Dear Editor,
I read the article yesterday [Thursday – Ed.] relative to Mr Irion confusion about the Planet Hollywood project and, perhaps, since I was the individual that stopped it, I can shed some light on the issue along with a bit of educated guess work. When the project was first proposed I had serious objections to it. Contrary to popular myth, my objections had nothing to do with “lost view” or anything like that. They cantered on three basic issues, all technical and based on solid science and engineering. First, there were no formal plans or drawings. The developer had submitted what was essentially some sketches on the back of a bar napkin and some pretty pictures drawn by someone's 8-year-old that you might hang on your refrigerator. None of it was even in the same galaxy as what was actually required by the permit process.
Then, to add insult to injury, they offered what was effectively a bogus "peer review" that supporting the design... except the author had never seen the drawings or any of the meaningful technical data that it was supposed to be based on. It was essentially pure fiction.
Second that what was submitted employed completely inadequate standards from an engineering and structural standpoint. In a location routinely hit with cat-4 and 5 storms, they had used cat-3 at their design standard virtually guaranteeing the place would be destroyed all the time. And third that VROMI had no inspectors or inspection regime capable of making sure that the place got built as designed, assuming the design was any good to start with.
I freely admit that my objections were purely selfish in the sense that on all previous occasions where VROMI had allowed Sonesta Great Bay hotel to do construction, that work was so bad that every time there was a storm, pieces would fly off it and end up in my living room. Twice that occurred causing damage approaching US $100,000. As a matter of literal fact, my house (or anything else I have designed or built) has never suffered a single dollar of storm damage in ANY storm other than what was caused by pieces flying off the Sonesta Great Bay property. I made that point very clear in my objections and to the court. I have NO objection to project as long as it is built properly and doesn’t keep destroying my house every time the wind blows. The court agreed at the first hearing, ruled totally in my favour, effectively voided the first permit that was issued.
At the second court hearing and after proper drawings had been completed, etc, the court withheld judgment but stopped the project going forward until the structural aspects of my objections were addressed between VROMI and myself. At a subsequent meeting between Minister Doran and myself I was able to show him the extensive proof of the shoddy engineering, the poor standards and examples of where the developer had lied to both VROMI and their clients about the standards they were using as the basic premise of their design. To his credit, Minister Doran took that information to heart and later on issued a letter to me over his signature guaranteeing that the new design would have to employ cat-5 standards and proper materials, as well as a proper inspection regime. In a word, that was good enough for me simply because that for all intents and purposes shifted the liability of any future failure onto government Sint Maarten. Now, if they failed to inspect or allowed a weak design and pieces ended up in my living room again then we would all end up in court again, but this time with a big dollar claim against them and I had the proof that would guarantee a verdict in my favour.
So, from that moment on, as far as I was concerned, the project was good to go at least on paper. So, why isn’t it getting built? This is where the educated guess work comes in. First of all, the permit they got expires after a year if nothing gets done and since nothing has gotten done, their current permit is expired and no good. That means they have to re-apply from scratch … at least that’s the way it is explained to me. Second and more likely, is money. The first design they offered was only to cat-3 standards and employed all manner of non-certified junk materials for windows and doors, etc. Materials and fixtures that would never get approved or pass a legitimate inspection in any storm-sensitive jurisdiction. Also, if they actually had to design and install a fire-fighting system that was actually adequate and met a code from any competent jurisdiction, then that would cost about 10 times what the systems they had already proposed would. So, in a nut shell, if Minister Doran is to be taken at his word and the developers now have to legitimately design and build to cat-5 standards, then the cost for the project just went up probably 40%. Not an insignificant number.
And now that government is liable for consequential damages by virtue of the minister’s letter and assurances and they know I will be watching every move they make, the developers may feel that the project just doesn’t make any economic sense anymore because they can’t cheat the system on this particular building. And all, that is if you can get by the fact that the whole place is being built on a flood plain and at a distance from the ocean that would never be allowed by any government that had any sense at all. Admittedly, these conclusions are just guesswork on my part. But if I’m right that might answer Mr. Irion’s question.
Steven Johnson
Dear Editor,
Reading the front page article in The Daily Herald of February 22, 2023, regarding a squabble over the PFP proposal to remove the rear curtain from the voting booths, I took note:
NA’s George Pantophlet thinks the voters lack understanding and need more education. (Huh??)
Faction Ludmila Duncan likes the PFP idea, but wants the presence of other persons in the polling stations to be looked at. Good point. How about larger voting halls, with do-not-cross lines painted on the floor 20 feet from the entrance to each voting booth. While voters are in the booths, no-one is to cross the line.
Faction Grisha Heyliger-Marten fully supports the PFP proposal. Good for her!
UD faction leader Sarah Wescot-Williams and her party also fully support the PFP proposal! Yessss!!
But, as expected, almost violent drama-laced opposition to the simple proposal to remove the rear curtain comes from faction Christophe Emmanuel and the Rolando Brison version of the UP faction.. At all cost, the curtains must stay! I wonder why?
Michael J. Ferrier
Dear Editor,
Let me begin by stating that this open letter is not to throw dirt on the hard-working medical personnel on St. Maarten. They have shown to go above and beyond to save the lives of their patients daily and in times of crises they will go the extra mile.
However, on occasions I have had negative experiences at the SMMC and so have many with me. From long waiting lines (even with appointments) without any information to being treated rudely, even yelled at, when asking a question; I’ve experienced and heard many examples.
I’m sure there are also positive experiences and many would disagree with what I am sharing here. At the same time, I have heard enough negatives to feel the need to express this in the hope for positive change and continuous improvement to the health sector on St. Maarten.
Generally, when one visits the hospital, they are in a vulnerable situation where they need support. This goes beyond the physical treatments that are expected. Care lies also in how a patient is treated from the moment of entry until discharge. My personal experience, however, is that such care is often lacking. And I know I am not the only one. I have heard people stating they would try to be as nice as possible to the nursing staff or support personnel, just to not agitate anybody in fear of having to wait even longer for the care they need.
It is astonishing to me that patients in their vulnerable situation feel the need to please hospital personnel because they will otherwise be approached rudely or are scared that they will be denied timely care because of retaliation. Moreover, patients tend to accept being treated rudely out of this fear. I don’t think that is beneficial to the care product that a medical centre should want to deliver. Some people don’t even want to risk getting into this rude behaviour and choose to go to another medical facility instead. Moreover, the way people are treated does not really inspire trust that the physical treatments will be up to standard.
Take the child delivery and maternity ward as an example; my experience on St. Maarten is that pregnant women and mothers with new-born babies are treated with utmost care and consideration in society. People are friendly and total strangers will help wherever they can. I truly love this welcoming culture towards babies and small children on St. Maarten! All the more striking then, is to hear multiple examples where, during childbirth, these mothers are not taken seriously. I have heard multiple times where a mother felt she was ready to give birth, was told this could not be the case and was left behind – in the end sometimes having to deliver outside of the delivery room and sometimes with the assistance of the father instead of the right medical personnel.
The concept of listening to the patient and taking seriously what they say is less important than following protocol? And at what risk?
During my own pregnancy, I’ve experienced a few rude behaviours from supporting personnel as well. One day, early in the morning, I needed to pick up a letter and without having said “good morning” received a door in my face with the statement, “We’re not open yet.” Basic decency seems to be lacking. On another occasion, when inquiring about fees, I received rolling eyes, yelling and my reasons were being questioned. It begs the question whether you are seen as a patient or a nuisance to persons that don’t seem interested in truly doing their job.
For me this was one of the main reasons to not have my baby here on St. Maarten, because I don’t want to be in an intimidating environment when I need care and attention instead. While this choice comes at a high cost, it shows to what length people can go to avoid being treated at the medical centre. I often hear friends talk about not going to the SMMC despite the fact that they need medical care because they feel unsafe or that they choose to go to the French side instead.
While I can mention many more examples of bad experiences that I have heard over the years, or experienced myself, it is not the purpose of this letter. The purpose is to stress that as much as the building of a new general hospital is welcome, the investment will be worthless if SMMC does not also invest in its people. The ill-treatment of patients by some is, in my opinion, indicative of a bad work environment that has to be addressed to improve the care experience of SMMC’s patients.
I refuse to believe that people decide to work in the medical field to treat patients rudely and I would call SMMC therefore to look at what can be done to improve the service delivery through investing in the people that are to deliver those services. To put it softly: bad interaction skills don’t leave room for a safe environment and people will question other abilities as well. It’s hard to trust medical personnel in a vulnerable position if they are not even able to do small things right. Because a situation where patients in vulnerable situations feel the need to “kill hospital staff with kindness” is the world upside down.
Name withheld
Dear Editor,
Recently a friend of mine was assaulted and beaten to the ground only to be kicked and beaten further.
A witness, evidently from the neighborhood, at the time volunteered information to the belatedly arrived police. This information concerned the identities and addresses of the assailants.
The police, I gather, did nothing other than extending their apologies, quite rightly, for their tardiness and registered the names of the victim and witness.
Ensuingly my friend filed a complaint, only to be informed that due to a lack of manpower and skills the complaint would not be pursued any further soon as it was one of the many cases, and fortunately a less serious one. Fortunately for my friend, a medical examination, at the SMMC [St. Maarten Medical Centre – Ed.], determined no injuries beyond significant bruising, aside from the psychological trauma of having been physically assaulted.
This victim was informed by one of the gathered bystanders that these youthful neighborhood perpetrators were known to them and had done this before.
I have difficulty comprehending the lack of willingness or capability, on the part of the police, to pursue a matter of direct physical assault; especially in light of being in possession of video footage of said assault, and at least one witness statement.
I can only find great admiration for the courage shown by that neighborhood resident in coming forward at possibly great risk to his/herself, or utter contempt for the functioning of an essential body of the country of St. Maarten. Perhaps if should hold out its hand further for another extended handout from the Dutch in order for those living here to be allowed to do so in safety.
Bill Nietzman
Dear Editor,
As frequent visitors to St. Maarten we are appalled by the animals in captivity at the Morgan Bay Resort.
Animals are in the heat in small cages, an employee was observed hitting an animal on the head, no water was provided one day and a turtle died, parrots have had their wings clipped.
This is 2023 and this should not be allowed.
It is truly disturbing and tourists are reporting online about this behaviour.
These animals need to be released and this zoo shut down.
Initially they had loud music blaring constantly near the animal cages.
This is inhumane.
Thank you for reading this and please shut this down.
I will never stay at this resort on St. Maarten.
Diane White
