Some people in this community seem to be so desperate for development — any kind of development as long as it promises jobs and big bucks — that they want approval of any terms without regard to the consequences.
This development-at-all-costs camp (exemplified by the Daily News editorials of Jan. 5 and 11) delights in bashing environmentalists who, they claim, are insensitive to the financial plight of the Virgin Islands and do not care whether people have jobs or not.
That is a ridiculous oversimplification of the issue of environment versus jobs. Growing the economy of theVirgin Islands while protecting its natural resources does not have to be at odds. Like most local environmentalists, I believe that placing a large portion of our hopes for improving the economy into luring big industry to the island is a dangerous approach, unless it is accompanied by a careful analysis of the consequences.
Questions such as what will be the impacts on infrastructure: roads, sewage, solid waste, schools, power and water generation, urban sprawl, and yes — will there be further degradation of coastal assets? Will it help to make us more self-sufficient and enhance the V.I. as a tourist attraction?
In short, will it improve the quality of life of the residents, or will it make us more stressed, more materialistic and more dependent on federal bailouts?
I am cautiously hopeful about the outcome of the economic summit proposed by Sens. Lorriane Berry, Roosevelt David and David Jones. The sooner the better. But let a good part of the agenda be the resolution of this question of the environment versus economic development, and when we speak of the "environment," let all aspects of it be considered. Until we have an economic development plan, a land use plan and a fully implemented territorial park system to protect those ecologically sensitive areas that need to be kept entirely development-free (Great Pond is just such a place), the environmental groups of the Virgin Islands must be the early warning system watchdogs.
Consider the following weaknesses in the existing permit approval process: Should a developer want to use government property, a lease must be obtained; or, if the desired site is privately owned, a title must be secured (or at least assured once building permits are approved). Rezoning may be sought as well.
Under the existing V.I. law, leases, titles and rezoning must be obtained prior to earth change and building permits. None of those preliminary approvals require detailed plans or descriptions of potential environmental impacts.
The permitting body — Planning and Natural Resources' permit division, if the site is in Tier II, or the appropriate Coastal Zone Management Committee, if in Tier I — is then in a very uncomfortable position.
When faced with a lease and/or a rezoning already approved, their ability to deny or substantially modify a proposal is compromised — their consent to the developer's demands is almost a "done deal." How to remedy this situation?
In the first place, there should be just one tier, so that all major permit applications go through the CZM and public hearing process.
Secondly, land leases and rezoning approvals should be given only with the assent of the planning and environmental divisions of DPNR and, where a major permit is required, CZM ought to be involved.
One would get a lease and/or rezoning plus the building permits all in one step. This would save time and money to both developers and deliberators.
Alternatively, the granting of a lease and/or rezoning approval could be conditional, predicated on the subsequent approval of the developer's Environmental Assessment Report, after a CZM hearing.
Until we have those reforms, however, groups concerned with the environmental impacts of proposed development projects must continue to question siting preferences.
They must obtain as much information as possible, as early as possible, and notify the public of their findings. The larger the project, the more important it is to analyze potential impacts on infrastructure, neighborhood integrity and ecosystems early in the process. To wait until the CZM hearing is irresponsible.
The Virgin Islands cmmunity should thank the St. Croix Environmental Association for its early groundwork on the Beal Aerospace proposal. As the Daily New" editorial of Dec. 10, 1998, ("Open communication") recommended, SEA communicated with Beal.
SEA then rightly determined that the Great Pond site is an inappropriate place for a rocket-building plant; mainly because the dredging required to accommodate the barges that must transport the assembled rockets to Sombrero Island will irrevocably damage the marine assets of Robin Bay, to say nothing of the complete destruction of Sombrero Island (a whole 'nother story……).
Instead of villifying SEA, as former Sen. Holland Redfield and the Daily News editorial staff are trying to do, let's hear more support.
Shake off the "I don't want to get invoved" inertia. If you are not already a member, join SEA and help its members prepare for the Beal rezoning hearings.