First of all:

IF

• Mr. Golden owned the property outright, without any disputes or encumbrances (which he doesn’t, there is a court case pending)
• Mr. Golden had a valid CZM permit (which he doesn’t, despite his many claims to the contrary. The courts have remanded the issue back to the CZM staff and committee for findings of fact. Mr. Golden has appealed this portion of the court decision. Until either CZM reviews the permit application for findings of fact and approves it, or the appeals court upholds Mr. Golden’s appeal, the permit is not valid and actionable, and Mr. Golden has no right or authority to construct or demolish anything on the property)
• Mr. Golden obtained a demolition permit from DPNR (which he didn’t)
• Mr. Golden’s insurance company denied his renewal based on “factual” evidence of dangerous structures on the property (which is suspect. How would the insurance company know there were “damaged” and “unsafe” structures on the property unless he told them? We know for a fact Mr. Golden lied to the local press and public about the condition of the structures, about setting aside items of value for the owners to reclaim, and about using the bulldozer to “clean up the scattered building bits into neat little piles” - there is substantial photographic evidence as well as the testimony of a dozen or more credible witnesses. On what basis should we trust his claims to, or about, the insurance company?)

THEN, and only then, would he have the right and authority to raze the structures.

Secondly, private property rights do not supersede all other laws, rules and rights. As a property owner, one does not have “the right … to do what he wants with it”. For example: You live somewhere near the Great Pond (I don’t know if you rent or own, but its immaterial). Let’s say your next-door neighbor owns his property, out-right, one hundred percent, no mortgage, no liens, no adverse claims, no encumbrances. He decides one day to store nuclear waste products in his back yard. Brings in a back-hoe, digs a big hole and starts tumbling barrels with “Hazardous Materials” and “Radioactive Waste” labels all over them into the pit. Do you call the authorities? Alert the press? If one of your other neighbors calls the police or EPA is that an “assault on private property rights”! I realize this is an extreme example, but apparently, even after multiple sound and reasonable explanations, some people still don’t get it. Sometimes a little exaggeration is required to get the point across.

Furthermore, your hypothetical neighbor could not drill for oil, mine for gold, or build a reservoir to dam up the water. Despite private property rights, most jurisdictions reserve water and mineral rights, for themselves or to sell or lease those separately. In the Virgin Islands the government, in a rare display of wisdom, designated the shorelines as an environmental resource, to be preserved and protected for the use and enjoyment of the people of the Virgin Islands. They therefore enacted specific laws and rules governing what private property owners could and couldn’t do on their shoreline properties and how those activities could be carried out. They also designated less than 2 dozen particular places among the three islands, that needed even more specialized attention than the rest of the shorelines. Great Pond is one of those areas.

So Mr. Golden may, or may not, own the property, but even if he does, he can’t do whatever he wants whenever he wants however he wants. He needs to follow the rules. He has shown a great propensity, in this project as well as previous activities in his life, to not follow the rules. The reason we are raising a fuss about this is not to “assault” his private property rights, nor because this is “a project or person no one wants”, but because it is yet another example, among many, of Mr. Golden ignoring or knowingly violating the rules. And if he can’t be trusted to follow the rules on something as simple as dismantling some beach shanties, how can we trust him to operate a casino legally and above board, or to adequately protect the environmental resources of the Great Pond and Great Pond Bay from the devastating effects of golf course run-off?

You want a little fairness? So do I. I don’t think it’s unfair to expect the authorities to do their jobs, enforce our laws, and to protect our natural resources and our community from unscrupulous developers and con men.

The first time I visited STX was in early 1988, but I stayed with a friend out east and didn’t really go into town.

I’m thinking that after the hurricanes, the ridiculously high insurance rates and with our “selective law enforcement”, people are less willing to go through all the trouble and risk of opening new businesses here.

Thank goodness there are adventurous souls like Gregory and Arthur!

SEA had to jump through MAJOR hoops to demolish old shacks on their Southgate property, ownership of which is not under dispute, like Paul Golden’s is.

The law says what the law says, and it needs to be adhered to equally by all and enforced when it is broken.

Cheese and bread, why is this so hard to understand?

Bonnie - I wrestled with myself about posting this, but that article was just too glowing. I thought a different perspective was needed.

Hey Papi - Yassou to you, too!