With amazement, I learned yesterday about the initial information regarding the purchase of the Campo Alegre brothel (or at least the properties) by the Pisas II Cabinet. The first thing that came to mind was, "This can't be true," and "How foolish can one be?"

After the Prime Minister's statements, it turned out to be true. The government bought the properties as a "strategic investment" and would decide what to do with them in about 3 months.

It is a well-known fact that Pisas promised during the election campaign that MFK would reopen the Campo Alegre brothel, but it couldn't be that simple, could it? Not with 8 million guilders of public funds on the same day that water, electricity, and gasoline prices increased?

While government was negotiating a 1.2-billion-guilder loan in connection with the ENNIA debacle? Not just weeks after, only 1 million guilders could be allocated to provide 30 schools with air conditioning units to alleviate the unbearable heat in which our children and teachers could no longer attend classes?

So, I awaited the "intellectual explanation" in which a plausible argument would be provided to justify this political stunt, because surely, that must follow? This couldn't just be acceptable as is, could it?

There was no plausible explanation. I was unpleasantly surprised. What followed was a meaningless press release and the well-known Facebook statements by Silvania, one crazier than the other.

For those interested, I will briefly explain why none of the explanations make sense. In short, the explanation amounted to the following:

The government purchased strategic real estate with significant development potential, without a clear purpose, at a good price, with the intention of determining its use in three months, but also to ensure that ANG 8 million would flow into the Crime Fund so that cars, weapons, and uniforms can be purchased for the Justice system, which urgently needs them. Or as the Minister of Justice announced on his Facebook page: "Boom, 8 million in the Crime Fund."

Questions and Answers Regarding the Campo Alegre Purchase

1 Did the government have to buy Campo Alegre so that the Justice department could get money to buy cars, weapons, and uniforms? No. Real estate is purchased by the government using funds from the capital service of the budget. This is designated for (sustainable) investments and projects.

Every ministry (including Justice), every service (including KPC), buys weapons, cars, and uniforms through the capital service, not through the Crime Fund. The Crime Fund is only used for those purposes when there is no money available in the capital service.

The fact that there were funds available in the capital service is evident, especially from the purchase of Campo Alegre! If there was 8 million guilders available to buy Campo, why couldn't that money be used directly to purchase cars, weapons, and uniforms for Justice? Why divert money into the Crime Fund through the purchase of Campo Alegre?

2. Was it necessary for the government to buy Campo so that the funds would go into the Crime Fund? Absolutely not! Campo Alegre was under seizure by the Public Prosecutor's Office (OM). The sale proceeds would automatically go into the Crime Fund regardless of who bought it.

The seizure was made in the context of a criminal confiscation case. The intention is that third parties pay the money so that criminal proceeds are confiscated from the convicted individuals, and their criminal funds are used to bring about positive development in the community (Not government funds).

So, once again, regardless of which buyer purchased Campo, the money would go into the Crime Fund.

Furthermore, I am convinced that the purchase of Campo is counterproductive for the economy. By buying Campo, the government is actually preventing any (local or foreign) investor from bringing "new money" into the local economy because government funds that were already budgeted to be spent are now being used to hinder "fresh investment" in the local economy.

By spending the same money twice (buying Campo and materials for Justice), the government creates the illusion that the local economy is growing when, in fact, their actions are working against it.

3.Was the purchase so strategic? I remember during the discussion of the "transfer of lands to the US Consulate," the Minister of VVRP explained that he needed money to develop Landhuis Zuurzak (the former residence of the Gezaghebber). Like many government buildings, it was in disrepair, and a small amount would be sufficient to make it usable and profitable as "public property" again. To date, this has not happened.

Just like Landhuis Zuurzak, you have the City Hall (Courthouse Building), the Old BC Building, and dozens of other government-owned properties that need a "small investment" to significantly reduce government rental costs. However, this was not "strategic" enough for this government. No, buying a parcel of land for 8 million guilders without a "known" purpose was.

All in all, it quickly became clear that the Pisas Cabinet has simply used public funds to fulfill a campaign promise. After "tinted windows," no COHO, and the Soto Stadium, it's now time for the reopening of Campo Alegre. Next, we await the (actual) reopening of the Refinery, a "wip room" for SDKK, and "Plan B" (no more borrowing from the Netherlands).

Whether the Curaçao community has actually made any progress with these promises is questionable at best. Note that not even the central and relevant question of whether the government wants a prostitution center at Campo Alegre could be clearly answered by the Prime Minister.

Perhaps that had something to do with the prayer meeting the night before.

Quincy Girigorie

Curaçao

Dear Editor,

Of late I have been meeting people who continually let me know that they are surprised that I have not responded to the rhetoric of Olivier Arrindell. I usually consult the dictionaries when I use words which can be interpreted several ways. In this case the definition of rhetoric is “language designed to have persuasive or impressive effect, but which is regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content”.

Because it concerns politics I will use this saying as an example: “All we have from the opposition is empty rhetoric.” So my answer to those who expected me to write about Mr. Arrindell, my answer was and still is “Every man to his trade.”

I know that there are mixed sentiments and emotions among those who follow that gentleman. Some of them do not agree for him to be using the name of St. Maarten in conjunction with his obscene

language, even though he is talking about getting back the money which the corrupt politicians have ripped off the backs of St. Maarten people. When I ask what is wrong with that, the consensus is: “If we follow him, people are going to think that all St. Maarten people are like him.” At that point I usually change the subject because I would have to give an opinion and it might be taken out of context.

As you are aware I usually put my opinion black on white and I do not disperse information that I cannot vouch for.

In my experience on the job I have encountered thousands of people who were forewarned but did not adhere to what was said to them, and reacted with “If I had known.” But like I have written several times in the past, my father used to tell us, “I do not want to have to tell you ‘I told you so’ because 99 percent of the time, ‘I told you so’ comes as the result of something negative.”

All I will say is that there is a Dutch saying: “Een gewaarschuwd man telt voor twee” (in English, “forewarned is forearmed.”)

Even though my job got me involved in almost everything in the community, I still maintain “every man to his trade”.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

According to St. Maarten Hospitality and Trade Association (SHTA), the country registered nine per cent less room nights this summer compared to last summer. The short piece is an interesting read and it reflects, in the author's opinion, the shortcomings of what we are doing or haven’t done as a tourism reliant destination.

The travel sector is typically one of “monkey see, monkey do.” Destinations keep a close eye on one another and develop variations on what the competition is doing. However, the underlying motivations for travel largely remain. Why then do St. Maarten’s regional rivals fare so much better than the friendly island?

During the pandemic, tourism reliant destinations, including our neighbors, re-imagined their product in a post-pandemic world where travel was anticipated to be much different. Additional funding was allocated to new marketing initiatives and creative approaches to attract travellers.

The premise was straightforward: Predicting high air fares after the airline industry began to recover was not rocket science. Many destinations anticipated this accurately. To entice visitors, the islands must offer plenty of fresh attractions, new hotel brands, and marketing strategies that make the high ticket prices appear worthwhile. Even though our rivals in the area were making advancements in the aforementioned areas virtually on a daily basis, St. Maarten seemed to be oblivious to all of this..

What has SXM done to attract the post-pandemic traveller in a very competitive market? Other than ride the coat-tails of seasonal airlift and claim it as an accomplishment? Instead of casting a wide net, our neighbors used data-driven insights to target specific demographics and segments of travelers who were more likely to visit. This approach allowed for more efficient use of marketing resources.

Collaboration with airlines, travel agencies, and online travel platforms became crucial. Caribbean countries worked closely with these partners to create enticing packages, discounts, and promotions to attract travelers. Lastly, our competition recognized the need for flexibility. They closely monitored the evolving situation, adjusted their strategies accordingly, and communicated any changes transparently to potential travelers.

That calls into doubt the function of our marketing representatives abroad. Another new marketing company was recently contracted by St. Maarten, although its objectives and directives are unknown. We don’t know if they are being creative with the budget allotted or if we are stuck with marketing initiatives from the 90s. In the same context, why did we need a new firm? How did the latter fall short of expectations or fail? What did we learn from it, and how did we change and refocus the new company?

Lest I forget, we need a bigger tourism budget.

Michael R. Granger

Dear Editor,

So, it seemed simple enough. Dinner out with my wife and a couple of friends. What can possibly go wrong? The name of the restaurant is Mandarin, located in Port de Plaisance. We were looking for someplace quiet and with airco and Mandarin seemed to fit the bill. I am a pretty plain eater but my wife and friends like variety and the "Pan Asian" menu seemed to appeal to them and there was a Ribeye on there for me so, once again, on paper everything seemed wonderful. Right up until the food showed up after about a 40-minute wait.

Four meals. Two barely acceptable and the other two direct throw-aways. My $40 Rib Eye which I expected to be a nice 16 oz grilled steak turned out to be 3 slices of some mystery meat so thin (less than 3mm each) you could read a newspaper through them; they were either boiled or micro waved into tasteless cardboard. My rice side dish could have been used very well as an epoxy tile adhesive and the vegies were both raw and had been marinated in garlic since, perhaps, 1975. And everything was ice cold.

My wife's salad wasn't anything like she ordered, apparently and was inedible as well. The other couple ate their soups but without comment or any noticeable enjoyment. In my case it was obvious what had happened. They went to get my steak only to discover they didn't have one to sell so they took the cheap sliced meat that they use for their wok dishes and shazamm like magic, that became my 40$ RibEye. I have no idea why something as simple as rice could be as bad as they made it. I mean really...even I can cook rice and the raw cold vegies in a garlic bath?

I didn't press the issue. We were already there for an hour and I just figured that if they couldn't get anything at all right the first time around, then the second wasn't likely to be any better. So, in the end I just paid the $150 for four and chalked it as a validation of my philosophy of not eating in places I don't know about.

But wait, there's more. Just when you think you have seen it all, after the no-meal meal, we ordered cafe/latte . Now you wonder how hard that could be to get four cups of coffee. Well apparently "cafe latte" is some alien unknown because what resulted from that order was a 20-minute argument between our waitress and the bartender who either didn't know how to run the coffee machine or didn't know what a cafe latte was. What arrived at the table after a while were 3 different coffees for four people. Oh well.

All I can say is that was my experience there. Perhaps, and without exaggeration, the single worst restaurant experience I have ever had in my life as far as the food went. Maybe everything else they serve is wonderful. I have no idea and not likely to find out either. On the other hand I figure they would do better if they re-branded the place as a weight loss clinic because it is far more likely you will leave as hungry as you were when you arrived.

Oh, and to add insult to injury there was some big service charge on the check as well. There was an upside however. My dogs really liked the cardboard steak but even they wouldn't eat the garlic vegies.

Steven Johnson