate motive.
I was referring to your comment above, if you have facts pertaining to this matter you ought to bring them to the table.
Frankology // November 13, 2007 at 2:20 pm
WIV.
I understand what you said in the first post, and my sentiment remains until I have the facts.
I heard from a birdie that the Impact Study for the Flyovers was submitted to the TPD and deferred for more information. WE still await the Flyover meeting as promised.
Frankology // November 13, 2007 at 4:50 pm
by Ursula Goodenough
LEON PHILIPS, on March 16, and Greg Cozier on March 7, wished to paint a wonderful picture of an established car race track in St Thomas, which generates a plethora of foreign exchange. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are not protesting the existence of a race track. We are protesting the proposed building of a racetrack in, and near, heavily populated, established residential areas.
There are people with houses on lands adjoining, and close by, who will experience inconvenience, hardship, loss of property values and health challenges.
St Thomas citizens are patriotic and support tourism. We support the establishment of a race track in another place, but only where communities and residents are safe from its effects.
We have lived in Dukes Tenantry for over 100 years. So why is it that we should be expected to put up with a set of abusers, who are trying to destroy our peaceful existence?
We continue to say that Vaucluse is not an appropriate place for a race track. Residents are already there.
Our rights are important. Why not put itat the end of Grantley Adams runway, or at a location far away from a residential development?
We won’t accept the proposed noisy night/day racing till 10 p.m., advertised late-night partying, and novice roadster drivers who fly about after drinks on our narrow, hilly roads.
We won’t accept their plans for a hugely noisy and dusty, polluting double-lane drag strip from Vaucluse Factory to Dukes. We don’t accept their attempts to close our public road.
* We won’t accept their planned 12 000 patrons, which is the size of Kensington Oval, in our community.
* We won’t accept their past and future planned obstructions to our passage.
* We won’t accept their fans’ drunken driving.
* We know that property values will go down, as will our health and quality of life, and our right to peaceful enjoyment.
We plead to the powers. We pray to God for deliverance . . . and appeal to the Government to help us and to protect our rights.
Does the developers’ money give them greater rights than we the villagers? Surely Town Planning will place greater value on our lives and health?
Their town hall meeting was called and forgotten at Christmas time, when motor sports organisers knew no one could attend. Shame!
We cannot move. Many of us are very poor, as opposed to the rich landowners we are up against. Let them have a track at their own house, but please not in our front yard!
Our little petition is up to 212 signatures, including ALL of the residents of Dukes, which borders on the track.
And it will grow as more people hear about it.
This article was written April 17, 2006. Did you see anything about Enforcement orders. Did you see any mention of Town Planning. You see, due to the rigid system within the fourth estate, the writer could not use assumption, or include untruths that is debatable. Thus, the reason to blog her feelings, because we might not ask for verification. Goodenough, why did you fail to address the orders which you stated were in circulation since 2000?
peltdownman // November 13, 2007 at 5:31 pm
How interesting that you were able to put your hands on this old blog so quickly, Frankology. One might mistakenly think that you have an agenda.
Wishing in Vain // November 13, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Frankology , What I am missing?
So why the threat to Goodenough as below?
What is his ultimate motive as you must know what it is if you have asked him as you have?
Am I wrong Senor Goodenough? Or you want me disclose to the public your ultimate motive.
Frankology // November 13, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Peltdownman, unlike you, I do research before posting nonsense. One thing I am not, is someone’s mouth piece.
These are the words used by Goodenough…”I wrote a letter to the editor of the Nation in 2006 entitled “Our rights are important Ursula Goodenough”.
I did my homework and located the story from the Nation’s archives. Now do you think I have an agenda?
Frankology // November 13, 2007 at 6:34 pm
WIV, You are not missing anything. The story above was mentioned because the writer said a letter was sent to the Nation in 2006. That was done for research purpose only. The statement of ultimate motive have nothing to do with the letter published. When I have the facts I will advised accordingly. What you should do is read all the information from the writer and you will see some questionable statements without facts. All I am trying to do is decipher facts from fiction and don’t let my emotions rule me.
Frankology // November 13, 2007 at 6:56 pm
What U. Goodenough said in 2006
“We are not protesting the existence of a race track. We are protesting the proposed building of a racetrack in, and near, heavily populated, established residential areas”.
What David said based on what was said.
“Bizzy the issue for BU is not the building of the race track but more about the approval or lack of which was highlighted in the letter from the resident of the area”.
You can decipher
U. Goodenough // November 13, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Hi Frankology
You’re chronologically challenged, but you are slowly learning. You aren’t disputing existence of the petition any more though?
Why don’t you meet me at the track tomorrow morning and I’ll show you that they have almost finished building an illegal track without planning permission?
Just confirm a time- I’ll wait at the gate for you for 5 minutes. If you don’t show up, I’ll leave.
ILLEGAL means a CRIME has been committed!
ILLEGAL things are done by CRIMINALS!
What starts out wrong does not turn out right! Teach your children and/or the masses of Barbados to disregard the law and you will have lots more crime soon, and no reason to complain!
U. Goodenough // November 13, 2007 at 8:54 pm
And Frank
I will have a pack of DVDs for you…
U. Goodenough // November 13, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Wishing in Vain
I would like to extend this invitation for you too.
I do apologise for not having responded to your writing through this thread. You are showing a sincere interest- but I am fearful of political allegiance- have heard you may be a politician.
The DVDs are apolitical, simply evidence that the crime has been committed.
Please let me know.
Wishing in Vain // November 13, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Frankology I am sorry you misled me and others with the intent of your message it appeared you had some knowledege of something relative to the matter that was negative to Goodenough but it appears it was only a rambling comment, I thought you were making a meaningful contribution on the subject.
Seems to me that the purpose was to threaten in the hope he would shut up!!
Round 1 to Goodenough.
Wishing in Vain // November 13, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I am not a politician but merely a citizen that has had enough of this nonsense of stealing and corruption and fooling of the masses with razzmatazz, and fireworks, I have chosen to speak out about the state of affairs taking place in this island.
I am just like you and so many others, simply a peaceful Bajan trying to own a piece of this rock for my children and their children’s children.
Trying to avert further disaster coming to this lovely island by further stealing and further corruption.
I would love to see what you have.
U. Goodenough // November 13, 2007 at 9:33 pm
How about 8 AM?
U. Goodenough // November 13, 2007 at 11:38 pm
OK
I have now found a way. Check some pretty bad camera videos, but here’s preliminary evidence. Remember, the DVDs show a chronological sequence of events during the months of October and November.
You’ll be surprised to see the extent of what is going on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQzInwBuzkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8-oVjRgYmo
This is no tiny thing place for boys to play. This is a HUGE illegal development. Why are the authorities silent? It is not right.
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 3:07 am
How can you be misled when I told the BU family I am awaiting concrete evidence with information regarding a feud/vendetta between these two wealthy St. Thomas residents? This I am still awaiting so WIV open your neutral brains and forget your political agenda and stop being sidetrack by pathetic writers. From the beginning of this post, your mind was made up that everything within is the gospel, although I asked questions up top of questions for facts regarding the issuing of orders by the TPD and received stupid excuses and up to now this writer failed to garnish this post with a copy although he made statement of copies in circulation. You must deal with the primary caused which is missing and stop dealing with someone taking pictures on a daily basis to substantiate his personal disapproval.
I realise that you will be meeting this writer, and I hope you get the facts along with your observation of the location of Dukes on the North and Shop Hill on the south. While you are there, check with the people by the Sanitation Department depot west of Vaucluse and ask them if noise emits from the race course.
Now to Ms Goodenough, your mind is so set in getting out your vendetta that you failed to see that I was submitting research after reading your posts. I am still adamant about those orders from the TPD, thus your statement from your post of “You’re chronologically challenged, but you are slowly learning. You aren’t disputing existence of the petition any more though? ”
Read your 2006 letter to the Nation and tell me where in this letter is anything about “Stop Orders”. I await your answers.
This is the first time I know of any injunction with this race course until you made your postings which I read and found many doubts regarding the validity of facts. All my research was done based on your statements.
Wishing in Vain // November 14, 2007 at 3:18 am
Am I wrong Senor Goodenough? Or you want me disclose to the public your ultimate motive.
So you are still waiting concrete evidence with information regarding a feud/vendetta between these two wealthy St. Thomas residents? This I am still awaiting.
Nevertheless you opt to threaten the writer by stating Am I wrong Senor Goodenough? Or you want me disclose to the public your ultimate motive.
To DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC WHAT? and when?
If you are still seeking or looking for this evidence how can you threaten to disclose something you do not have?
That was simply my point you issued threats that were uncalled for!!!
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 3:21 am
Goodenough, you could have substantiate your posting by taking videos of the houses in close proximity of the race tracks, not equipment and marl. You will have about twelve houses to the south of track and you are not a resident. The other houses are so far that you would be unable to to see one single house top. Deny those facts.
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 3:32 am
Did BU state it have information regarding Operation Free Flow on October 21, 2007.
We promised yesterday to deliver the latest decisions to be made regarding the 3S project. We have to reverse our decision because of the possibility that our sources maybe compromised. We apologize for any inconvenience caused to the BU family.
Only neutral and honest people would use this line. The others with agenda, will babble and include innuendos and deceit to get over a point. Not me, I wait and do research before I write simply, because I hate lies.
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 3:36 am
BU, be careful, your headline looks like The Advocate maskhead. Just an observation.
U. Goodenough // November 14, 2007 at 6:27 am
Watch Barbadians break the law. They have no planning permission.
Everyone in Barbados should go to this link and see for themselves. It is wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQzInwBuzkE
peltdownman // November 14, 2007 at 6:47 am
Thanks, Frankology. I guess that taking the time to research the Nation archives means that you do not have an agenda. I guess that 30 out of 109 contributions to this blog also do not indicate an agenda. Thanks for putting me straight.
David // November 14, 2007 at 7:10 am
Frankology that would be ok because the Advocate is considered to be a BLP sympathizer.
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 9:25 am
David, I must say that the BU based on my observation is a fairer player dealing with issues. You ensure that blogs and submissions are not too one-sided, and you ensure commenters published information that can be substantiated, we know some might fall thru the shoot. Keep up your good work.
David // November 14, 2007 at 9:32 am
U.Goodenough please record your DVD footage on Google video. You will need to open a gmail account we think.
When you are finish send us the links.
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 9:33 am
Peltdownman, I always wanted to be a lawyer but due to financial constrains and being within a single parent, my ambitions went thru the door. This is the reason I do lots of research before writing in these blogs. Thanks for following my progress within this blog. This is the last time I will tell you, I have no agendas, political, religious or personal, I am simply, the devil’s advocate. Neutral and jus’ lovin’ it.
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 10:37 am
We are hearing of Enforcement Orders being delivered, but people, we have a slight problem. When an enforcement order is being enforced, the TPD would have been accompanied by officer(s) of The Royal Barbados Police Force. Check with the Belle Zone 1 water issue.
Adrian Hinds // November 14, 2007 at 10:53 am
Once again i have to refer readers to http://www.barbadosforum.com where a lengthy discussion on Motorsports took place. I came to the conclusion then that a lot of the confusion and controversy surrounding motorsports, starts from a position of class and colour. This does not take away from some of the legitimate concerns raise by citizens from time time, the evidence in some case demonstrated the validity, of the complaints. What i notice on one occasion after there was several complaints made during a staging of an event, was a concerted effort by the motorsports organizers to address all those concerns. I have since then been of the view that they have demonstrated a willingness to come to the table with concern citizens to address differences and issues. This current controversy isn’t about motorsport, it is about constructing something without permission and as Frank, and noname and others are saying, it should be easy to prove if the construction is occuring without permission.
http://www.barbadosforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=905&view=findpost&p=9511
http://www.barbadosforum.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=3581&view=findpost&p=35632
U. Goodenough // November 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm
The first link you sent from Barbados forum contained a blogger who said in 2004 that Vaucluse was told NO.
No means NO.
This blog is not solely about whether it is illegal or not, but this plays a huge part in showng up the way these things get forced down good and innocent peoples’ throats.
1) We have objected to the plans as is our right, and we have not been answered. That is a valid point.
2) They have developed a racetrack illegally, and by God they should not have done that because if allowed they have legalised crime in Barbados.
All hail the newly indoctrinated 18,000 criminals, screaming and drinking at their illegally constructed venue on November 30!
God bless our criminal heritage!
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Goodenough. Are you the Ursula. W. Goodenough?
peltdownman // November 14, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Adrian Hinds
it should be easy to prove if the construction is occuring without permission.
________________________________
It should be even easier to produce the permit, if permission has been granted. Let’s face it, it’s the developers who are being accused here. Once they produce the TCP permit to develop the land as a motor racing track, then everything we have been arguing about will be history. I suspect that it will be difficult to see a copy of any stop order, if it exists, as it will take a brave man in TCP to take the risk of producing it.
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Please let the public know if you above person. “Yes” is three letters and “No” is just two. We await your speedy reply.
Remember you said you was dealing with this issue from 2000.
U. Goodenough // November 14, 2007 at 12:54 pm
The fact that it can only be dated after the work has been undertaken would then be the proof in the promise, would it not? Our leaders would never do this to us.
U. Goodenough // November 14, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Hi Frank
Strange, I can’t seem to recall whether I have a middle name or not. Guess no might be the answer, but I’m not sure.
I know there are lots of Goodenoughs around. We have a whole village at Dukes.
Frankology // November 14, 2007 at 1:12 pm
U.G. You seems to be a stranger from the truth, possibly, this might be an evolutionary affair, thus, the difficulty in getting simple information from you, since you prefer to doctored vital information. I done with this issue for now. I am doing some research.
U. Goodenough // November 14, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Glad to hear it. The deeper you look, the more you will find.
But while doiong research don’t forget to check these 2 links to show some of the illegal work presently being done at the site, these ones from Nov 10 I think, but recent work going back to Oct 3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQzInwBuzkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8-oVjRgYmo
Happy Independance in advance to one and all, criminals and lawfuls.
4morevalves // November 14, 2007 at 4:26 pm
What do these videos have to do with anything? You have been repeatedly asked for some kind of proof as to the existence of a stop order, and so far none has been forthcoming.
All these videos show is construction work being carried out. This work – without the confirmation of a stop order being given – could VERY well be 100% LEGAL!
David // November 14, 2007 at 4:35 pm
U. Goodenough we are afraid that we agree with 4more and others. Unless you introduce the stop order or some official document which supports your claim this story may well end up in the toilet. Just showing the videos and talking about illegal construction going on may not be good enough.
peltdownman // November 15, 2007 at 1:22 pm
David, I am asking you, Frankology, Adrian Hinds et al to let us know how you would go about obtaining a copy of the stop order. Better still, if it’s that easy, why don’t you try and get a copy yourselves?
David // November 15, 2007 at 1:54 pm
peltdownman there is the obvious reason why we cannot pursue your request.
There is also the answer that the onus is always on the person bringing the charge to produce the overwhelming evidence.
We have provided a voice for U.Goodenough
We think we have done our part. We can go further and say we called the T&C tel# 246 467 3000 and asked to be transferred to a Town Planner but the phone rang and rang and rang.
We called back to ask the receptionist about the stop order but she again firmly directed us to one of the ringing phones at the T&C department. It would be good if one of our many readers with the contacts can call and put this matter to bed.
Wishing in Vain // November 15, 2007 at 3:05 pm
David this was my suggestion from the very start that Frankology who is renowned for his research work may have taken the bull by the horns and contacted the TCP department and gotten to the bottom of this.
peltdownman // November 15, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Does Anyone Know Who Said YES!
__________________________
David, this is your headline. It doesn’t ask “Who said NO?”
4morevalves // November 16, 2007 at 8:34 am
As far as I’m concerned, whoever levels the charges must also obtain the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty my friend.
U. Goodenough // November 16, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Smoke and mirrors. You can’t be wrong and get right.
Frankology // November 16, 2007 at 1:33 pm
U.G. Yes you can. Once you have been vindicated.
4morevalves // November 16, 2007 at 2:54 pm
You haven’t proven that they’ve ever BEEN wrong!!
U. Goodenough // November 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm
The facts:
Stop order/stop orders have been delivered to the owner of said area.
Enforcement order/ enforcement orders have been delivered to owner of area.
As far back as 2000.
Residents have submitted objections.
Owner has developed without Town Planning permission.
Let the owner come forward and explain the rationale as to the development activity in October and November; the development in the year before 906/07) of paving the track.
In the Utube links I have proven to you that development is going on. That’s your elephant. No amount of smoke or mirrors can make it disappear now.
It’s ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!
If this project is allowed anyone can do anything in Barbados. Lawyers may use obfuscation, but the facts are the facts.
And those are the facts. You can try and bring some ‘false facts’ but Illegal is Illegal is illegal. I’ll continue to speak the truth for as long as I live.
Come and beat me now. I will never stop fighting for right in Barbados for as long as I live. Let Bajans decide where Barbados is going, and choose who is right, we or you.
And let Bajans decide what kind of Island we will be going forward into the future, wicked and lawless as against upstanding and lawful.
Frankology // November 17, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Anytime an enforcement order is issue, a police officer should be present.
U. Goodenough // November 18, 2007 at 7:42 am
Not sure what you are talking about. Do you know something? An ‘enforcement’ order or a ’stop’ order? Also which ones do we refer to? In which of the years?
Speaking of police officers though, we understand that the Royal Barbados Police Force is required to police any events held in Public. And the Chief Magistrate is required to grant a licence to sell alcohol.
If anyone is saying that instructions by Town and Country Planning can been disregarded, and that they may be using some kind of technicality to do so, then we call upon these institutions to DENY any APPLICATIONS by evaders of the law, and invaders of our residential area.
And not only that, THEY HAVE NO PLANNING PERMISSION TO BUILD A RACETRACK UP THERE!
jeff // November 18, 2007 at 7:01 pm
we need the race track
its a great place to go
and it brings lots of money
build it
Waterboy // November 18, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Jeff,
Maybe we need a race track.
Maybe it is a great place to go.
But, tell us:
How much money it brings?
How it brings the money?
Frankology // November 18, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Professor U. W. Goodenough, you are trying to pretend that you are one of our sisters with lesser educational trying to gain empathy from the public , thus, your behaviour of not understanding what is an ‘enforcement order’. This is not a bajan legal jargon, it is a universal legal instrument used to retard any activity that is illegal. A uniformed police officer usually accompany officers of the TPD whilst issuing these said orders.
One week gone and you fail to present one single copy of the enforcement order, although you said copies were circulated.
4morevalves // November 19, 2007 at 8:30 am
You can quote smoke and mirrors all you want… The only smoke around here is the smoke you are trying to blow up everyone’s – - -
jeff // November 19, 2007 at 11:18 am
it if the track owners do the right thing
it will bring RACER FROM all over
the country to the area they need a hotel to stay at a gas station a resterant
and all that good stuff no including
the estimated 8.000 or so fans in the seats
all that together will be way over the millon doller mark
graeme // November 19, 2007 at 12:42 pm
With regards to the money brought into the country by motorsport: Rally Barbados sees ~30 foreign competitors arrive every year to the island. Each competitor ships a car, a crew, family, friends and equipment. They stay in hotels and rent local houses, they eat at restuarants in the area, they go on trips and typically stay for a fortnight or more making the most of the island’s facilities. All in a typically quiet time of year for tourism. Similarly, the event brings in thousands of fans who further utilise local facilities puring more money into the economy.
Last year Vaucluse Raceway held an international event for RallyCross and this had a similar effect with a full compliment of the world’s finest machinery being shipped across the Atlantic.
The money being brought in is of no question and is a documented, acknolwedged benefit to the ecomomy.
While motorsport has some detractors who see it as elitist or encouraging problems on the roads, this is always a myth perpetuated by those who have never taken the time to look at it any more closely than a passing glance at a loud modified car on the road.
The sport is followed by, supported by, entered by and maintained by all levels of class, color and creed. In fact, it’s one of the wonderful few places where class, color and creed are completely irrelevant as the only things people really care about are skill and talent.
Similarly, the problems on Bajan roads are not brought about by those who compete in motorsport. They are brought about by generic idiots who would be doing what they are doing regardless of background activities.
The ‘international’ racing events held at Bushy Park are immensely popular with the fans, but only at a more regional level with competitors, as the facility is nowhere near the standard required to attract geniune international competitors.
If Barbados had a high grade motorsport facility (be it at Bushy Park or Vaucluse, or both) it would attract futher foreign competitors, further foreign money, further tourism income and help further nurture the island’s own innate motorsport talent which has had to make do with canefields, broken race tracks and minor intermittment investment.
And no, I am not an investor at Vaucluse or in anyway associated with the facility. I am a motorsport fan who would like to see the island and the island’s God-given talent get the facilities and coverage it deserves.
Graeme.
U. Goodenough // November 19, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Hello
Not sure if I’m educated or uneducated. Some and some maybe. Hello, ,and happy Monday.
Over the weekend the areas of the track were rolled by a steamroller. I have pictures of the steam roller, the track, and I shall send them to Barbados Underground and Barbados Freepress after posting this.
This arrogant and high-handed behaviour is just another signal that our democracy in Barbados is under threat. These peole think they can do anything they want. And still we see the posters of the friends and supporters who cannot seem to understand:
It’s ILLEGAL.
Frankology // November 19, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Sure me the orders and I will walk with you.
4morevalves // November 19, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Until you show me the stop orders, you are a LIAR!
Frankology // November 19, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Show me the orders and I will walk with you.
Proof-free Pudding? // November 20, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I’ve read this all with some interest, and though it really doesn’t matter to me either way whether vaucluse is expanded or not, simply in the interest of a good logical debate I must say that U. Goodenough seems to be intentionally ignoring the fundamentals; either that or they are quite dense. No one has disputed that flouting laws of the land cannot be condoned. Not a single person, not even Frankology. Forgive the caps, but UG seems unable after so many posts to understand this basic concept, so I’m hoping to make it clearer: PICTURES OF CONSTRUCTION DO NOT SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS ILLEGAL. A roller being illegally used looks… well… the same way it would if it were being used for a legal purpose. Reading their myriad cries of “I have DVDs of contruction” and “Look! Look! A bulldozer bulldozing!” was only slightly less painful than being kicked in the nuts.
U. Goodenough // November 20, 2007 at 9:28 pm
If it doesn’t matter to you either way, why are you shouting?
Too exhausted to write tonight.
4morevalves // November 21, 2007 at 7:59 am
Exhausted from what? From NOT providing evidence that substantiates your claims?!? Hard life…
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 8:55 am
No, from burning the DVDs of your illegal activities and delivering them to the PM, Town Planning, Hon Cynthis Forde, and the media!
It’s a job bringing out the truth to Barbados.
4morevalves // November 21, 2007 at 9:30 am
What are you burning DVDs for? The activity – legal of otherwise – is not being hidden. It’s not to say they’re doing it under the cover of darkness, with armed security to keep out ‘prying eyes’.
If everything is illegal then CBC, TCP, and Cynthia Forde can go at any time and see for themselves! You are making it out to be a huge job, when in reality it isn’t.
And by the way… MY illegal activities? I’ll tell you one thing – if I had anything to do with Vaucluse I would have provided the proof needed to shut you up a LONG time ago!
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 10:06 am
4 DVDs of construction activity at Vaucluse have now been delivered to Town Planning, To the Minister responsible, to Hon Cynthia Forde, MP for St. Thomas, and to the media.
These DVDs are absolutely definitive. There is absolutely no doubt as to the location of the site as one blogger suggests, because you can easily see if you look at the site. Similarly, the pictures of the roller on this blog show the flag poles at the gate of the area, and the roller going out of it. They define the location and ther extent of the works undertaken.
What we see on the DVDs starts and is dated October 3 2007. The most recent submission is November 19, 2007 with the exit of the roller. We see the most recent start of the most recently undertaken work, with the backhoes and excavators digging into soil, removing it. Then the backhoe changes to a large rock cutting excavator and cuts into the rock underneath. After this we see trucks delivering marl to the site, backhoes loading trucks, dumping it into the areas worked on. Then we view bulldozers pushing and making marl into the cut areas, and lastly we see the roller leveling and compacting the surface.
This work started on October 3, 2007 and has spanned the last month and a half up until the present.
They have no planning permission still
We have been blogging about this, and I wish to reiterate that these DVDs are definitive. What is most depressing is that instead of highlighting this illegal activity, the Barbados news media has chosen to highlight in a different fashion:
Barbados Advocate Sunday Nov 11, 2007:
“Weather Proofing for Rallysprint track at Vaucluse, by Cory Greaves”
No more mud and clay will be on the racing surface at the Vaucluse Raceway when the 2008 Rallysprint Cup rolls off next year. That is what chairman of the Vaucluse Raceway Motorsports Club (VRMSC); Greg Cozier said they have planned at the prize-giving ceremony at the Barbados Clay Target Shooting Association’s (BCTSA) Clubhouse at Searles recently.
“The surface will be compacted and semi-sealed with the secret Rally sprint formula”, said Cozier in the closing remarks
Snip
“Cozier said that there are plans to also have motorcross, which is circuit racing for rally cars, once again at the facility”
Snip
“There are plans to upgrade the surroundings of the facility, but expansion of the track is not one of them…”
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 10:07 am
Well, we have DVDs proving the expansion of the track, the widening of the track, the digging and marling and rolling; and we therefore question this and ask, “Is it true, the above?”
Residents of the area again note the illegality of what has been transpiring, and again want the general public to know. We came to the Barbados Underground, and the Barbados Freepress not because they are political affiliates, but because our efforts to tell the public the truth are being suppressed.
We again thank these two blogs for supporting freedom of expression in Barbados. We are strongly supportive of democracy, of legality, of righteousness and truth.
We have been unable to unable to source justice in our cause, voices in the wilderness. We note the tendency of affairs in Barbados towards the backroom, at the expense (in this case) of the vested residents of the area, and we are trying fervently to make the powers at large realize that big money is not always where it is at. There is more to Barbados than bulldozing and steam-rolling the common citizen. We support a cause of righteousness.
Let the truth be known, and let Barbados compare our cause with the affairs of their own experience in Barbados, and within their own neighbourhoods. One would never ever call for disobedience, even in the case of such a vexatious stain on our community, and so we only ask Bajans to compare: compare to the hundreds of community issues we all have going in our villages and in our newspapers.
Compare and learn how it is for the lower form of life in Barbados. Is this how Bajan democracy functions? If so, is this really democracy, when selected individuals are allowed to blatantly break our laws, and the instructions of our institutions, and be ratified at some later date? They have no permission to do these things. Why should any of us obey the law anymore…they don’t. And this is what THEY teach you today, not I. They show all of us why we may now be justified to break the laws…and THEY show us the motivation that could conceivably justify each and every crime committed by anyone, and can conceivably be utilized as a precedent in a defense case, and why it should be exonerated and dismissed. It is because our role models have taught us to be so, from bottom right up to the top.
More facts to come.
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 10:17 am
And don’t forget
There is still the issue of the flood on the road created years ago, making Dukes road impassible. That is to prevent to road being used and to make it easier to justify the plan for closing it off for a drag strip.
They have refused to rectify it, even though THEY created it.
Justice, who will bring us justice? They do wickedness…
frankology // November 21, 2007 at 11:40 am
You have three posts one after the other, and none of them contains any substance regarding ‘enforcement orders’. This is the crux of the matter, we are not dealing with a progress report, we are dealing with the subject matter; Did TCP actually delivered, or posted on the property, or circulate any ‘enforcement orders’ to the developer?
I think this discussion needs closing, since the writer deliberately avoiding questions of the validity of his statements.
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 11:59 am
In a word, the answer to this is ‘yes’. They were issued in August 2000.
I made a point to contact Town Planning and was told that these are not available to the general public, but that they exist.
I am working on bringing the general public more facts that are attainable. May I suggest you confirm these things if you doubt my word. The application number is 2363/10/2000C
4morevalves // November 21, 2007 at 12:18 pm
The writer is clearly an uneducated human who doesn’t seem to understand the arguments put forward to him.
NO ONE IS REFUTED THAT THERE IS ONGOING WORKS AT VAUCLUSE!!!
All the DVDs you seem to be able to record so well are doing nothing to help your case on this forum. We still demand proof. Some modicum of proof as to your allegations of the existence of a TCP stop order.
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Thank you for the categorisation, but you do not do us the justice of treating us so in situ.
frankology // November 21, 2007 at 12:53 pm
The writer is clearly an uneducated human who doesn’t seem to understand the arguments put forward to him.
…………………………………………………………………….
Don’t be fooled, this writer U.G. is no fool, she is highly educated and wealthy individual, using psychology to play on the minds of the unsuspected reader.
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 1:06 pm
You have asked what I am, but I cannot allow you to say that I am manipulating. Why don’t you call Town Planning, as a popular blogger recommended to you?
4morevalves // November 21, 2007 at 1:18 pm
August 2000 is over SEVEN YEARS ago!
Stop orders can be given for any infraction, large or small. Paperwork not filed properly, not enough parking designated, unsatisfactory public bathroom facilities, etc, etc, etc.
IF such an order exists, we need to see it to know what it was issued for. And a seven year old stop order does not constitute ‘proof’ to me. We need to see something more up-to-date.
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 1:48 pm
The proper protcol for a town planning apllication is to wait on the consideration and approval.
While waiting maybe it would be nice if you went and helped clear the cow itch, and get rid of that water that stops traffic next to the track.
You have the application number, go check for yourself. You are fast to berate people, and to call me a liar. We both know who is lying, however.
4morevalves // November 21, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I don’t need to check. I’m not the one whose panties are in a bunch about it.
I’m still not accepting that a SEVEN YEAR OLD application number that YOU SAY is connected with the facility in question, is proof!
Silly question, but, have you ever tried speaking to anyone in connection with the facility regarding your concerns?
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Wow, you come on mad for someone who presses their panties.
2363/10/2000C is the application under consideration. Indeed, that’s the one. There can be no excuse for breaking the law.
4morevalves // November 21, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Application under consideration?
Where’s the stop order?
frankology // November 21, 2007 at 3:10 pm
UG. Did you meet with the popular blogger with the 8 o’clock meeting, and did you show him the ‘enforcement order?
U. Goodenough // November 21, 2007 at 6:07 pm
The meeting was to share DVDs. I though you were the invitee. Unfortunately no one showed up. Wish you had though. Anytime you may request this you can have copies.
Another thing is puzzling me about this application, and I hope you may be in a position, or maybe someone else who is reading on Barbados Underground.
2363/10/2000C is a year 2000 application for “retention of existing track”.
Since there have been numerous documented developments, roadworks and improvements, after the (disputed by yourself, but existing) stop and enforcement orders, I want to ask the question:
Can a developer apply for a retention in 2000 and go on to do huge improvements 2001-2007?
I’m really not sure about this and want to ask a question to informed readers.
Can anyone out there elaborate?
Rey. // November 21, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I just sat here and read every comment. I came to a few conclusions. One- Frankology can rival David Ellis of Brasstacks fame. (I love David Ellis so you can take it as a compliment) Two-Who or what U. Goodenough is, is irrelevant, the person is just not understanding what is being asked for here. Three- You are all typical Bajans- opinionated as hell. It would be real funny if it was not true.
These blogs appear to me to be the cyberspace equivalent of Brasstacks, but a little worse since more intolerance comes through. I guess that is because they have to protect the Starcom station from lawsuits. These blogs on the other hand seem to have no such restraints.
Nevertheless Frankology, I salute you. What a pity the society needs so much anonymity. What does that suggest about our supposed freedom? A joke eh?
frankology // November 21, 2007 at 7:00 pm
There are no fixed structures to knock down, thus the reason that no ‘enforcement order’ would be necessary. Even before this race course, rallies use these tracks which has been widen for over 40 years, so you don’t have any ‘change of use’. Having a plantation sounds good, but the thousands of dollars you have to pay in taxes, utilities, workers, rotation of crops, manure and other cost related items would bankrupt anyone within a flash. This is the reason the calypso song “I want a Plantation” sounds good, but in reality, Forget it.
By the way, Vaucluse is on a Zone 4 area and not a Zone 1 area as contended by Polly on November 12. This is his quote “Secondly, the company hired by Vaucluse Raceway Project to conduct an Impact and Environmental study listed concerns about the impact of waste on our water given that Vaucluse is a Zone 1 for water collection.”
Absolute lies, even if the race course is on a Zone 1, what about Mangrove Landfill just below it. This is the reason we must get our facts right.
4morevalves // November 22, 2007 at 8:11 am
So all you claim to have knowledge about is an application for retention of the existing track?
What about all the stop orders you initially preached about? What about the possibility that the organisers/owners have since received further permissions?
U. Goodenough // November 22, 2007 at 10:47 am
Well, all this small voice can say is that it sometimes feels as if one is being thrown to the lions. The tactics of blogging/bloggers are new- it’s a new medium. Things like red herrings, personnal attcks, claims that your information is untrue all factor in, and a new reader is often mislead. I agree with comments made by a poster yesterday in part. I am not a professional blogger (IANAPB).
The application being considered 2363/10/2000C is a year 2000 application for “retention of existing track”.
There were stop orders and enforcement orders issued on it in August 2000.
Additionally I asked the question yesterday, but as yet have received no response:
Can a developer apply for a retention in 2000 and go on to do huge improvements 2001-2007? How?
But as yet no one has addressed this. Come back please?
4morevalves // November 22, 2007 at 11:17 am
For all we know the request was granted and they now have further permission to develop the land.
U. Goodenough // November 22, 2007 at 4:07 pm
A citizen went to Town and Country Planning to represent the residents.
In order to receive copies of the ’stop’ orders and ‘enforcement’ orders one has to write to the Chief Town Planner. Requesting a recipt for the letter will result in one’s being told that it will be posted.
These orders exist, and calling me a liar is only a red herring.
Anyway, there is more:
When one goes to the desk and requests re applications, one is allowed to see the applications, who they are for, and whether or not a decision has been made.
2363/10/2000C is a ‘retention’ as follows, and as truly bespoke by me:
” Retention of the following: exti9nguishing of approximately 1556M of dirt road, establishment of 1682M of dirt road, with berms, upgrading of existing bridge to facilitate agricultural and motorsport activity.”
Decision— “blank”
I was informed that a blank decision section means no decision has been made.
But there is more, because you are there, and the staff at TCP is very efficicient and helpful. We discovered that there was another application
2264/09/01C
“Change of use from agricultural to recreational.”
Decision— “blank” (no decision)
I do not enjoy pointing out that there have been untruths purveyed. I would, however, like to point out that the “big lies” referred to above seem to be contained within the same body of a certain bloggers research.
Anyone can go to Town Planning, quote these numbers, and be shown the same things.
I want to comment further on the description of these applications, but this is already getting too long.
frankology // November 22, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Come on Miss, you are looking back 6 years ago, this is 2007. You have not identify any ‘enforcement orders’ within your above statement. The same way the person was shown applications, the same way you would have seen ‘enforcement orders’.
You are the one who is affected, and it should be you to do the submission for those difficult to locate orders.
U. Goodenough // November 22, 2007 at 6:14 pm
May I remind you that you are dealing here with residents whose lives have been damaged and whose lives will continue to be damaged; their land values will be lost. Who will compensate them for this and the loss of their rights to enjoy the peace and quiet? I pray to God that someone somewhere, someone who will help us, is listening and understanding.
Listen up for a minute:
1) You said yesterday at 7PM, “There are no fixed structures to knock down, thus the reason that no ‘enforcement order’ would be necessary”.
An enforcement order and stop order have been issued, and the developers did not respect it, they ignored it and went their own way, against the law.
2)You said, “Even before this race course, rallies use these tracks which has been widen for over 40 years, so you don’t have any ‘change of use’ “.
The description of application 2264/09/01C is evidence that a change of use is in fact mandatory. Otherwise it would not be on the books. Were the 7PM words true?
Furthermore, in saying ‘has been widened over 40 years’ your words contradict the application 2363/10/2000C which describes itself as extinguishing of the cart roads and establishment of separate DIRT roads. I note you and probably others have said this many times. Tell a lie 100 times and it turns into the truth? DIRT, not marl and bulldozers!
3) You say the water runoff from the area is the same as Mangrove Pond. Well let me tell you a little something about this area, speaking as someone who has lived in it for a lifetime: The water runoff from Mangrove Pond, the surface water, goes west. The water runoff from the site goes down the hill south, and ends up in our water catchment area. They turn off Bowmanston when it rains because of the surface water turbidity. Please don’t tell me or Polly, we know, we live here.
Forgive me, I am angry. We are human people, and this is our home.
frankology // November 22, 2007 at 9:18 pm
By the way, Vaucluse is on a Zone 4 area and not a Zone 1 area as contended by Polly on November 12. This is his quote “Secondly, the company hired by Vaucluse Raceway Project to conduct an Impact and Environmental study listed concerns about the impact of waste on our water given that Vaucluse is a Zone 1 for water collection.”
…………………………………………………………………….
Which part in this statement is dealing with water runoff. My statement is and I will repeat. Vaucluse is within the Zone 4 area. Mangrove which is just below Vaucluse is also in the Zone 4 area. This comparison was to dismiss Polly’s claim in his November 12 post of Vaucluse situated on a Zone 1 table.
frankology // November 22, 2007 at 9:23 pm
You are repeating those weak points that not even your sympathisers who were backing you in the earlier posts, realise your weak submission. I was trying to get the real facts from you, but you refuse to let the commenters see the so-called ‘enforcement orders’ that you keep talking about, but fail to present.
Waterboy // November 22, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Frankology, 4morevalves, forget the enforcement orders and stop orders. Forget about the millions and millions of dollars in foreign exchange the so called Vaucluse Raceway has earned and will earn and on and on ad nauseum. All red herrings.
The question is whether the developer has Town & Country Planning permission to carry out this development, plain and simple. If he is proceeding without it, he is breaking the law.
Go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.
Contrary to your suggestion, Goodenough’s submissions are strong.
Goodenough, you do know that the decision on this application lies with the prime minister and not the Town Planner? Once it is over 2 acres of agricultural land the decision is out of the Town Planners hand.
Your Parliamentary representative should,be talking to the PM. The residents of the area should hold a Town Hall Meeting, invite the press, Parliamentary Representative, Town Planning Department etc. make sure you record everything at the meeting.
The silly season is here and the time is right.
frankology // November 22, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.
……………………………………………………………….
A Town Meeting was held already and only a few people attended. All the above were present, so come again Waterboy. Deal with the statement of Zone 4, the ‘enforcement order’ that never was. Yes, applications are within the TCP. Not ‘enforcement orders’ because non were issued. So where are the strong submissions. You mean innuendos.
Another thing Waterboy, you seems intelligent and you might have seen many instances involving the TCP with ‘enforcement orders’. Have you ever see an enforcement minus the presence of a Police Officer?
frankology // November 22, 2007 at 11:01 pm
This is a simple question to Ms. Goodenough. If the developer was building high-end villas, encompassing a well laid out golf course and who’s who purchase these homes. Would you be here dealing with ‘enforcement orders’ or ‘noise and the anti-social aspects’ base on your cries?
Am I hearing a soft Yes! You and only you are against this race course and that is my observation. My case close. When I see the orders, I will apologise for my arrogance.
Watreboy // November 23, 2007 at 7:05 am
This is a simple question to Mr. Frankology (again).
Does the developer have Town & Country Planning permission to carry out this development, plain and simple? If he is proceeding without it, he is breaking the law.
Go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.
Stop wasting time talking about enforcement orders, villas, golf courses, and how many people attended a town hall meeting etc. etc.
Who cares about enforcement orders? Either they have permission to develop or they don’t!
By your admission above “Yes, applications are within the TCP.” So what is the outcome? Have they started to develop without permission? Have they no regard for the rule of law?
Once again go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.
4morevalves // November 23, 2007 at 8:05 am
Ms. Goodenough, what about my question regarding anyone speaking to those in charge of the Vaucluse facility? Would that not be the first step to take if you had concerns regarding noise, water pollution, etc?
More importantly, did you attend either of the two town hall meetings to do with the racetrack? If you, did you raise any of your questions, and were they properly answered?
If the Prime Minister has to make decisions regarding land over 2 acres, might that not be why the information from TCP seems so vague?
U. Goodenough // November 23, 2007 at 8:38 am
Abusive 4 valves: we were not asked.
Retention?
Abuse of the Barbados laws?
Youo never talked to us. Shall we now come to beg you?
Frankology, half a mind to go back and correct all te mistakes in every one of your posts, but showing up a simple 3 in one short post is probably sufficient.
David, I think there may be a strange occurrence on this thread. I don’t believe that Wishing In Vain today at 6.10 AM post is real. I have a comment to make that is not reactive to the abuse, but is it possible to check the source, and if it is not a true post, please remove it? We support making points making real points, not fake ones. We reaffirm we are not at all politically partisan, but we do recognise cursing when we see it. We thank you yet again for the opportunity you are giving us to put our facts forward.
Waterboy // November 23, 2007 at 8:54 am
4morevalves, why does Goodenough have to speak to anyone in charge of Vaucluse?
What is the relevance of whether he attended the Town Hall Meeting and his questions answered properly?
There is no “if” about the PM having to make the decision about land over 2 acres. That is a fact. The information given by Goodenough that there has been no decision on the application and hence no approval is not “vague”.
Either the Vaucluse Raceway developer has approval of their application or they do not. Right now I think we have to believe Goodenough that they do not have permission but they are proceeding illegally. If they had permission you can bet their apologists would have posted the information here.
Go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar. Let us settle this once and for all and stop all the rubbish talk about whether there were enforcement orders or not and whether police accompanied the Town Planning officials. This has no bearing on whether the developer has permission or not.
By the way the people involved with Vaucluse are the same ones in a joint venture with COW Williams et al in trying to take over Barbados Farms Ltd and their 4000 acres of agricultural land? God help us all if they are in fact proceeding at Vaucluse without permission and they succeed in getting control of BFL.
4morevalves // November 23, 2007 at 8:58 am
Wow, took me a while to understand that post. You been drinking this morning?
I’m not quite sure why your keep saying ‘you’. I have nothing to do with the place. Believe me, if I did, I would have provided the evidence needed to refute your rubbish claims a long time ago!
It is common knowledge that TWO Town Hall meetings were called. As far as I know notices were hand delivered to residents of the surrounding areas. Both notices were placed in the daily newspapers. I saw them. So just to get this straight, are you SURE you were not asked?
4morevalves // November 23, 2007 at 9:13 am
You really figure that EVERYONE in this island knows about this blog? I’m willing to bet that those in charge of the racetrack DON’T know about it.
And how do you know that those involved with Vaucluse are also involved with ‘COW Williams et all’?
Another question. IF TCP denied permission for ANY further development, how then were there TWO Town Hall meetings called?
Waterboy // November 23, 2007 at 9:49 am
4morevalves,
The point is not that they have been denied permission but from what Goodenough has said they do not have permission. They are proceeding unlawfully. Neither you nor Frankology have been able to deny that. And believe it or not I sincerely hope they have permission to develop and Goodenough is wrong. All I am interested in is that it is lawful. It will be another sad day for this country if the law is being breached by brazen acts.
Town Hall Meetings are part of a process in determining whether the application will be approved, plain and simple. The fact that these meetings were held indicates that up to then they had no permission. Stop bringing in the red herring of “enforcement notices”. Either they have planning permission to develop or they do not.
frankology // November 23, 2007 at 10:22 am
Once again go and check the application like Goodenough did and let us know if he/she is a liar.
……………………………………………………………………..
I don’t know which submissions you get this information from, but the language based on my checking of the statement from UG is, ‘a resident’ who visited the department.
Your Parliamentary representative should, be talking to the PM. The residents of the area should hold a Town Hall Meeting, invite the press, Parliamentary Representative, Town Planning Department etc. make sure you record everything at the meeting.
…………………………………………………………………
You write one think and come back and strip up yourself.
“What is the relevance of whether he attended the Town Hall Meeting and his questions answered properly?”
Based on 4morevalves statement of two Town Hall Meetings, yet people failed to turn up and ask questions, then tell me. What is the real issue?
WIV, Waterboy and UG. These are facts, I love research and I love breaking down statements to get facts. I check and here are my findings.
Under Barbados Law. Anytime an enforcement Order is issued, it is valid for 28 days, that enforcement order must have a police officer present. If an application has been submitted by someone, before or after the fact, an enforcement order becomes null and void. In UG’s argument, the person saw two applications at TCP in 2000 and 2001. He could not see any enforcement orders, because non were issued.
This is over seven years and not one solid structure is on the compound, improving the land, (remember, there are no structures) is quite legal, because you are abiding by the law.
I am asking again, UG, let the public know why you are against the racecourse?
No enforcement delivered, no problem with the Zone 4 water, Two Town Hall meeting and residents failed to turn up, 30 days of tekkin’ pictures. And most of all…NO FACTS!.
I made my point and dunn wid dat.
4morevalves // November 23, 2007 at 10:25 am
We have not been able to deny Goodenough’s allegation that they do not have permission.
As I’ve said before, I have nothing to do with Vaucluse. I simply know people who compete and help organise some of the events held there.
If I had something to do with the place, I WOULD prove that permission was granted.
And we haven’t brought in any ‘red herrings’. The enforcement notices were first brought up by none other than Ms. Goodenough. As she quoted in her OPENING post – “Town Planning has issued both ‘Stop Orders’ and ‘Enforcement Orders’ on this development, but to no effect.” We simply have repeatedly asked that if they exist, prove it.
I would sincerely doubt that the reputable companies you all claim are involved would risk moving ahead on such a large venture without some kind of go-ahead being granted.
U. Goodenough // November 23, 2007 at 11:39 am
Water boy, I am aware that the Minister must preside over land more than 2 acres. Also beachland. Yes, thank you for being interested. I’m very sorry that it has no approval- we residents are scared of being swept away by the tide.
Establishing roads by retention signifies that TCP approval IS required. Asking for a change of use via a second TCP application is evidence that a change of use IS required.
Bloggers above are working hard to put up a smokescreen but the big brown books at Town and Country Planning tell everyone one the truth. The kind gentleman also told us that all one is able to do is to look at the entries, but that is all you can get- no copies, no confirmations in writing unless you write to the Chief Town Planner.
2363/10/2000C “Retention of the following: exti9nguishing of approximately 1556M of dirt road, establishment of 1682M of dirt road, with berms, upgrading of existing bridge to facilitate agricultural and motorsport activity.”
NO APPROVAL
2264/09/01C
“Change of use from agricultural to recreational (motorsport).”
NO APPROVAL
Now, onwards.
Establishing and “extinguishing’ roads by retention is indicative that development occurred without request to TCP in the first place- illegally. Residents were never asked what they thought. Residents vested in land close by were never allowed comment. We were not informed. We sarted to complain as the noise and traffic escalated, and we became more aware that this was not recreational.
That is illegal in the very first place, and that is why we are coming forward to the present in chronological order. To try to show Barbados what has happened and why it is illegal, and why our request is so valid for being upheld.
We do not wish to destroy anyone. A nearby separate development to Dukes “extinguished” our long established right of passage to Holy Innocents. We would welcome a development close to us, but on the following terms:
Firstly, the requirements of Town Planning be upheld and respected. In this case namely that St. Thomas is a designated high rainfall agricultural area, and is designated to be conserved for agriculture. That is agricultural policy in Barbados and Town Planning. So this would need to be addressed.
Secondly, when a development is conceived, the residents’ lands would be considered and integrated as an ASSET to a development. Our villages are proud to have been existing for hundreds of years, and we are good citizens, better neighboursn than many recent immigrants. Rather than making walls and shutting us out as undesireable, we should be empowered by way of additional roads that link us to and within, and through, any site, such that our property values are enhanced and our dignity is increased. Is this wrong conceptually?
Also, any form of development that policy is changed to facilitate from agriculture should not disturb the enjoyment and peace of the existing resident communities, as this one has done, and wil do. That is important. If there is one point that my learned friend Frank is making that I wish to address it is this one.
And lastly for this post the change of use. Agriculture to Recreational.
Is this against policy or not? also, should this not be ‘commercial’? Is this recreational for sport or is it a serious financial escapade being bulldozed across the fields?
All ‘commercial’, while the big losers are the original residents. Is this OK to approve on the basis of this logic?
4morevalves // November 23, 2007 at 12:42 pm
***”Residents were never asked what they thought. Residents vested in land close by were never allowed comment. We were not informed.”***
————————
How many more times must I mention TWO (2) Town Hall meetings being held before you stop writing bold-faced lies?!?
————————
***”The kind gentleman also told us that all one is able to do is to look at the entries, but that is all you can get- no copies, no confirmations in writing unless you write to the Chief Town Planner.”***
————————
When can we expect that you’ll be writing to him then?
Waterboy // November 23, 2007 at 12:52 pm
U Goodenough, as 4morevalves asked, will you or have you written to TCP?
U. Goodenough // November 23, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Our citizen rep did just that.
When will you go down there, now that I have obeyed one of your condescending commands?
4morevalves // November 23, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I’ve told you already, I don’t need to. I’m not the one drawing the complaint.
If you accuse me of breaking into your house and stealing from you, the onus is on you to prove that I did. I’m sure you understand where I’m going with this.
And please don’t confuse my knowledge of the use of the English language to be condescension.
U. Goodenough // November 23, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Have another photo of continuing illegal work going on at the site TODAY NOV 23 2007- a big truck dumping marl, bobcat, road-levelling large yellow machine thing. I’ll try and post it at the myspace this evening, and work on getting more concrete evidence for the blogs to show.
This is hard to take- really overt, arrogant and oppressive behaviour.
And it’s ILLEGAL.
4morevalves // November 23, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I’m still unsure why you’re taking so many pictures. Up to now, no one on the forum has suggested that construction work of some sort hasn’t been ongoing at Vaucluse. It’s not like it’s being hidden.
frankology // November 23, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Residents were never asked what they thought. Residents vested in land close by were never allowed comment. We were not informed. We sarted to complain as the noise and traffic escalated, and we became more aware that this was not recreational.
……………………………………………………………………..
Those are questions that should have been asked at any of the Town Hall Meetings.
The two applications you are speaking about do not have ‘No Approval”. If it was ‘no approval’ the next step would have been ‘enforcement’, that did not occur, Why?, because none were ever issued.
Ms. Goodenough, I am giving you the opportunity to write to the Chief Town Planner, copies to the Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition and the two representatives for the area, and state your concerns. Demand another Town Hall Meeting, rally all your supporters and all of us will come to the meeting base on anonymity and we will hear the concerns of the residents. I look forward for a positive solution.
U. Goodenough // November 23, 2007 at 5:28 pm
This is getting really bizarre. When the truth comes you’ll change your number of valves.
frankology // November 23, 2007 at 6:00 pm
No one is changing, you made statements, I checked and found that your post is filled with untruths, yet you persist in speaking about ’stop orders’ that were never issued. The Town Planning is in receipt of two applications, no enforcement orders are in effect now or in the past. That is the reason you avoid any discussion when asked for a copy of the ‘enforcement’ or even write to the Chief Town Planner for the ‘enforcement order’ which will be blank.
Waterboy // November 23, 2007 at 7:07 pm
frankology // November 23, 2007 at 4:30 pm
The two applications you are speaking about do not have ‘No Approval”. If it was ‘no approval’ the next step would have been ‘enforcement’, that did not occur, Why?, because none were ever issued.
———————————————————–
Frankology and 4morevalves,
Are you confirming that two applications for development have been submitted to Town Planning?
Are you also confirming that to date they have not been given approval?
Your comments continue on and on about enforcement orders and stop orders. What we are interested in is whether the developer is proceeding without approval. Quite simple and on that count I think we are starting to believe Goodenough because the two of you are just trying to confuse the issue.
4morevalves // November 23, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I have absolutely no idea what applications are there from what aren’t there. No one is trying to confuse any issue.
frankology // November 23, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Are you confirming that two applications for development have been submitted to Town Planning?
Are you also confirming that to date they have not been given approval?
…………………………………………………………………….
Waterboy, you seems to miss the point. Applications were made in 2000 and 2001 for widening of the existing cart roads and rebuilding an existing bridge that was build over 75 years.
The other was to change to recreational use.
A friend of UG went to TCP and see the same applications that I peruse today. These applications do not contain any statements of acceptance or denial. It only contain stamp of acceptance.
I dealt with a senior personnel within the TCP and was inform of TCP Operating Procedures.
I was told if this matter was not approved or the application was not in an advance stage of being approved, then, an enforcement order will be eminent. It was also confirm that no orders were ever issued to stop this development, due to no fixed structures are on the property. What he is saying that the developer can continue doing what he is doing once things remain the same without any construction. I was advised that the laying of marl will not contravene any illegal action.
He dealt with another issue, stating if the developer had a change of use to be a housing development, and the developer was laying down roads with curbs and utilities, possibly, that developer have intentions to start construction of homes. You are dealing with fixed roads with utilities in place. Vaucluse matter is different, the only fixed property is the fencing surrounding the property and the developer has all rights to protect his property.
All the lies about stop orders being issued are all lies, you are a wise guy and you know ‘enforcement ties in with the policing’ yet, you prefer to accept the one sided issue of UG.
Twenty years from now UG will be singing the same tune. Probably, he might convince you so much that you might start humming the same tune.
I did my investigation, I visited the TCP, I spoke to one of the top officials, if you Waterboy has any doubts, visit the TCP before commenting based on empathy.
By the way, Bushy Park is still awaiting approval from the TCP. The problem is the residents who are extremely close to the action, understand motorsports bieng vital to the sporting community.
I wonder if the ‘change of use’ was for an upscale development, if we will be hearing a financial tune.
U. Goodenough // November 24, 2007 at 1:54 pm
David
I have just sent a 2 large emails with attachments. A third will come in a few moments of the yesterday photos Kindly confirm receipt?
This is the info you want. If I may say so it’s a really big story, but long too. Hope you’ll carry it, and the readers will read it.
Thank you. God bless Dukes, St. Thomas, and the citizens of Barbados. We do this for these people, not for any other reason.
May we have peace all in our respective homelands.
Exodus 20:13
tigi // December 28, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Just want to make a couple of observations. First off, I am a tourist….love us or hate us, but, my husband and I are from the U.S. and have been visiting Barbados for about 15 or more years. We love the country and the people. We just returned from Barbados a week ago and for the first time we went to Bushy Park and watched the races. We loved it!!! The day Tropical storm Olga visited the island we set off to visit Vaucluse. We found it and had a quick look. It seemed to be in a relatively quiet area. I hope when we return next year we can watch an event at Vaucluse. I am not suggesting that I have any say in what’s best for Barbados…I don’t… but when we saw the dramatic increase in building along the west coast that was going on this year, I would be more concerned with the inevitable traffic mess you will have to deal with in years to come. My husband and I both enjoy track driving here in the U.S. in an event we call Auto Cross and we even drove our rental car around Bushy Park when no one was there!! We hope the outcome at Vaucluse is what the majority want,,,as it should be….but, I think you could do much worse than a track where people enjoy a sport that certainly beats so many other things. Just think….you could have a WalMart in every town like we do here…..then you’d know what misery is!!
Update:Vaucluse Raceway Saga Continues ~ Where Is The Checkered Flag? « Barbados Underground - bringing the news to the people // April 12, 2008 at 4:16 pm
[...] The People Of Vaucluse Said No To Building A Race Track In Their Area, Member Of Parliament Cynthia … [...]