West Coast Opulence Spiced With Confusion

April 24, 2008 · 21 Comments

The BU family maybe wondering why have we posted pictures of this Barbados West Coast property? Some people have a tough time wrapping their minds around the power of money and the kind of influence it can have on a situation. To those Barbadians who have never been able to get close to the kind of properties being built on our West Coast, please have a look courtesy the Barbados Underground. Click this link to get details.

David

Source/images: Maco

Click Related Links

Barbados Coastline Faces Renewed Onslaught From British Investors

Barbados Coastline Gone!

Chefette’s Halloute Sells Out

On a related note. We read of former Senator Andrew Bynoe’s laying claim to the suggestion by Sir Charles Williams to develop more of our prime coastline to accommodate hotel and tourism development. We believe that this is the same Andrew Bynoe who was at the forefront of the losing battle in the fight to keep the Mullins window to the sea open. Pn case you need a reminder Sir Charles made the suggestion recently for Barbados to consider disbanding the Arawak Cement plant.

Here is a snippet from Bynoe:

SOME YEARS AGO I took some warm criticism for suggesting the cement plant operations be removed from its present location and the area used for hotel and tourism purposes.I am therefore not surprised by the call from Sir Charles Williams to re-evaluate the use of so prime a piece of coastal real estate. The area could have a far greater economic return as suggested by Sir Charles, as being a cruise ship terminal.

Applying the same vision that developed Port St Charles, and utilising the experiences of cruise ship ports in the region and beyond, this country could set the pace and the standard in the cruise industry.

Source: Nation

With all the discussion we decided to rush to our Chrystal Ball, and what did we see?

Categories: Barbados · Barbados News · Blogging · World News

21 responses so far ↓

NO MORE MARINAS EVER // April 24, 2008 at 8:11 AM

The cement plant may be an eyesore but it’s localised and hasn’t ravaged the surrounding peaceful area.

Put an other MARINA there and you’ve destroyed the entire stretch of island from the other MARINA disgrace (Port St. Charles) up to Maycocks and beyond.

There’ll be “better” roads, shops, taxi ranks, 2 Chefettes, 4 KFC’s, Louis Vuitton boutiques, 3 more Diamonds International, 4 Little Switzerland’s, 1 Cave Shepherd and a tourist “village” selling Barbadian trinkets made in China.

I can see the polo crowd already salivating at the prospect.

THIS CANNOT AND MUST NOT HAPPEN!
xenophobe chick // April 24, 2008 at 8:25 AM

The Moment of Truth for Barbados (and all Barbadians) has now arrived.

Commercialise Maycocks as “NO MORE MARINAS EVER” describes above and signal to the world Barbados is willingly turning into a Miami clone.

So take a good look at Half Moon Fort and Checker Hall before they’re bulldozed off the map.
Me // April 24, 2008 at 9:23 AM

what do we know of the carcinogenic and mutagenic effects of having the cement plant where it is… The Cement plant negatively affects the environment in that area … I think a Marina would be a great idea!
cooligan // April 24, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Mr. Bynoe’s comments should be evaluated in the light of whether he owns property or a residence in the general area and therefore has a coloured outlook in having a marina as opposed to the Cement plant. it is his right to take the stance he did but he should declare his interests if there are any.
peltdownman // April 24, 2008 at 10:10 AM

I think that if we check the size of the cruise ships now operating, it would have to be an enormous engineering undertaking to convert the area to a cruise ship dock. Maycocks Bay sits in the shadow and well within hearing range of the cement plant. To laud it’s beauty as a beach as Sir Charles has is moot, as it would entirely disappear within the cruise ship dock complex. Sir Charles’ problem appears to be that he has all this expensive machinery and he has to keep it moving from one project to the next, so he keeps coming-up with these grandiose schemes. If (and it’s a big “if”) we need a cruise ship dock in the north, then it should be much closer to Speightstown, now looking terribly neglected. Ordnances should be put in place now to preserve its historic facade in any development that takes place there. Indeed, this should also be done on the historic waterfront in Bridgetown, which is scheduled to be destroyed for yet more condominiums. Future visitors to the island will be coughing-up a lot more money to fly here. They certainly don’t want to see a replicate of the Costa del Sol, because it’s a lot cheaper to go there.
no name // April 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM

I think the marina should have been there in the first place and not where it is now.

I like the idea of a marina for that space although I do believe the sea is quite rough.

There isn’t much the abusers can do the block the windows to the sea along that stretch of road without moving the road. We have to watch this one very closely.

Think I’ll take a drive down there this weekend. Will need to fill the vehicle with passangers and perhaps carry a picnic to justify the diesel though.
Yardbroom // April 24, 2008 at 12:20 PM

There is a feeling very prevalent in Barbados, that if something is new, it is therefore better; as a result we have harboured close to our bosoms concrete monostrosities masquerading as something special.

By example a lot of old Bridgetown could have been tastefully refurbished to give a feeling of vibrancy, new life, with added charm. In addition there would be a uniqueness and special appeal about the place. It is true certain individuals would not walk away with millions of dollars as with other developments, but craftsmen, architects, and engineers would still be needed and something would be preserved for Barbadians…I forgot they are not in the frame. It could not/cannot be done I hear, however a look at Liveepool’s dock area – the buildings are much older- would show what “can” be done.

The idea that we can put up new buildings to match Dubai, Spain, etc is a nonsense, we like to think we can but a casual look does not bear that out.

With specific reference to marinas, someone did mention about “the carcinogenic and mutagenic effects of having the cement plant where it is” but the health impact would be the same where ever the plant is, unless it is further removed from centres of population than it is at the moment, or is it that it would be better if “certain people “are not inconvenienced.

I see preconceptions by certain individuals inherent in the development of specific communities, pleasure areas etc, in that they believe the local indigenous Barbadian population should be excluded. Their imprint by their thinking dictates the interaction – ot lack – between foreign guests and the local people.

We often fail to look behind the reasons why things are done, the superficiality is not the main engine that drives this runaway dreadnought.
politically incorrect // April 24, 2008 at 3:11 PM

The way things are going in this world Barbadians would be far better served to looking at ways to feed itself rather than creating more “concrete jungles”.

When things get bad Sir Cow can escape. Will you be able to?
Adrian Loveridge // April 24, 2008 at 4:24 PM

I personally think Barbados has to stop and think exactly WHERE it is going in tourism.

We have lost 27 hotels during the rein of the previous Government, while at the same time the President of the St. Lucia Hotel and Tourism Association is calling for a moratorium on the construction of new hotels.
Of course, over the same 15 years, St. Lucia has or is currently adding thousands of new rooms.
St. Lucia is currently quoting an average annual hotel occupancy level of 65% against ours at just over 50%.

Needless to say that additional 15% makes a huge difference in viability.
Last time I was at the offices of the BTA , I picked up a copy of the latest registered accommodation guide.
Its a revelation, and from it I am preparing
a report, to match as exactly as possible, where I long stay visitors stay.

As soon as our re-DISCOVER Show is over this weekend, I hope share my observations with readers.
Heaven // April 24, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Some people in this island are chasing the almighty dollar to the detriment of this country.When the construction boom is over and our economy collapses, Sir Cow and all the Guyanese, Chinese, Africans, Jamaicans and everyone else can go else where.We Barbadians will be stuck picking up the pieces.
Green Monkey // April 24, 2008 at 6:08 PM

politically incorrect wrote:

The way things are going in this world Barbadians would be far better served to looking at ways to feed itself rather than creating more “concrete jungles”.

Personally, I too think we are sleepwalking to disaster by ignoring the true implications of the coming energy crunch. But you can hardly blame the politicians or the mainstream media for not talking about it too much, or for implying that if only BL&P puts up a few wind powered generators and we put some solar panels on the roof we can weather the storm in style and can continue with our energy burning, resource consuming, North American type lifestyles ad infinitum. The people (and that includes not just those in Bim) don’t want to face reality, because they are accustomed to life as it is, and the prospect of life on easy street coming to an abrupt end is not pleasant to contemplate.

Business As Usual
by John Michael Greer

Those of us who are watching the crisis of industrial society arrive on schedule take our omens where we find them, and one appeared yesterday morning in the unlikely form of an internet ad riding shotgun on a peak oil blog. The header was striking enough – “Oil Will Hit $100!” – or it would have been, except that one of the main benchmark grades of crude oil closed not far below $120 a barrel that evening. When the ads on your computer screen have already been left in the dust by the headlines, it’s fair to say, yesterday’s assumptions are in serious need of revision.

Meanwhile, rolling blackouts and food shortages are making life more difficult for people in many of the world’s poorer nations. Even in the United States, where instant availability of consumer products is generally considered an inalienable right, the first spot shortages of grain products have made ripples in the media. I won’t even get into the plunging real estate prices and financial implosions along the route of the slow-motion train wreck the global economy resembles so much these days. One way or another, it’s turning into a bad week for believers in an imminent return to what most people nowadays consider business as usual.

SNIP

What we most need to realize at this juncture is that the way things have been in the world’s industrial societies over the last century or so is in no way normal. It’s precisely equivalent to the new lifestyle adopted by winners of a lottery whose very modest income has suddenly leapt upward by $1 million a year or so. After a few years, the lottery winners might well become accustomed to the privileges and possessions that influx of wealth made possible, and children growing up in such a family might never realize that life could be any other way. The hard fact remains, though, that when the lottery money runs out, it runs out, and if no provision has been made for the future, the transition from a million dollars a year to the much more modest income available from an ordinary job can be very, very rough.

The huge distortions imposed on the modern industrial nations by the flood of cheap abundant energy that washed over them in the 20th century can be measured readily enough by a simple statistic. In America today, our current energy use works out to around 1000 megajoules per capita, or the rough equivalent of 100 human laborers working 24-hour days for each man, woman, and child in the country. The total direct cost for all this energy came to around $500 billion a year in 2005, the last year for which I was able to find statistics, or about $1667 per person per year.

Now consider how much it would cost to hire human laborers to perform the same amount of work. At the current federal minimum wage of $5.75 an hour, hiring 100 workers in three shifts to provide the equivalent amount of energy would cost each American $512,811 a year, or about 308 times as much as the energy costs – and this doesn’t count payroll taxes, health insurance, paid vacations and the like. Mind you, it would also require the US to find food, housing, and basic services for an additional workforce of 30 billion people, but we can let the metaphor go before tackling issues on that scale.

http://www.energybulletin.net/43195.html
NO MORE MARINAS EVER // April 24, 2008 at 6:58 PM

Ever noticed, after about 10 posts, submissions have nothing to do with the original topic. And “cut and paste” takes over?
David // April 24, 2008 at 7:04 PM

NO MORE MARINAS EVER if you have not realised yet the only topics which will attract comments in droves is politics :-)
NO MORE MARINAS EVER // April 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM

OK – how’s this for a “cut and paste” on-topic and veery political?

Scientists see no point to easing seawall ban
WADE RAWLINS, Staff Writer
More than 40 coastal scientists have signed a letter urging state lawmakers to resist easing a ban on seawalls along the shoreline.
The scientists, at universities in North Carolina and other states, oppose an effort by two coastal communities to build fixed structures at inlets. Figure Eight Island and Ocean Isle Beach have asked the state legislature for an exception to the state’s ban on seawalls — on an experimental basis — to fight beach erosion.

The communities plan to press the issue again in this year’s General Assembly, arguing that a universal ban doesn’t take into consideration situations in which seawalls might be scientifically and environmentally sound.

The scientists, however, argue there are no such exceptions. In their letter, they say the negative consequences of hardened structures at inlets and along shorelines are well documented. Structures such as terminal groins, which are made of steel or rock and built perpendicular to the shore to trap sand, may cause erosion farther down shore.

“The idea we’ll go out there and put something in the water, use the coast of North Carolina as our test laboratory and then argue about what happened afterward, that is bad coastal management in my opinion,” said Rob Young, a coastal geologist and director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, which circulated the letter.

The communities are seeking a change in the law because they depend on sandbags to protect houses from erosion near shifting inlets.

The homeowners association of Figure Eight, a private island off New Hanover County that is an enclave of beach homes for the wealthy, wants the option of building a steel wall perpendicular to the shoreline. The structure would trap sand at the eroding northern tip near Rich Inlet. Currently, 18 houses are protected by sandbags near the inlet.

No options

At Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County, about a half-dozen houses have sand bags near Shallotte Inlet.

“Sometimes we have to do things to help Mother Nature maintain some of our coastal areas,” said Debbie Smith, mayor of Ocean Isle Beach. “We just have no options right now. It’s either beach renourishment or sand bags.”

A year ago, the town spent about $600,000 putting sand on the most severely eroded stretch of beach near Shallotte Inlet, but that sand has mostly washed away, Smith said.

Chris McKenzie, a homebuilder and homeowner on Ocean Isle Beach, has watched 200 feet of beach disappear from in front of his house in less than four years. The house is now girded with sandbags.

“I’ve invested my finances in that house,” McKenzie said. “I home school in that house. To live down there in a state of fear all the time doesn’t seem fair to me and my family.”

Pilot project

In May, the state Senate passed a bill allowing construction of an experimental terminal groin to stabilize an inlet.

The House did not take up the bill. But because it passed one chamber, it remains eligible for consideration again in 2008. The state Coastal Resources Commission would decide whether to allow the groin.

Rep. Lucy Allen, the chairwoman of the House committee that has the bill, declined to handicap its prospects.

Spencer Rogers, a coastal engineering expert with N.C. Sea Grant, a research and education program, said some of the worst examples of man-induced erosion were caused by groins and jetties. But he said that those built on the end of an island were different and that it would be useful for state regulators to have the option of considering them.

Figure Eight Island

If lawmakers grant such an exception, Figure Eight Island could be the first to take advantage of it. The community’s homeowners association has commissioned a study overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of alternatives for managing Rich Inlet. It wants to be able to include a fixed structure as one of the alternatives. If state regulators find the structure doesn’t stabilize the inlet or has adverse impacts that outweigh its benefits, they can direct that it be removed at the island’s expense.

“It’s something the homeowners association would like the corps and all other regulatory agencies to be able to consider,” said David Kellam, administrator of Figure Eight. “I’d envision we’d try it for two to four years and prove it’s beneficial to everyone. At that point, we’d need to reinforce it with rock.”

Kellam said the 563 property owners would have to decide whether to pay for it, once they knew the costs and whether it was a viable option.

Tom Jarrett, an engineer with Coastal Planning & Engineering, which is doing the study, estimated that a terminal groin at Rich Inlet would cost $5 million to $10 million.

“The groin is not a cure-all,” Jarrett said. “It will only have a limited impact.”

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/855337.html
The People's Democratic Congress // April 24, 2008 at 8:28 PM

The Barbados Underground (BU), on the 22 March, 2008, ran a blog entitled – HOPE LIVES ETERNAL – that featured eight year Charelle Carroll’s involvment in a serious life threatening car accident, as she was crossing, in the company of a couple other younsters, the Lodge Hill, St. Michael stretch of the ABC Highway, on Monday, February 4, 2008. So serious were these injuries that she had to be taken from the QEH – where she stayed for about 6-7 weeks – to the Downstate Medical Center, New York, for urgent but costly medical attention.

Ever since the news of the accident and her hospitalization at both medical facilities many Barbadians, of course, have been having her and her family in their prayers and wishing her a steadfast recovery.

Well, it bring us great pleasure to report the news out of the Downstate Medical Center, New York, concerning little Charrelle’s medical condition and progress, being that she is able to recognize many more things and people, that she talking again, she is eating on her own again, and that she is being helped to walk. It is said, too, that she really wants to be back in Barbados to spend her birthday. This information was given this afternoon to one of our party’s members by her maternal grandmother, who lives in St. John. Her maternal grandmother’s daughter, who is Charrelle’s aunt, is very much at her side in the medical facility in New York, and, of course, is the person relaying much of this information to the grandmother.

Indeed, we are so happy to hear that young Charrelle’s health is improving, and we certainly wish her the best recovery ever, and the Almighty’s continued blessings upon her.

PDC

Please, David, speedily remove the above, which was inadvertently sent.
J // April 25, 2008 at 5:51 PM

So some people with a lot more money than sense build concrete monstrosities. So why are you surprised? Money cannot buy good taste. ya know.
Lie Mongers // April 25, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Adrian Loveridge,

Shut to hell up with your crap about Barbados losing 27 hotels.

You like to try fooling people about 27 hotels closing over a 15 year period but you with your fraud mouth still can’t tell us how many new hotels and new hotel rooms opened in Barbados over the same period.

The amount of visitors coming to Barbados has certainly RISEN over the past 15 years, but a FRAUD and LIAR like you will never want to admit to that.

You filthy animal.

Get lost!
Diaspora-ite // April 25, 2008 at 11:38 PM

So sir COW wants to build a cruise ship terminal at Maycocks Bay! Couple of questions?
1] How are the passengers going to get from Maycock’s to Bridgetown? Yeah, I know, shuttle buses. 90 minutes each way.
2] Where is the bunkering infrastructure going to come from, ya know, the oil, water, etc? From the current port?
Just wonderin’.
anotherview // April 26, 2008 at 3:43 PM

When sugar went through the eddoes it was just as well that Barbados was developing as a premier tourist destination or it would be cat piss and pepper here now given the present and past global economic downturns. Yet In spite of the economic boom generated by Tourism and the opulant West Coast development, it is still cat piss and pepper when it comes to the basic necessities of life for thousands in Bim who cannot afford them. But, had tourism not become the major economic engine can you imagine how really bad it would be there now?

Let us say that there was controlled development to the ETENT THAT MOST SAY THEY WANT and that all of the “Windows” to the sea were still open, and that half of the development people are griping about had never happened what do you think the economic situation would be like now in Bim?

I am not defending the rape of Barbados real estate and never have I am merely playing “devils” advocate. Our island like most in the Caribbean is suited strictly for a tourist economy complimented by an equally successful off-shore banking industry. As far as the Tourism industry is concerned and given the small size of Barbados, for that industry to develop to its fullest potential you get what you and all of us are complaining about, Foreigners taking over and windows to the sea and buying prime real estate! Hotels, condos, mansions etc being built on every parcel of land. Therefore if we do not want this, what is the alternative industry/s given the economic, political, environmental and geographic makeup of Barbados that can be all things to all people?

We continue to blame local Barbadians for making money out of the tourist industry and selling and developing their land but Barbadians are doing nothing differently than is done ion other sectors of the world.

The IMPORTANT question that begs to be asked and answered from my perspective is this. If tourism, foreign investment, the sale of prime real estate et al is the way to go in Barbados as we are told to achieve financial prosperity for the “MAJORITY” why is it that after three decades of a boom in these industries which we are told is continuing, are so many Barbadians crying out about their standard of living and the sacrifices they are being asked to pay yet seeing or getting little in return for it? Where is all of the money going, why is this BOOM in construction, tourism, off-shore industries and world class golf courses et al, not generating higher levels of employment paying MEANINGFUL wages and allowing the “MAJORITY” to live the dream?

This is not ALL about hight energy costs, transportation costs of products from overseas etc. There is something inherently wrong with the entire Barbados Income Tax structure, the way businesses are allowed to operate and price consumer products and a host of other things that are within the Governments power to change and level the playing field and is not being done as of yet. As has been asked on so many occasions why can Barbadians go to Trinidad, and Puerto Rico and get good deals and value for their money? Are these Nations not facing the same Gobal challenges as Barbados?
Bush tea // April 26, 2008 at 5:05 PM

anotherview,

I will assume that you are serious and want honest answers to the excellent questions that you posed.

1 – It matters not what we had done as a country; the period from 2008 to 2116 will be ‘cat piss and pepper’. That is a global issue. If we were exceptionally smart, we would have foreseen the difficult period ahead and planned much better for it…. but that is another story.

2 What is wrong with tourism?
Well there is a very thin line between Tourism and Prostitution. VERY THIN.

If you had a very beautiful daughter and you decided to earn your family’s income by offering strangers the opportunity to pay to experience the beauty of your daughter I know that you would NOT call that tourism.
If you allow these strangers to purchase her best attributes depending on their ability to pay attractive rates …. do I take it you would see that as “investment options?”

and after 40 years of earning your family’s living (and doing it well because she WAS INDEED a beautiful child), exactly what state would you now expect your daughter to be in now?

…welcome to Barbados.

A much more enlightened approach would have been to attempt to do the following for example….

a) Provide your beautiful daughter with the best education possible – even at great personal sacrifice.

b) teach her to be PROUD of her beauty, her heritage and her GOD GIVEN talents.

c) encourage and assist her to become the absolute best at whatsoever her talents turned out to be , be it producing the best sugar available, the best cricket experience, the best educators, Health system and environment etc.

d) Help and encourage her to cultivate her natural beauty, health and manners such that strangers would come from far and near to LEARN about this exquisite example of human development.

… That Barbados would have been developed FOR Barbadians, by the best that Barbados could offer and would have been excellently prepared for the challenging times ahead.

…instead we have an old worn-out, has-been; with nothing special to offer anyone- and very little to show for the ‘good times…’

What development what?!?

we have just found out that we were chasing the shadow since Dipper died…. the real bone is described excellently in our national anthem…
Whistling Duck // May 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM

West Coast Blog says that Royal Pavillion sold and something happening with Escape.