Belize, Environmental Atrocity Planned for Lighthouse Atoll

[S/V Illusion]

I think the Indians said the same thing not that long ago about Manhattan. Guess it's okay when we do it.

[GrowleyMonster]

I have been to lighthouse reef, and it is a terrible place for such a development. Better to put it on Turneffe, which is closer to the mainland and already semi spoiled.

I remember about 25 years ago I was in a big argument with my wife's cousins in Placencia about the mangroves and how their loss was both hurting the seafood industry and accelerating erosion. They were very defensive about a landowners right to clear them out, and were sick and tired of people telling them it was irresponsible and evil. I can understand how a cash hungry owner or society can be compelled to be environmentally short sighted. When your kids don't have shoes and you don't have much food in the house, you just want your needs met now. The future is abstract, and the present is real. It's tough to stop development under these circumstances. And the wealthy and powerful are gonna have their way, yeah, and greed trumps environmental concerns any day.

[belizesailor]

Turneffe may be "semi-spoiled" in the sense that it already has several eco-resorts on it, but these are reasonable low impact developments and the ecosystems of Turneffe are in good shape...lots of beautiful healthy reef, huge numbers/varieties of fish, miles of mangrove estuaries (Turneffe is unique in that it has much more land mass/mangroves than the other atolls).

While the Puerto Azul abomination could be better tolerated by Turneffe, it still has no place anywhere near the reefs of Belize.

Most Belizeans, especially those in coastal areas and former/current fishermen, have an appreciation of the importance of protecting their environment, but most people's principals (not just Belizeans) can be compromised with cash.

Also Belizeans do resent foreign visitors telling them what to do and profiting from their country. You may have been running up against that too in your conversation. I suspect if you were critisizing the development actions of a foreign owned resort then he would have been agreeing with you.

[rmw2007]

well ,.. not everyone want to live in a hut with no amenities. Your "atrocity" may be something entirely different to others. Don't deprive a higher standard of living to those less fortunate.
R

[model 10]

Originally Posted by rmw2007

well ,.. not everyone want to live in a hut with no amenities. Your "atrocity" may be something entirely different to others. Don't deprive a higher standard of living to those less fortunate.
R

Where are you from? The people who live on the cays in Belize do not live in huts. It's the modern world with houses, cars, taxi's, golf carts, boats, airplanes, beer and everything.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by Guy

Where are you from? The people who live on the cays in Belize do not live in huts. It's the modern world with houses, cars, taxi's, golf carts, boats, airplanes, beer and everything.

And rum.

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by rmw2007

well ,.. not everyone want to live in a hut with no amenities. Your "atrocity" may be something entirely different to others. Don't deprive a higher standard of living to those less fortunate.
R

Nobody lives there now.....with good reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[rmw2007]

My point is all you antidevelopment guys have benefited from progess and now you want to stop others from participating in a more prosperous life shame on you. A democratically elected government can approve developments and if the citizenry disagrees the can out them at election time.belze , has an enviable enviormental reputation

[model 10]

Originally Posted by rmw2007

My point is all you antidevelopment guys have benefited from progess and now you want to stop others from participating in a more prosperous life shame on you. A democratically elected government can approve developments and if the citizenry disagrees the can out them at election time.belze , has an enviable enviormental reputation

I think if you went there and saw what is being talked about, you might wonder. This has little to with people living in huts and everyone in Belize becoming more prosperous and evolved. This has 'get rich developer' all over it. It's a unique spot in the world and some get rich scheme should not ruin it.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by rmw2007

My point is all you antidevelopment guys have benefited from progess and now you want to stop others from participating in a more prosperous life shame on you. A democratically elected government can approve developments and if the citizenry disagrees the can out them at election time.belze , has an enviable enviormental reputation

Well planned development is a social necessity for tourism destinations like Belize and I am not oppossed to that. But no matter how you look at it Puerto Azul is an environmental abomination which destroys the very natural resources that drive the Belizean tourism industry in the first place.

Most Belizeans are oppossed to this project for this reason and historically have oppossed similar plans. (Its not just a bunch of plump, liberal, affluent white guys whining). ;-)

There are a number of more environementally concious resorts out on the atolls and they provide sustainable tourism revenue without dramatic negative environmental impact. Most of them have been in operation for decades.

Puerto Azul in contrast starts off by uterlly anihilating one of the few mangrove estuaries on Lighthouse (very little land area on Lighthouse) and then building an airstrip on top of the reef. Obscene disregard for a unique ecosystem.

And in the end the people of Belize wont get jack from this project. They will get some low paying jobs, but the real money will go into the pockets of Ministers and the developers. This is how it works in Belize.

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by rmw2007

My point is all you antidevelopment guys have benefited from progess and now you want to stop others from participating in a more prosperous life shame on you. A democratically elected government can approve developments and if the citizenry disagrees the can out them at election time.belze , has an enviable enviormental reputation

You may ask yourself whom among the citizenry of Belize benefits from this. If a developer wanted to build suburbia near Belmopan I doubt there would be any outcry. But this proposal destroys that witch it purported to embrace and protect.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[brantleychuck]

Sorry to say but most of the anti development comments sound so self serving . Sit in your home all comfortable, AC, lots of food, restraraunts , drive a nice car, on nice roads, nice marina for the boat,health care ,have a JOB. ,no worries.
You folks need to understand you have this great life because of development , because you consume resources .
So arrogant to tell others what to do with there country, there land. This anti everything attitude baffles me.

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by brantleychuck

Sorry to say but most of the anti development comments sound so self serving . Sit in your home all comfortable, AC, lots of food, restraraunts , drive a nice car, on nice roads, nice marina for the boat,health care ,have a JOB. ,no worries.

You folks need to understand you have this great life because of development , because you consume resources .

So arrogant to tell others what to do with there country, there land. This anti everything attitude baffles me.

This isn't anti everything, this is anti resort property on an offshore atoll that is part of a unesco world heritage site. Nothing to do with comfort and security for the masses, rather opulence for the few at the expense of all.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Delancey]

I give up. Having made every effort in my life to make a difference, even if only in a small way, I realize in the end it just doesn't matter. We are a flawed species doomed to destroy ourselves.

I am going to get mine while there is stuff left to get because if I don't someone else will. To this end I have decided to put Teak on my decks and to throw all of my garbage in the sea. Nice to know I am not the only forum member who thinks this way.

[jwing]

What baffles me is how many of these resorts do the creepy/smarmy Hollywood and uber-rich set need? After they've been to this one a few times, then they'll need another new one for their endless desire to brag about at their ridiculous parties.

So, how can a working stiff in the USA affect this planned atrocity?

My experience with developers like this has taught me two things:

1) They have time and lots of money on their side. They can hire full-time lobbyists/bribers while conservationists have other jobs to do. The conservationists must win every battle multiple times; the developer needs to win just once.

2) Developers' initial proposals often are of a scale that is insane. Then they 'begrudgingly ' make a series small concessions until the opponents get worn down and give in. The end result is what the developer secretly wanted originally.

The Lighthouse Reef will probably happen and it will be bad. But it won't be as bad as it looks now. There's already an airstrip there. They'll improve that and claim that it is a 'sustainable development' choice.