The Tribune

By Malcolm Strachan

PEACE has apparently broken out between Atlantis and Royal Caribbean – and to hear the president of Atlantis tell it, there was never any opposition in the first place.

This will come as news to the rest of us, who are being asked to pretend we did not see what we saw or hear what we heard.

To hear Audrey Oswell tell it now, everything was always (mostly) fine. She said last week: “Atlantis was never against the Royal Caribbean project.”

She went on: “We did not change our position against the Royal Caribbean project. All we did was express their environmental concerns to both Royal Caribbean and to the government. Once we expressed those environmental concerns, both Royal Caribbean and the government gave us the word that they would work to address those concerns and we’re pleased to say that they have in their plans and presentation.”

She added: “We raised additional questions. We received the answers to those questions and we are both thankful and recognise and acknowledge that they have made significant changes and alterations to their original plans for the beach day project responding to the environmental concerns that were addressed by us so we’re pleased that they addressed them. We’re happy to see the project going forward and we have not changed our position.”

What those changes are apparently relate to ocean works, according to Ms Oswell.

But let’s hop back to the original letter she wrote to raise concerns, in which she said: “Too much is at stake to stay silent.”

She talked of how “if this residential land is overdeveloped, or the beaches and coastline altered in any way, the Paradise Island coastline, Cable Beach, Saunders Beach and our economic livelihood stand to suffer”.

She added: “There are potentially devastating impacts to the Paradise Island coastline and the pristine beaches with any expansion of beach areas, overwater cabanas, seawalls, jetties or other structures.”

Notice that is any expansion – not just some, so any jetty for boats to dock, presumably.

She continued: “The increased volume of activity in Nassau harbour to support the beach club operations will potentially restrict further expansion of marinas, the re-establishment of seaplane service for Paradise Island, development opportunities on Paradise Island and in the blighted waterfront areas of Downtown Nassau, as well as other commercial vessel activity.”

What Atlantis has received is answers to the environmental concerns – what remains of these economic fears Ms Oswell voiced so eloquently?

She added that the project “would ensure that thousands of Royal Caribbean visitors to Paradise Island will bypass our Downtown, negatively impacting merchants, restaurants and other venues that rely on tourism”.

Again, environmental answers do not negate worries about competition for Downtown – although one does wonder at the sudden interest from Atlantis about how the Straw Market is doing or T-shirt sellers on Bay Street.

She added: “Finally, moving forward with the project would privatise Paradise Island’s last public beach, currently frequented and enjoyed by our community.”

The beach will still be gone. The gates will still be up.

Such was Atlantis’ concern about the development that it issued a letter to staff calling on them to “make their voices” heard, particularly on environmental issues.

That prompted a whole investigation by the Department of Labour to see if Atlantis was unduly pressuring staff after apparent complaints – even though the unions had heard nothing from their members and whose response to the call from Atlantis was effectively “you first”.

Darrin Woods, the president of the Bahamas Hotel Catering and Allied Workers Union, said at the time: “If they’re so passionate about it, why they don’t do something? Tell them to put on placards and walk down the street like how they are telling us to go and do it. They wouldn’t do it.”

If the unions had done so, perhaps they might have looked pretty silly now that Atlantis is suggesting everything was fine and rosy all along.

So what has prompted this change? Is it that the environmental answers were so good that they made even the economic concerns disappear?

Or is it that Atlantis saw it was not going to win the fight and now it’s up for sale again doesn’t want a feud with the neighbours to disrupt the process, perhaps?

The Royal Caribbean project does look inevitable, no matter the worries that people have had about it.

Those worries are not just environmental – although that can often seem like the easiest line of opposition to such projects, I often think. It’s harder to make a case about the impact to other businesses, but if you can point and say look what it will do to the coastline or look, the waste treatment isn’t good enough, that seems to have a greater chance of stopping such things. Never mind that anyone driving or walking between the two bridges on the New Providence side is regularly treated to a stench that seems never to have anyone trying to solve. If Atlantis is concerned about such things, it might want to weigh in on the stink just across the water.

But as much as any environment questions may have been answered, there still remain uncertainties over what the impact on Downtown will be of passengers simply bypassing the whole area to go to a beach by water taxi. Some of that is simply competition – Downtown has to do more, offer more, be more. If Downtown is irresistible, it can handle the competition. If it survives just by being the only option and not putting in the effort, then it’s no wonder people will go elsewhere.

Then there are questions of such things as the change to the beach and the shoreline, and the view once all the attractions go up. That end of the island just won’t look the same.

So we can pretend all we like that Atlantis never had any real concerns – but that doesn’t make those actual real concerns go away, no matter how fervent their new-found neighbourly love.