Dear Editor,
Recent developments have once again highlighted the shortcomings of St. Maarten’s Hillside Policy, reinforcing the urgent need for legally binding legislation to protect our natural landscapes. As has been reported in the media, ongoing hillside developments such as the Concord Residence in Pelican Key and extensive excavation on Cole Bay Hill have sparked public outcry, with concerns over deforestation, erosion, and the long-term consequences of unchecked construction. While the VROMI [Public Housing, Urban Planning, Environment and Infrastructure – Ed.] Ministry has defended the policy, it is clear that its guidelines alone are not enough to prevent the degradation of our hillsides. The same can be said for the Beach Policy, which similarly lacks the legal weight to prevent over-development and encroachment on the very coastlines that define our island’s identity.
The Hillside Policy, implemented in 1998, was intended to regulate development in elevated areas, ensuring that construction does not compromise the island’s green spaces, biodiversity, and natural defenses against flooding and landslides. However, without legal enforcement, the policy remains largely advisory, allowing developers to proceed with projects that undermine its very purpose. The policy’s restrictions on high-density construction and its call for environmental consideration are routinely bypassed, as demonstrated by the continued clearing of vegetation and the alteration of slopes for commercial and residential expansion. Without clear penalties or a legal framework mandating compliance, these activities persist, threatening not only the island’s natural beauty but also its resilience to extreme weather events.
Similarly, the Beach Policy fails to provide sufficient protection against the privatization and exploitation of our shores. Beach access for residents continues to be reduced, with new developments pushing further into what should be public coastal spaces. The encroachment on dunes and beach vegetation contributes to erosion, making the coastline more vulnerable to hurricanes and sea-level rise. Yet, without a law to enforce setbacks and ensure sustainable coastal management, our beaches remain at the mercy of unchecked development.
The lack of legally enforceable hillside and beach protections has far-reaching consequences. Deforestation on slopes exacerbates runoff and soil erosion, leading to increased flooding in lower-lying areas. Unregulated coastal development not only depletes marine biodiversity but also limits public access to what should be a shared national resource. These developments often proceed without comprehensive environmental impact assessments, leaving communities vulnerable to disasters and reducing the natural defenses that help buffer St. Maarten against the impacts of climate change.
If St. Maarten is to truly embrace sustainability, it must move beyond non-binding policies and implement laws that prioritize long-term environmental security over short-term economic gain. It is time for parliament to take decisive action and introduce both a Hillside Protection Ordinance and a Beach Protection Ordinance that ensure development does not come at the cost of our island’s natural defenses. Failure to act now will not only result in further environmental degradation but will also undermine the resilience of our communities in the face of climate change. Protecting our hillsides and beaches is not just an environmental issue – it is an urgent necessity for the future of St. Maarten.
Tadzio Bervoets
Dear Editor,
For a prolonged period of time, the island has been saturated with discussions regarding the thoughtless behaviour of youngsters on motorbikes and scooters, who zoom in and out of the traffic whenever they feel the urge to do so.
The unfortunate result of this heedless conduct is that this excitement has caused several untimely deaths; which have left so many grieving families to deal with the burden of raising their children, without any or very little financial or psychological support.
Some critics say that the youngsters do not care; they feel that the road belongs to them and other motorists have to clear the way for them to display their stunts. These are valid conclusions, but are they accurate? Until we know the root cause of their behaviour, these explanations are just speculations.
What is really bothersome is that some people have asked for the authorities to just gun them down. This is outrageous! Would they harm their children in that manner? No! So, why is it okay to treat other people’s children that way? Yes, the bikers appear to be annoying and inconsiderate, but again, what is the root cause for their behaviour? Until the origin of their conduct is identified, the problem will continue.
Case in point: Do these youngsters behave any differently from some adults? No! How is it that some grown-ups can obey the traffic rules, while others don’t? Likewise, is it all young people who exhibit this type of behaviour, or just a few? So, the common element between adults and youngsters who disobey the traffic laws is this lack of respect for authority. Isn’t it?
Here’s the burning question: What has constituted or cultivated this defiance attitude against authority? Believe it or not, this behaviour originated elsewhere. This conduct is just a manifestation of a deeper or more serious situation that needs some attention. Is it not that our very first encounter with regard to respecting or disrespecting authority originated from the home?
This growing trend is being nurtured by their peers. So, how do the relevant authorities resolve this matter? Practically everything goes back to the home, but not entirely. Several other factors could be the cause of this tenacity. Issues like: How do they feel about this society that they live in? Are they working? Is their level of education comparable to their goals and aspirations? What are the opportunities for their success in the country that they call home?
As trivial as this may sound, maybe some of these riders are acting this way because it gives them comfort. It’s their narrow way of thinking on how to fill a void – an emptiness for not having a father figure to guide and nurture their thoughts and actions as they transition into teenage life and manhood. For some, not having a father figure in the home can create this vacuum that keeps pushing them to discover this resolution.
To get a more accurate picture of these riders’ behaviour, it would be prudent if Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling collaborates with the Traffic Department and invite the riders for a closed-door discussion, with security in place. No press. No recordings. Give them the freedom to speak, because only these riders can detail the real reasons for their behaviour. For some people, all that they desire is a listening ear.
This is a collaborated effort, so take this opportunity to foster this partnership. Hence, after the team has listened and make the necessary notes to move ahead, toss the ball back into their court and allow them to come up with solutions to curb their behaviour. To me, all of this disrespect for authority boils down to one major viewpoint, which is the lack of personal development.
Minister Tackling, if you could appoint a competent life coach to organize some educational workshops for these youngsters on self-improvement, this endeavor would change the landscape of our youth forever.
Joslyn Morton
Dear Editor,
Passenger or tourism taxation is “swamp taxation” because no one besides the tax receiver wants it, and it sucks. Tourists may opt for visiting a different island destination that doesn’t have the taxes, yet does have the same sun, the beaches and the palm trees. Plus, the new discovery may even have more to offer and is worth a repeat visit. Competition in double degree.
The taxations were done in several locations, not just the Caribbean. The tax was expected to raise a high amount of government earnings annually, but a commissioned report concluded that it costs the economy in general four times as much in lost revenue as it resulted in a steep decline in passenger traffic.
There are also indications that some “hotel visitors” converted into being cruise passengers by raising taxes on air tickets substantially. It may be less expensive to take a short cruise than the cost of a round- trip airline ticket for that short trip. In essence it means that passengers would leave more money on the cruise ships benefiting the cruise operators, rather than spending it on shore at destinations.
If a destination or an airport in the Caribbean wishes to be an international hub, or even a regional hub, it is probably well advised to drop departure taxes and other passenger taxes.
ICAO is the International Civil Aviation Organization. a specialized agency of the United Nations. It codifies the principles and techniques of international air navigation and fosters the planning and development of international air transport to ensure safe and orderly growth. ICAO is distinct from other international air transport organizations, like the International Air Transport Association (IATA), a trade association representing airlines.
ICAO has clear policies on taxation and Member States are urged to apply ICAO policies on taxation in regulatory practices. ICAO Assembly Resolutions have repeatedly urged Member States to follow the ICAO policies on taxation and not to impose taxes on the sale or use of international air transport. Yet, Member States have not included in their ASA’s (Article on Taxation) a commitment to reduce or eliminate taxes on the sale and use of international air transport.
Caribbean Member States of ICAO are the sovereign countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago. The countries with overseas territories in the region are also ICAO members.
Already, in 2013, at their Worldwide Transport Conference, the ICAO issued the following text to be included in their Template Article on Taxation (TASA): “… Each party shall undertake to reduce to the fullest practicable extent and make plans to eliminate as soon as its economic conditions permit all forms of taxation on the sale or use of international air transport, including such taxes for services which are not required for international civil aviation or which may discriminate against it.”
According to ICAO a tax is a levy that is designed to raise national or local government revenues, which are generally not applied to civil aviation in their entirety or on a cost-specific basis. ICAO has also recognized that in the past decades there was a development of tourism taxes in some regions, in particular Latin America and the Caribbean. In many cases, revenues from the tourism taxes are not being reinvested in tourism development.
The main principles on taxation contained in ICAO policies are frequently adopted by international organizations in policy documents. Some regional organizations and industry associations, such as the Airports Council International (ACI) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA), have also developed policies that are opposed to discriminatory and unfair government taxation on air transport. The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), while not opposed to taxes per se, as part of the overall fiscal responsibility of States, considers that travel taxes should be scrutinized objectively to avoid excessive burdens on travelers/companies with a view to reducing taxes that have a negative impact on travel and, hence on tourism development.
Despite these policies, the past decade has seen an unprecedented proliferation of taxes levied on air passenger tickets in the region. This trend is again causing serious concerns and has a negative impact on the sustainable development of air transportation, which ultimately, negatively impacts the tourism industry, inter-island traffic, and the overall national economic development.
Caribbean governments are well advised to reconsider the current taxation or before making a decision on a new tax, an independent evaluation by qualified professionals acquainted with economics should be made on the impact of passenger taxation. A “neat” idea to get some extra money in the coffers, may turn out to be a monkeynomics. What plays a crucial role and contributes significantly to an economy must not be hindered by ineffective government taxation which actually becomes counterproductive to tourism and the economy at large.
Commander Bud Slabbaert
By Alex Rosaria
The community has the right to know the real impacts of plans presented by political parties. However, it is often preferred to push things aside without analysis and data.
When critical observations are made, it is often dismissed and people are challenged to engage in political debate instead of rational exchanges. There is no learning from projects such as 1000 cattle, the Curaçao-Bonaire country, the creation, and the sale of dog meat with Nazi Germany.
Today, discussions are being held about the elimination of Payroll Tax (Lb). Do you believe that political parties, who are selling themselves as serious, will open up for critical analysis and explain coherently to the public what the plan is about, and its consequences?
I want to know what the elimination of Payroll Tax (Lb) means for inflation (increase in cost of living) due to more money in circulation; for the monetary union with St. Maarten which requires coordination of macroeconomic management; for services to the public, because there will be less money in government coffers; and for the difference between "haves and have-nots," which, according to data (GINI), is already very large.
Would replacing Lb with indirect taxes like OB and ABB help? Lb is progressive, higher for the wealthy. Removing Lb and replacing it with indirect taxes (which apply to everyone) would affect the lower classes more.
What does that mean in terms of avoiding increased poverty? Would eliminating Lb be an immediate or gradual process?
It’s good to know if there is an independent expert who is willing to provide an opinion on some of these plans. I recommend that political parties make use of experts and let the economic models from MEO and CBCS carry out the calculations. Let the youth engage in political debate with experts on the side.
~ Alex David Rosaria (53) is a freelance consultant active in Asia and the Pacific. He is a former Member of Parliament, Minister of Economic Affairs, State Secretary of Finance and UN Implementation Officer in Africa and Central America. He is from Curaçao and has an MBA from University of Iowa (USA). ~
Dear Editor,
We all know that we are living on a little island that is heavily dependent on tourism. Tourism drives our economy, and provides jobs for many. Without tourists, especially from the U.S., we would be in some serious trouble. So we are glad when especially the tourist high season comes around and pray that no calamity, or unforeseen circumstances, will hinder or prevent the tourists from visiting our island. Our government will therefore uphold, and promote, anything that not only attracts the tourists, but also support whatever activity that can keep them happy.
All of this may sound well and good, but we also have to look at the other side of the coin. I was quite amazed when I realized that another casino was going to open its doors, in what used to be the former building of Caribbean Auto Sales on Union Road. Why more casinos? Just recently another new casino had opened up its doors in the Simpson Bay area. The large video screens of now both casinos are already in full display, as to invite people to come gamble.
St. Maarten should now be called: “Little Las Vegas”. Yes, and by chance, this other new casino on Union Road is called: “Vegas” St. Maarten has now officially become the friendly island of gambling, where people can come, sit, drink, and gamble until they gamble away their last pennies.
So on behalf of government, the bright side is that more of these casinos will help fill and sustain their coffers, (and as many people believe, also the pockets of some money-greedy politicians? Who knows. … But that’s a different issue I don’t want to deal with right now.)
But there is also a dark side of these casinos. Whether there is a tourist high season, or low season, for the locals there is no season. Throughout the year many locals do regularly visit these casinos, even outnumbering the very tourists. So with so many casinos now in almost “every corner of the island”, are we then not creating and encouraging a generation of gamblers by allowing more of these gambling businesses on our island?
Not so long ago when I was in Curaçao, I saw an advertisement of one of their casinos over there. Although they were encouraging people to come gamble, they also reminded the players in their advertisement to “gamble responsibly.” Yes, there are people who become so addicted to gambling that they would “dump” their entire pay-check into the slots in a desperate need of a quick financial fix. This can also lead to frustration, family issues, and disputes.
Dear editor, we are living in a time when things are tough. Some people still have to work more than one job as to make ends meet. Food prices are sky-rocketing, while salaries and pensions remain at an all-time low. Many are therefore tempted to go try their luck with gambling. But the hope and dreams of striking it big one day will not be easy.
I believe every government also has a responsibility to the moral behavior, safety, and well-being of its citizens. Their concern should be as to what impact too much gambling can have on its citizens. I have visited some of these casinos, not to play the slots, (because I have better things to do with my money), but rather to observe the players at these machines. I have seen some players, who were drained of their hard-earned cash, just sitting there motionless staring in unbelief at the machines, as if contemplating their sorrows. Others in a desperate attempt, refusing their defeat, still trying to regain their loss as they continue to rage their battle with the merciless machines. But there are also those who seem to see some light at the end of the tunnel, and may still be able to walk away with something in their pockets.
I met a gentleman some time ago, who use to work in a casino. He told me that one day his boss once told him not to ever be tempted to play the slots. He said those slot machines are there to pay our bills, and of course to make a profit for the casino business. The machines are set in such a way as to make maximum gain, and minimum loss.
It is not my intention to stop any one from gambling. That’s a choice every individual must make for themselves.
We can talk about finding ways of eradicating the poverty and financial need of many people here on our island. But my question is if we allow more casinos to operate, are we then helping to solve this problem, or causing it to get worse? People will be tempted to gamble, as a way of getting more money. However to hit the Jack-pot, or even winning big time, will not be an all-time experience. It is only reserved for a minor few who have that luck. Most of the players at the slots are people of a low income. (The big-shots or high rollers, are mostly attracted to the tables.)
In the end, on one hand, government will continue to give out more licenses for more gambling establishments to operate, because for them it’s a good source of revenue, and the other hand more casinos will continue to open, because the gambling business is a great lucrative way of profit for the casino owners. They know that people are in need of more money, and moreover that there will always be far more losers than winners. So the citizens who are caught then in between are the ones who have to decide how they will spend their hard-earned money. Either gamble foolishly, or responsibly.
Concerned citizen
Name withheld at author’s request.
