The announcement that the Gioia Group is collaborating with VROMI to refurbish part of the Simpson
Bay public dock is being framed as a ‘community investment’, but it reads more like a consolation prize.
In 2014, the government presented draft zoning plans, informed by community input, suggesting a 12-
meter height limit for future developments in Simpson Bay. That vision was clearly not followed. The
Gioia Group development, called Ocean Residences, now rising in Simpson Bay, reaches approximately 30 meters in height. The skyline has permanently changed from several angles. For example, the sunset view from the public bridge, a shared space enjoyed by residents and visitors alike, is gone. It is the loss of a public experience that will not return.
Safeguards, such as limiting height or requesting community and environmental impact protections in the approval process of the large development, seem to have been set aside by successive governments. Here is a timeline:
April 2016: The Council of Ministers decided that the height of any development on the site should not
exceed the Royal Palm Beach Resort (4 stories instead of 8 stories high).
December 2017: The Council of Ministers approved a deviation from its earlier decision, allowing the
permit process to continue despite internal warnings about height, density, parking, and visual impact.
Why? Was this decided in the best interest of the community?
February 2018: VROMI’s own Policy Department & Secretary General warned that the proposed
development, including height and mass, did not align with the draft Simpson Bay zoning plans. They
note that objections from residents should be expected. Also flagged were unresolved domain land issues and parking shortfalls. The memo warned that approving the permit before resolving these matters carried the risk that the developer might not cooperate afterwards.
March 2018: Minister Giterson still approves a building permit for a surface area of 2804 m².
March 2024: Minister Doran approves an extension, more than tripling the approved surface area from
2804 m² to 8817 m². No environmental or social (community) impact assessments were submitted in
support of the decision for this extension.
Let that sink in.
August 2025: While Ocean Residences was under construction, environmental concerns were raised
clearly and directly with the current Minister Gumbs by community members. Both the Nature
Foundation and an environmental consultant advised against filling in the beach or adding breakwaters.
Their advice warned that adding sand and placing boulders could damage coral and seagrass, and that
artificial beaches in this area are unstable and likely to shift during storms. They also noted that no proper environmental or hydrological studies had been completed.
Today, 2026: Yet as this article is being written, boulders continue to be placed, and truckloads of sand
are actively being added along the shoreline in front of Ocean Residences.
The public dock is adjacent to and in view of the entrance of this luxury development by the Gioia Group. 54 condos for sale with prices advertised online ranging from $800,000 to $2,000,000. Considering all of this, the decision to beautify the public pier “for the community” deserves a more sober read.
Corporate social responsibility should not be reduced to selective gestures by developers after irreversible changes have already been made. True government responsibility would have meant respecting their own guidelines and department advice, meaningfully engaging residents before approvals were finalised, considering the realities of strained infrastructure, and refusing to proceed with environmentally risky interventions without proper studies.
So yes, we are cynical. Because experience has taught us that ‘community benefits’ are often offered only once the community has already lost something it can never get back.
Signed,
Conservation Collective
Dear Editor,
This week, Saint Martin News Network carried a story on their website about a prison official and gym trainer arrested following allegations of misconduct with a minor, attached to the article was the full name and picture of the suspect. After that the official statement from the public prosecutor was posted, with the initials but no picture provided, this public notification was in line with what we have come to routinely expect from the authorities,
This is what the public knows, but what they don’t know is that the arrest was conducted quite discreetly, no wailing of sirens or commotion. Further to this, the family was kept entirely in the dark throughout most of the day despite their request for information. In fact, they only learned the reason for the arrest once it was published on SXM news network website. The reason that I mention this is that the secrecy with which the investigation was conducted, makes clear that the only way the press could have known anything was from hidden official sources.
It is incredibly farcical that the Public Prosecutor’s office should put out an official notification in the aftermath, adhering to conventional codes of decency while at the same time leaking the information to a press who they must have known would shatter any ethical code they would later try to preserve in their own official notification. I am not saying that the leak was from official sources, it may just have been someone in the organization acting on their own, or perhaps taking a bribe. In any case the damage has been done. Irreparable harm has been done to the reputation of an individual who has yet to be brought before the court.
Not only did the news network leave no question to his identity but they slanted the story to infer guilt. In their words, “He should have acted as a trusted adult”. How do they know he didn’t? On what basis are they making that statement? This is precisely why those confidentiality rules exist. And is the reason why the prosecutor's office should make every effort to identify the source of the leak and plug it, so that cases are not judged in the press before they are brought before a magistrate.
Another question I have is why is this form of injustice meted out to prominent members of our community when the rights of violent criminals are painstakingly respected. How many times do you read a story in the newspaper and are left to wonder who the hooligans are, all we get are the initials, it would be nice at least to know whether they are from the island or from abroad, and if from abroad, exactly where they are from.
It seems that the scathing retribution is reserved for prominent locals who have in the past given freely to the community of their time and expertise. This is no way excuses or pardons wrongdoing, but is it too much to expect that they be extended the same courtesy as the violent bandits that plague our community. I do have a message to the powers that be, it is from the family. They would like their Dad back!
Michael Vieira
Dear editor,
What a heartbreaking sight, the photo of Belair beach on the front page of the Tuesday edition. We like that little strip of beach and we visit it regularly. As a new comer to the island, we live here since August 2025, we had to get used to a lot of things. For instance that waste is (not) managed on the island in a way we are used to. There is garbage everywhere, dumped cars alongside the roads, car engines growing in gardens, lots of overgrown construction waste, a very large mountain of waste in the middle of a pond and very little public containers and waste bins. And no awareness…
So the first time we visited this little beach I was shocked to see the piles of concrete, tiles, metal parts, piping and household waste and I wandered if this site was actually a government appointed site to dump construction waste. I could not believe that companies and citizens use this area as an illegal dump site.
Luckily nature is sturdy and without a plan so a lot of the rubbish has been over grown by nicely flowering plants and infested by curious little animals. A group of concerned people have put up colourful signs with texts like: ‘Don’t litter’, ‘Keep the beach clean’ and ‘Litter paradise’. I have read somewhere that they even organise clean-up days to remove plastic from the beach to keep our oceans clean. Very good initiatives!
To me it seems the general public has no environmental responsibility so, this needs to be addressed by our government. Of course, a clean-up operation of the whole area will be very expensive and would take a long time so, I would suggest to start small. For instance by stopping the site to be used as a landfill. By placing several , ‘No dumping signs’ with legal consequences such as fines at the entrances of the beach, it will be clear to everyone that it is illegal to dump here. To engage the public a phone number and QR code could be added to the signs to report offences. Also by installing cameras with license plate recognition the detection of violators would be easier.
A long-term plan has to be made of course. It should also take into account the ‘why’ there is an illegal dump. Maybe there are not enough legal possibilities to discard waste responsibly? And what will happen to all the waste when it will be removed, can it be recycled or perhaps reused on the same site to build a Nature Awareness House where we can learn about the natural wonders of our island?
Klaasjan Kok
Dear Editor,
I am definitely sure that the doctors on Sint Maarten do not need me to defend them when it pertains to doing their job. I am reacting because of the lack of tact displayed by member of Parliament La Croes who during a meeting claimed to be sceptical of the way our doctors diagnose and evaluate drivers sixty years and older in connection with the renewal of their driver’s licence.
I have mentioned it before and I will repeat it. This is what you get when you make it possible that any Dick, Harry or Peter can, without knowing the fact, go grand standing in Parliament believing that the people of Sint Maarten will be impressed.
Did Parliament member Lacroes do any research to know if and when these drivers over sixty years visited their doctor, were in condition to drive or not? Why did government extend the retirement age to beyond sixty years?
Is it possible that a driver over sixty, can be in good condition to drive today, and his health deteriorates shortly thereafter?
What is stipulated in the Public Transportation Ordinance concerning the maximum age that a permit holder is allowed to drive a bus or a taxi?
In my last letter to you, I mentioned it and I will repeat it. It is time enough that members of Parliament realise that a great deal of voters read and write English well and also have a higher education than several of those fifteen members of Parliament. Because "being overqualified" was a scapegoat, that does not mean that everybody else are "dummies".
Russell Simmons
Dear Editor,
This open letter is written to expose a disturbing and undeniable double standard in how justice, advocacy, and protection are applied within the Government of St. Maarten.
A young, locally trained epidemiologist returned home to serve her country through the Ministry of VSA. While performing her duties, she was subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace.
She reported the incident. She followed protocol. She acted with courage and integrity.
What did she receive in return? Silence. Inaction. Abandon-ment.
To this day, the Minister of VSA and the Office of the Prime Minister have failed to properly resolve her sexual harassment complaint or protect her as a civil servant. No urgency. No public defence. No visible effort to ensure her safety, dignity, or career.
At the same time, Minister Brug has chosen to invest significant political energy, public advocacy, and determination into fighting for the return of his Chief of Staff to the workplace after the Prime Minister explicitly stated that this individual is not permitted to enter government buildings due to serious concerns. Let that contrast sink in.
Minister Brug is actively fighting to reinstate his Chief of Staff, making public statements and challenging the Prime Minister yet refusing to fight with the same vigor for a young St. Maarten epidemiologist whose contract was due to be made permanent and whose only “offence” was reporting sexual harassment.
When it comes to his Chief of Staff, Minister Brug finds his voice.
When it comes to a young woman facing workplace harassment, he finds excuses.
This epidemiologist’s contract was expected to be converted to a permanent appointment. That did not happen. Not because of a lack of qualifications. Not because of poor performance. But after she spoke up. This is retaliation by neglect.
The message is painfully clear: political loyalty is worth fighting for; professional integrity is not.
Prime Minister Mercelina, as the authority responsible for government personnel, has also failed to act decisively. While restrictions are enforced swiftly against some, protection and justice are conveniently delayed or denied altogether for others.
This selective application of authority and justice is dangerous. It tells every young professional, especially women, that their safety is negotiable and their careers disposable.
St. Maarten cannot claim to value good governance, integrity, or women in leadership while allowing a sexual harassment complaint to be ignored and a victim to be professionally sidelined especially when the same leaders demonstrate exactly how forcefully they can act when it suits them.
Law for one must mean law for all. Advocacy for one must mean advocacy for all.
If Minister Brug can fight relentlessly for his Chief of Staff to return to work, he can and should fight just as hard to make a qualified, local epidemiologist permanent and to ensure she receives justice. Anything less is hypocrisy.
The country is watching. Young professionals are watching. And history will remember who was defended and who was discarded.
Alfred A Bryan
