Aruba Beach
Aruba Nights Island Guide
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Senior Member lizzardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    961

    Interesting Ritz article

    Not sure where this should go. Having an off day - but this is interesting!
    From another board - it is translated so reading is a little tough.
    Ritz Carlton komt, maar stranden moeten openbaar
    Radio Nederland Wereldomroep - 11 hours ago


    Dutch to English translation

    The Aruban Prime Minister Mike Eman against the arrival of a Ritz Carlton hotel, but he can not stop the construction. The previous government has sealed contracts. That would open up at least 200 million guilders, and that costs money is not there.

    Now go Eman aggressive action against the occupation of beaches by all hotels. They need to break down their huts. The prime minister was reacting to the demonstration last Sunday against the arrival of the hotel. This action has been sympathetic.

    Waterproof
    Eman: "I fully support the demonstration. We have always said that the country had to Aruba not bind to the construction of a hotel on the spot. "But there were watertight contracts and the lease had been issued.

    A claim of 200 to 300 million guilders Aruba can not bear. "With a heavy heart we say we are bound to this project," the Aruban Prime Minister. "I would hope I could say I could think of a magic trick, so I could say the hotel is not there." The trick is not reported as a law firm that has been consulted.

    False stories
    Stories on Aruba circulating that a ruling of the Supreme Court would have a similar case in which no compensation had to be paid, Eman points of the hand. Such a ruling is the law firm consulted unknown, also has history on Aruba learned that in similar cases or claims to be paid in the hundreds of millions were.

    The current Aruban government would have other plans to stop. The previous government had some 130 options granted lease for building including condominiums near the beach. Eman sees more legal room to a line through those plans to withdraw.

    Beaches
    Eman, the protesters right when they say that the beach at the hotels no longer open to the public: "The hotels are much too far in filling the public beaches. They exercise their power over a stretch of beach as if it belongs to them. The huts we remove. If local people sit there, send them off the security. This must stop. "
    Eman has also put a line through another plan by the previous government. Who had the strip between the hotels and the city for condominiums and shopping malls. That will not happen. It is now a large public area with parks, a natural pool and an amphitheater. Eman: "The area is completely accessible and is intended for public recreation."

  2. #2
    Aruba since 1979
    Moderator
    Andrea J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    29,900
    thank you liz

    fyi liz and husband are residents of aruba and have quite a heads up on "what's happenin!"

    i appreciate your posts.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,931
    Interesting what is said about the huts. I was told that the government wants many of the huts along the beach gone. If you look at each one of the hotels along the beach there is a large baby blue figure (looks like a big chess piece) and they want everything in front of that structure gone. That means most of the huts at all of the hotels along Palm Beach would gone. Some of the restaurants also sit past this point. Simply Fish (Marriott) and Moomba to name two sit past this structure.

    While I am not in favour of the Ritz project, and I certainly feel that the development has reached saturation, I am nervous that this may have a backlash in some respects. In "reclaiming" the beaches, the hotels may loose their huts for their guests.

    If you look places like Playa Linda (for example) all of their huts sit past the blue structure.
    happiness is going to Aruba with your adult kids because they still want to come with their parents

  4. #4
    Aruba since 1979
    Moderator
    Andrea J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    29,900
    last i heard was that all existing palaypas are there to stay.

    all beaches in aruba are PUBLIC

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,931
    YOu can't move them as once they are taken out of the ground you can't relocate one but the Government really wants everything in front of blue statue gone!
    happiness is going to Aruba with your adult kids because they still want to come with their parents

  6. #6
    Senior Member luvsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Scott's Brats...and our patio
    Posts
    536
    Randi, you are right about what they want to do. If they have their way everyone past the blue posts has to move everyone back on their property. And that is a lot of hotels. and it could happen. right now we are waiting to see. its hard to imagine that they would put that expense on all of them.
    right now thats one of our hold ups...we do have a plan B!!!

  7. #7
    Senior Member lizzardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    961
    The thing about the huts (or to make things clearer the 'palapas') is that
    the hotels were putting them up w/o getting approval from the gov't dept
    who was supposed to approve them. But it was a 'grey' area and that
    dept was not enforcing the rules.

    There had been a lawsuit w/ the Marriott where they wanted all the vendors off their beach and there was something in there about them owning the palapas.

    The verdict was that you can not drive vendors off a public beach and since
    the palapas were built on public property you could not 'own' them. My
    example for this is if I build a little beach house on a public beach. Just because it was my stuff would I be able to own it? Answer: no SO here was the situation, the public could use the palapas but could not use the hotel property (the chairs).

    At that point, somple places chained their chairs to the palapas and started to use other 'tactics' to make it harder for anyone to use. There was the issue if the public could even touch the chairs to move them because they were 'private property'. And the situation got more and more out of control.

    Recently the following happened:


    • Moomba's roof collapsing and the gov't was going to examine all palapas for safety reasons
    • The gov't announced that they were going to remove all the palapas.
    • There was a 'email' campaign from one of the timeshare associations to flood the gov't with their objection to this issue
    • The gov't has backed down and is now 're-examining' the issue.

    So now it sounds like the gov't is 'staking out' the property line on the beaches
    and removing the ones on public beaches. Fair? Well the hotels pushed this issue as far as they could. From charging money for reservations, chaining chairs and running locals off 'their' beach.

    So it's been a push-pull issue between the hotels, gov't and the locals for a while.

    Some people are for the locals and some are for the hotels. But I am glad
    that Aruba does have a public beach policy after growing up on the Jersey
    shore and seeing how hard it was to get to the beaches from some places.
    I remember vacationing in Jamaica where they had their own beaches and seeing guards with bully clubs and guns at the boundries. That is not
    my idea of a great vacation.

    Also - please do not take this post and put it elsewhere. I post on the boards I like and do not want to start a 'conversation' if you are pro this or anti this. This is my take from living here and if some one does not agree w/ what I stated or if something is incorrect, I am not in the mood to argue my points.

    (from andrea......Liz is very serious about the fact that she does not want this on other forums. please do not copy and paste to other destinations)
    Last edited by Andrea J.; 04-22-2010 at 09:28 AM. Reason: andrea
    Aruba Kitten Rescue www.arubakitten.org

  8. #8
    Aruba since 1979
    Moderator
    Andrea J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    29,900
    i cannot imagine the government taking the manpower and expense and time to do this.
    i would hope that all that are there are grandfathered in and that any new huts
    will have to meet the new requirements.

    will be interesting to see how it plays out or if the whole matter dies down and does not show its face again for a long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by luvsun View Post
    Randi, you are right about what they want to do. If they have their way everyone past the blue posts has to move everyone back on their property. And that is a lot of hotels. and it could happen. right now we are waiting to see. its hard to imagine that they would put that expense on all of them.
    right now thats one of our hold ups...we do have a plan B!!!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,931
    Lizzardo, you are correct with your facts. One of the vendors at the Marriott did tell me that the Marriott was trying to get all of them to leave. They wanted the company that they had contracts with to be the only "official" vendor on their properties. So sad as this is their livelihood. As with everything, compromise is key!

    How I found out about the huts was I was discussing with the manager that the way (previous manager) had the Palapas placed was awful. People wanted more huts so they were just "dropped" where ever. I was recomending that this whole situation should be literally straightened out. That was when I was told that he couldn't touch one Palapas. Unfortunately, what he wanted to do was to create more beach area at the front but he can't.
    happiness is going to Aruba with your adult kids because they still want to come with their parents

  10. #10
    Senior Member lizzardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    961
    Not 100% sure but I think the cost of removing them would be the
    hotels because they put them up illegally.

    Not sure about the issue about removing them - I would think
    they could but then the question of ownership comes up because
    since it is now 'public' property because it's built on the the
    'public' beach - can they touch them?

    Like I said - this has been a long issue.

    I believe the gov't has to be even handed and I think there will be
    no grandfathered issue because some hotels would have a bigger
    advantage.

    LuvSun - what is plan B?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO