The Opposition Anguilla United Front, which participated in the debate on the new MOU for Cap Juluca in the Anguilla House of Assembly last week, has reiterated its support for the project, but told reporters on Tuesday about some concerns it has with the agreement.

Victor Banks and Othlyn Vanterpool at Press Conference

The press conference was held by the Elected Member for Island Harbour, Othlyn Vanterpool, in the absence of Leader of the Opposition, Evan Rogers, who is off island. Mr. Vanterpool had with him former Minister of Finance and Tourism, Victor Banks, who was intimately involved in the MOA between the past Government and Cap Juluca.

Vanterpool said he was pleased that common grounds were found in the current MOU and all parties seemed to be satisfied. He was also happy that Cap Juluca’s staff could now rest better in that the impasse between the present AUM Government and Adam Aron, Chairman and CEO of the hotel, had been settled.

He stated that except for a few areas, the Opposition had no problem with the MOU. “We are of the opinion that fundamentally there is not much difference between the MOA and the MOU,” he observed. “However, I am concerned about the price Anguillians had to pay to reach the agreement. I believe we paid that price because of the inexperience… and lack of preparation on the part of our negotiating team.” He said the big contention in the negotiations was the sale of villas to enable the developer to expand the project. He noted that despite all the noise it made, the present Government allowed Aron to go ahead to sell the villas as was stipulated in the original MOA.

Vanterpool told the reporters that his greatest concern was that the developer was able to get land he did not ask for originally. He explained that in the former MOA, 12 acres of land were reserved on Cove Beach for the National Park, but in the MOU the developer was given 7 of the prime acres with only five remaining for Anguilla. “In addition, the Government enshrined in the MOU permission for the developer to go 100 feet into the sea to remove living or dead coral or any other rock,” he went on, “and for me that is quite a concern as he was not given that permission in the MOA to which he had agreed. I thought as a businessman he was able to recognise the inability of our negotiating team and get more than what he was asking for.”

Mr. Vanterpool questioned whether all that the Government said it had got in the MOU could compensate for the prime land given to the developer which he did not ask for.

“In the MOU which we discussed in the House, no mention was made about the 72 acres of pond which had also been apparently conceded to the developer,” the Opposition Member continued. “However, I am glad to recognise in the MOU that, because…[of our debate in the House of Assembly, the Government] was able to go back to the developer and have that 72 acres of pond reverted …and inserted into the MOU which has now been signed. It was nowhere in the copy brought to the House, but because of our vigilance we were able to get it in the document.” He argued, nonetheless, that “the developer had been given unlimited scope to fill in as much of the pond as he sees fit…to put together his development.” Vanterpool was of the view that a considerable amount of the pond would have to be filled to accommodate the National Park and Neighbourhood Villas on the narrow strip of land there.

Mr. Banks claimed that the MOU was not significantly different from any other agreement made by Government in recent times and did not give any additional concessions to the developer. He traced the legal difficulties and the need for urgent repairs to Cap Juluca which faced Mr. Aron when he came on the scene as the new owner/developer, and said that the context of the previous negotiations and MOA with him had taken all of that into account.

“We were able to negotiate an agreement which made provisions that the project would be viable,” Mr. Banks recalled. “We made certain concessions to the new owner and his partners that would allow him, should the cost of the legal settlement be of a certain level, to find ways to make the project feasible.

“We also sought to ensure that the Government of Anguilla retained four very important things. One, that the Cap Juluca brand be maintained; two, that the number of the rooms would be such that the property would maintain the level of density that is fitting for an up-market luxury property; three, we wanted to ensure that the Government and people of Anguilla had an option to participate, therefore we had a 20% ownership. Most importantly, in terms of legacy, and the long-term benefits that would be derived from the agreement, was that we would have 72 acres of pond land and 12 and a half acres of Cove Beach land reserved for the people of Anguilla as a National Park, in the hands of the National Trust.”

Mr. Banks continued: “There was never a time, when any sale of villas associated with the project, meant that those villas would not be returned into the hotel pool…In other words, the owners would have the right to occupy those villas for up to 60 days…so there is nothing new [in the MOU] as far as that is concerned. Persons were concerned that a number of those villas were on the beach. We had to make that accommodation and we put in place very strict rules to ensure that the level of revenue generated to Government and to the property from those villas was maintained.”

The former Minister of Finance congratulated Evan Rogers and Othlyn Vanterpool for their contribution to the debate in the House which enabled the 72 acres of pond land to be reserved for the people of Anguilla. He noted that the National Park was a protected area under the National Trust, but charged that under the MOU it seems more of a recreational area – a distinction which must be grappled with.

“Under the former MOA, the initial clean-up of the pond, and its connection to Gull Pond to the west, was to have been paid for by the developer,” Banks said. “These are among the significant areas that were left out, which we are concerned about… as well as the 7 acres of the best beach land property given to the developer. Also taken out was the 20% option. This was placed in the MOA, at the time, out of concerns within the community, that the people of Anguilla should have a stakehold in the Cap Juluca property. That option did no harm. I heard the Member for East End [Jerome Roberts] say in the House of Assembly that that option was taken out because the Government of Anguilla could not take advantage of it and that ‘those selected interest groups’ [who may be brought in by the developer], would take advantage of it. That was a very silly statement, in my estimation, by the Elected Member for East End. The option could have been utilised by the people of Anguilla. It could have been owned by the Government of Anguilla or by the people of Anguilla directly. That was an important aspect of the MOA that was taken out.”

Banks referred to a press release by Parliamentary Secretary, Haydn Hughes, about some of the agreements in the MOU including guarantees of job creation and service charge. Mr. Banks pointed out that service charge was provided for by law in the Fair Labour Standards Act; and that payment of Accommodation Tax was also legally provided for and to be paid by every property on the island. He said the Government indicated it made service charge a part of the MOU when in fact it was an entitlement of workers at every tourism project. He argued that the Government, having put service charge in the MOU, would give employees at other properties the impression that it was not an entitlement and must be enshrined in an agreement. “I think that this is very dangerous,” he stated.

Banks further argued that the 7.5% put on debt in the MOU was in fact a reduction of the 12% which Government would normally receive under the Financial Administration and Audit Act. “I am concerned that the questions asked about the MOU were answered by the Parliamentary Secretary for the most part and not by the Ministers of Government…in Executive Council who would have been aware of certain aspects of the negotiations,” Banks noted. “The two junior and inexperienced Members of the House of Assembly, who were given the responsibility of dealing with the MOU, have taken out some considerable areas in this MOU where the Government of Anguilla could have been in a much better position.”

Banks said that despite the fact that the MOU was taken to the House of Assembly, the people of Anguilla did not know what many of its provisions were. He informed the reporters that the Anguilla United Front would hold a series of town hall meetings, starting at East End, to speak about the contents of the agreement. Questioned about how the former Government had publicised its MOA with Cap Juluca, he replied that it was done through forums and other public discussions.

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News