There has been a lot going on about the issue between the beach bar of Mrs.B and Duck international, (building condo’s on the beach), on the sites of gobeach and traveltalkonline, I’m following this closely as I am in the local papers, on the sites the facts are not always complete.
Has anybody seen the statement that was in the St.Maarten news papers this week?
It clears up some things. Read the following to get more of the picture
I thought the access to the beach would be stopped, but its not.
I’m a fan of Dawn beach, it is one of the best beaches on the Island, I still miss the Scavenges bar a lot.

Robert G. St.Maarten

Scanned from the daily Harold this week;
Duck International is in the process of developing Coral Beach Club at Dawn Beach and is spending millions of dollars building a luxurious villa project to be run as a Boutique Hotel to attract high-end tourists whose presence will benefit jobs for locals and the economy of St. Maarten. A project on this property has been in the works for years prior to any vending licenses on the beach. Duck International presently employs about 60 local construction workers and upon completion will provide local long term employment for approximately 10 employees. Added revenues from this tourist product created by Duck International will be employment tax, Turnover Tax, Room Tax, Goods and Services Revenues and Tourist spending which will create a greater benefit for the Island as a whole than the monetary gain for any one individual. Due to several individual’s illegal structures on the beach, these future and present revenues are at jeopardy. Is Ms. Verwood and others willing to sacrifice this positive, low density growth to the island for their own selfish needs?
Duck International by way of its own Deed that goes back to 1965 is the legal owner of the private land, comprising of the construction site and the beach directly in front. Also by way of planning and building permits, Duck International is not only legally building, but from the very beginning, allowed at it’s own expense, for a public path and secure emergency road access to the beach as well as 10 public parking spots on the road that Duck International is deeding to Government. Duck International emphasizes that the beach is and will remain open to the public! Beaches are for the enjoyment of all, locals and tourists alike, but that does not mean just anyone can take advantage of a natural resource to do anything they like on the beach.
To begin, this beach is about 600 ft. long with Oyster Bay Hotel, Laissez Faire, Henson, Rosseau, Mr. Busbys, Mrs. Bs, Allan Busby, Coral Beach and two private rental villas trying to get space for their clients which over burdens the beach and creates problems. For any commercial activity on Beaches a valid permit from Government is required which outlines the parameters of your business. Ms. Verwood (especially) and the other two in front of Duck International are violating their licenses with structures and Mrs. Bs with toilets, showers, hard liquor, food preparation and chairs with tables. Duck International has tried on numerous occasions with all participants on the beach and Government to settle this problem, even listening to Ms. Verwoods offer to move for large sums of payment. Only, after zero cooperation from anyone, did Duck International go to court while Ms. Verwood kept misinforming the public of the facts for her own agenda. Even after multiple cases of which the facts of Judgment have not been verified but totally misinterpreted by all, Duck International stayed out of the Public forum, but No LONGER! Recently, the Hygiene Department ordered Mrs. B’s to remove toilets, tables and chairs, showers due to their illegality, only to be ignored by Ms. Verwood. Why does she feel that Government is picking on her, when she is the one in the wrong and operating illegally? It is interesting to note Ms. Verwood appeals for public sympathy while Duck International abides by the laws, which no one should be above, foreigner or local. In the recent court injunction, once again verdict totally misinformed, by Ms. Verwood to the public, the judge asked all parties to try to negotiate after stating in court that the current situation (illegal structures of Ms. Verwood) cannot be tolerated. The judge suggested that Verwood (and Rousseau/Henson) move their structures so that the view from the villas of Duck International is no longer obstructed. After a failure in negotiations where all three vendors refused to remove structures, the Judge ruled. Ms. Verwood wanted money to which Duck International refused as blackmail and unjust. Now finally it is becoming clear what this case is about. It is simply about the money and Ms. Verwood is looking for a large money settlement, and all her public emotional appeal is a smoke screen and nothing more, this has become evident to all.
In the second injunction case, the judge has referred the discussion about the property right with regard to the beach to the main proceedings. Also during the second injunction case, Duck has demonstrated that Verwood violated the conditions of her vending license but the court has, however, ruled that the Government should act upon those violations.
The spread of misinformation by Ms. Verwood with regards to these court proceedings and their outcomes need to be both addressed and corrected.
The judge did rule that the property issue should be referred to main proceedings since it is to complicated to be ruled upon in short proceedings. Contrary to claims of Verwoord, the judge did not rule that the beaches are public property.
In the second injunction which pertains to Vending licenses and violations the judge said this matter should be enforced by the government as they were the issuers of these vending licenses. Furthermore the rumor mill has suggested that Duck Int. was ordered to remove the wall at Coral Beach Club.
This is a completely false statement with absolutely no merit. At best this is just wishful thinking on the part of certain individuals.
Duck will not be distracted and will continue the construction of the Coral Beach Club and the access path to Dawn Beach, so that everybody can easily access and enjoy this truly wonderful beach.
Duck International

If you are an islander than you should know that is it Ms. B's...not Mrs. B.

Annie

Annie I think you have missed the big picture here. Try and focus on the story

rg...I am NOT your Annie dear. Now if I was corrected on the proper name, spelling or even pronuciation of something I would thank the person and not give a sarcastic reply. From what I can see in your post this was something that was written by Ducks International. Also from people that were on the island last week it has been stated that the case was thrown out of court. Every beach on SXM is public property. By the way...just who is or what is Ducks International. Can't find them on the web.

Annie

Wayne...I was not missing the big picture and from what I can tell by the story it was written by Duck International. And just who are they?

Annie

We are confused.Under Dutch or Antillean law, are the beaches public or private property? I know there is a policy statement of the local government that states the beaches are public property but a policy statement is not necessarily the force of the law.It would be nice if someone with more legal expertise would clear up this point as it may apply elsewhere such as Cupecoy

Pat... I am not a Lawyer but I do have some understanding of what is going on here. The law clearly states beaches can are public property unless strong evidence can prove otherwise. Here you have Duck International claiming that in their meet briefs and according to the outline of their property lines which apparently go back to 1965, they own the beach. It is a very difficult thing to prove. The other interesting thing is they also claim that ms.b is running her establishment unlike stated in her vending liscence. With the health department comming down on her this evidence seems strong. I would not be surprised if Duck looses the property rights issues but wins the violation of vending liscence issue.

Annie,

My point was to stress that finally we are hearing from the other side and that is a good thing. As much as I feel for MS. B AND HER family she really has gone on a massive campaign with this on the radio, television and newspaper. In my opinion she seems to be playing a victum role a little too much. In order for me to make an informed decision I need to hear both sides of the story. I must say after Duck's press release I perhaps misjudged the good guys from the bad guys. In answer to who they are, I believe and no one can be sure but they are a group of developers from the states, who also somehow have some connection to the new Westin hotel being built on Dawn beach.

Wayne

"The beach is public property owned by the Island Government.
If the beach is sand the government owns 40 feet from the watermark, if there is no sand, the government owns 20 feet from the watermark. All concessions on the public beaches must have concession permits. Concession permits give a beach concession the right to sell their product on the public beach. No one else can sell anything in the concession right area. If Private property blocks access to public beaches they MUST create an access to the public beach."

Let everyone let this rest!!! Ms.Bs is not doing to well. We just got back from being there for 3 months, and went to Dawn at least 5 times.. She sits there in her tent, and there was hardley anyone eating or drinking... We think she is now waiting for the right offer to come along and she will go... She has units right behind her, and this is not a great site for people that buy there... Not her fault of cource, but I know that she is not putting the care into her place like she used to, and we even stopped having lunch at her place, as the food was not up to par.... We went to Mr. busbys and loved it... Shes waiting for an offer, and she will be gone....

I agree with "crickets", for whatever reason Ms. B Seems to have let her astablishment fall apart. Maybe deep down she has resigned to the fact that she is fighting a giant and maybe it has taken a toll on her mentally. I am a firm believer that you catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar. She should sit down with duck and work out a reasonable settlement. After all busines is business and I am sure duck must realise the benefit of an out of court settlement. My only fear is that perhaps she wants as they claim in their release a ridiculous amount of money. I fear greed might be the biggest obstacle to overcome. I Heard she wanted millions of dollars to leave. I think she obviosly needs to be compensayed if she is to move her business but come on its not like she is doing all that well to ask for such a number.

What I don't understand is that if the beach is public, and that is the primary basis of Ms. B's position, why does she get to plant her chairs and umbrellas PERMANANTLY on the beach? It seems that she has blocked the "public" access to the beach, not Duck International. Ms B even had the nerve to block the access across the land (which belonged to the Bondine Family)well before Dusk Internatinoal was on the scene.

In fact, when one of the Bondine's was on the island (about 4 years ago) and asked her to remove the chain and her vehicles, she ignored them...yes she has been there for five years but much of the time she expropriated private property....but she is LOCAL so it is ok.

But mostly I am really annoyed that if I want to enjoy what used to be a beautiful beach I have to either pay her for the privelege of using on of her chairs or I have to squish myself in. What happen to the great beach chair guys who would give you a chair where and when you wanted, instead of packing you in side by each like a bunch of sardines. When you used to be able to walk the beach early in the morning without having to dodge empty beach chairs. If I want the Coney Island experience I can go to Orient Beach. It is very sad that the beauty of the beach had been so compromised.

Kenny...it's great to have quality input to a thread that "was" 18 months old.

and input that is entirely inaccurate

Dear B-1, 100% sarcasm was intended...maybe it didn't come across that way !!!