EDITORIAL
Measured Development plan needed in Cayman
Friday, July 30, 2004
It may be too soon to call it a trend, but in the context of the upcoming
general election, there have been a number of reasoned voices raised over the
disposition in Government over the past three years to put Cayman on the road
of what is generally labelled uncontrolled development.
The contention has invariably been one of “if it’s economic development. we
want it”, and while for both political and economic reasons there is
unquestionably a need for development, it is the introduction of the adjective
“uncontrolled” in the equation that has the potential to put the cat squarely
among the pigeons.
Development, if it is going to be a condition that makes for a better life,
must be measured or structured in a way so as to consider the other aspects of
the better life, such as social conditions, environmental conservation, and
cultural preservation.
The question of “for whom are we developing” is certainly in play here, and
as this particular concern has been raised repeatedly during this government’s
tenure and during previous ones, there may be a tendency to scoff and there
may be a tendency to dismiss the idea as nothing more than an old saw. Old saw
it may be, but it bears significant teeth.
Development must be for the ultimate the improvement of the quality of life
for the residents of the host country, as opposed to the ultimate improvement
in the financial health of the investor and the local businesspeople who cater
to them.
Certainly the latter criterion must be in play, but if the former criterion
is not, why are we committing to the process?
Where is the benefit for Caymanians after the hotel towers and business
entities envelop the physical landscape, but the social landscape becomes one
of congestion, pollution, and civic unrest? Is spending more and more money to
be the predominant, indeed only, focus?
Where is the benefit for our tourism product when our overdeveloped
infrastructure degrades the very vacation potential of the place? Why do we
apparently believe that the people who come to a vacation area because of its
natural charm and serenity will continue to come even though our
over-development puts those attributes in peril?
We have already had this spectre being raised in unsolicited comments in
the media. Is anybody listening?
More to the point, even if the visitors don’t mind what Cayman is becoming,
is the question of what the people who live here want their homeland to
become?
Is the country truly better off with beautiful parks in an overdeveloped
landscape? What about the potential for development to overwhelm the
traditional peace and tranquility, and marine world, which we have been told
repeatedly is the main reason people come here even though we’re expensive? Is
there a point when development becomes too much, and if so, what is that
point?
These are tough questions. Can anybody in our government answer them? Does
anyone really have a long-term plan for the country’s development?
We suggest that, as candidates come to court support, voters should be
demanding that our politicians listen – and respond to the tough questions.
At election time, they have our attention. It’s time to hold them to a
common sense approach to development, not the current
“bring-it-all-we-want-it-all” approach.
The pell-mell course adopted in recent years is the kind of infrastructural
surge that ends up killing the golden goose in tourism destinations. It has
been the case elsewhere, as it was in Freeport in the Bahamas in particular.
The voters in this election have the opportunity to ensure Cayman does not
go headlong down that road by choosing candidates who at least offer answers
to the country’s development questions, and provide some sort of plan for
measured development in the future. For the good of the country, it is an
opportunity they must embrace.
Back...
Click
here for reader comments...
| 
