EE family upset over NDP land grab
The Motion, which was moved by Premier and Minister of Finance Dr The Hon D. Orlando Smith during the Fourth Sitting of the Fourth Session of the Second House of Assembly on March 19, 2015, received 7 votes for its passage.
Section 3 (1) of the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Cap. 222) provides that, if the Cabinet considers that any land should be acquired for a public purpose, it may – with the approval of the House of Assembly – cause a declaration for the acquisition to be made by the Cabinet Secretary. This was agreed on by Cabinet in February 2015.
The parcel of land, said to be approximately half of an acre, originally belonged to a Mr Steadman Penn but is now family owned.
“What happen is that my family is very upset about it, that I know, and they don’t believe that things happened the way they wanted it to happen, and they don’t like the way it happened and they are very upset about it,” said Mr Michael ‘Marlo’ Chinnery who is the grandson of Mr Penn. Mr Chinnery was speaking exclusively to Virgin Islands News Online in the presence of other family members and other sympathetic persons in the 7th and 8th Districts.
Not willing to sell
According to Chinnery, the family is not willing to sell the land and had proposed an alternative land that is in short distance of the land in question.
He noted that his uncle had plans to develop the land identified for the sewerage pumping station and is now seeking legal advice over the planned acquisition.
Meanwhile, Third District Representative and Virgin Islands Party Chairman Hon Julian Fraser RA had abstained from the vote and had suggested that if it was absolutely necessary for the Government to take the land that they should give the family a portion of land at Wickham's Cay in exchange. “Make the family happy. I haven't seen them; I don't even know what their thoughts are surrounding it," Hon. Fraser said.
Mr Chinnery said Hon Fraser’s suggestion is something that his uncle might want to listen to. “He might be interested but I don’t know yet, until we talk to him.”
One of the persons who gathered with the family to show solidarity was Mr McLloyd O. Walters who said he knows the Penn family well and is aware that the family had offered an alternate piece of property right below the Mangrove Bakery.
“They were prepared to sell that piece of property to the government. So the question comes up now as to why is it that the government didn’t take up the family on that particular offer? Why are they choosing to acquire this particular piece of property which, as I said, the family didn’t really want to sell?”
The alternative land is said to be within 400 feet of the land Government wants.
Mr Walters also stated that the previous Government had proposed to build the sewerage pump station where is now the proposed site for the sports stadium to be built at Greenland.
“Everyone should be in sympathy with this because this could happen to anyone,” Mr Walters said.
8th District rep abstains
When the Motion was voted on in the House of Assembly, Eighth District Representative Hon Marlon A. Penn had joined Opposition Members Hon Fraser, Hon Andrew A. Fahie (R1) and Hon J. Alvin Christopher (R2) in abstaining.
Minister for Natural Resources and Labour Hon Kedrick D. Pickering (R7), who was listed to move the motion on the Order Paper, was absent from the sitting as he was reportedly out of the territory. The parcel of land falls within the 7th District.
Disappointed in Hon Pickering
“Pickering brought it to the House but where was he? Did he vote? And that is a concern of us too. Why didn’t he vote? I don’t like the situation that he didn’t vote and Penn didn’t vote and both of them are tied to this area right here because that land is right between the Eighth and Seventh Districts. And none of them didn’t vote because it would create a problem for them during elections time. And the people know this because they have been coming to us and telling us these things. They are very unhappy about this situation. They are unhappy because they know it could happen to them too.
“I am very displeased with Pickering. I grow up with that man. We used to go Sunday school and stuff. I am very unhappy with that man a long time and am not hiding it, you could put it in the news because I don’t care. I am serious, I am very, very unhappy with him,” Mr Chinnery stated.
‘Information is key’- Opposition
Hon Penn had not stated his reason for abstaining while the Opposition Members said Government needed to provide more information on the acquisition.
"This particular land that we are talking about isn't land that was acquired through purchase. It's an inheritance. So Madame Speaker, when you are going to ask me to agree with you to acquire compulsory a piece of property that belongs to someone through inheritance, you will have to convince me Madam Speaker, that all avenues of negotiations were attempted and exhausted...Information is key and it is not here," Hon Fraser said.
"Tell us exactly what is happening. What has gone wrong so that we can help you and join with you in making these decisions, because acquiring other persons' property without due information and the knowledge as to why you are doing it; not just to say you are building a sewerage treatment plant. We know that's a necessity and we also know Madame Speaker there is other land in the area that can be used. We don't know these things for a fact. The member who moved the Motion hasn't given us that information," Hon Christopher stated.
‘Negotiations will continue’- Premier
Premier Smith had given his word in the House that negotiations with the family of the property would continue and that they would be properly compensated. He had said it was unfortunate some members of the House thought government did not practice due diligence.
“It is unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side would believe that extensive negotiations/discussions have not been had before this (compulsory acquisition) was even considered. That has been going on a long time. It’s also unfortunate that the member believes the opportunity does not still exist for continued discussion.
“I know in the past, when some lands have been acquired, people have not been compensated; the fences that have been removed have not been replaced. But this is not going to happen here, and I give my word that this is not going [to] happen. Whatever needs to be done will be done; discussion will continue until there is a satisfactory outcome,” Premier Smith said.
Gov’t practicing strong arm policies
Obviously not happy with the way negotiations have been going with Government so far, Mr Chinnery said Government was bullying their way.
“Just the way they do things here. That’s the way the ministers them do things. They do things like how they want to do it, and not only that but with other things in the country, and that is what people are upset about.
Chinnery made it clear that the family is not against development.
“Well, yes, we are for development but come and talk to the family about the situation and let us see how we are going to benefit from this development. How it could make the community better and see what alternatives are there.”
Mr McLloyd was also in agreement with Mr Chinnery but said certain due process needed to be followed.
“Everyone is in favour of development but you just can’t say it is for the good of development and still take away somebody’s land in a way where certain due process hasn’t been followed and that is the issue here. The family feels the matter wasn’t given proper due process,” Mr Walters explained.
“And that is what I see happening with this government,” Mr Chinnery added.
_01.png)
Follow Us On
37 Responses to “EE family upset over NDP land grab”
So what's the big issue? That land cannot be developed to hold no
Big building. Planning will not allow it for it's too small. Why they making noise as if it was taken from them without payment.
The Govt. Can take the land. What they cant do is fail to properly compensate the owner.
The question is why would the Government need half and acre of prime commercial property to errect a pump station? The proposed sight is not a suitable location as it is surrounded by commercial businesses and close to homes that can be affected by the odors that may escape from the station. Not to mention that there are other land owners who have yet to develop their properties and to have a pump station there could affect not only the value of other properties but could limit the options that they have to develop their properties when they are ready to do so.
Why create another situation in East End as in Road Town where a pump station is smack dab in the middle of a highly travesed area our route?
My uncle had plans to develop his property and for the Government to seize his property without even giving him the courtesy of a sit down meeting to discuss the situation is incensitive and one can equate it to being bullied. Because you have the power to do something that does not mean you can trample on an individuals rights.
THE MATTER WAS HANDLED IN A DISTATSTEFUL AND DISRESPECTFUL MANNER!!!!!!!
Is it really that you want more than the land is worth, or you want far more valuable land in Road Town in exchange? Tell us.