We’ve been away for a while on vacation. I’d hoped to return and blog about what a great time we had on Tortola and Anegada, but instead I feel the need to address the ludicrous decision made by the Coastal Zone Mismanagement Committee last week.

CZM denied a permit application to develop the Southgate Coastal Reserve submitted by the St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA). The CZM Committee voted to accept the CZM staff recommendation to deny the permit because it was “not consistent” with CZM regulations and policy. One has to wonder what is consistent with CZM’s regulations and policies. A study of previously approved permits would indicate that a complete lack of consideration for the environment and traditional uses of beachfront land is what CZM favors. SEA’s carefully considered plan to protect the rare wetland environment while allowing traditional family camping and other day uses of the property is clearly inconsistent with the CZM’s record.

Below is a copy of a letter I sent to CZM Commissioners after the public meeting in April, but prior to last weeks decision. Clearly, they couldn’t grasp the concepts, hopefully the general public will fair better.

Dear CZM Commissioners,

I attended the public meeting on Wednesday evening, May 2, regarding the development of Southgate Coastal Reserve proposed by the St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA). I was surprised by some of the testimony and questions. The objections to the proposed plan centered around three issues: not accommodating campers to their (the campers) satisfaction, controlling vehicle access, and the distance from the proposed parking lot to the beach.

SEA has spent the last six years studying the land donated to them in 2000 and 2001 and consulting, not only with experts, but with the public and recreational users of the land. They have not been working to circumvent, or change, Virgin Islands law to suit their needs and maximize profits for off-island investors, as have some would-be developers. Instead, they have been carefully crafting a plan to protect the natural environment and endangered wildlife on the property, as mandated by the Conservation Easement attached to the deeds of the land, while accommodating the widest possible use of the land for the enjoyment of all recreational users.

To my knowledge, the plan proposed by SEA is the first development of a major beach-front property in the history of the Virgin Islands to expressly accommodate, even encourage, the continuation of traditional public beach-side camping on the private property of the developing entity. There are only two projects that come close to the allowances SEA is proposing: The National Park campground at Cinnamon Bay and Maho Bay Camps on St. John. However, these campgrounds do not allow traditional camping “on the beach”, you must rent a tent site, tent, or cabin up the hillside from the beach. And guess what? You can’t drive up to your tent or park there. You have to park in a lot, often more than 600 feet from your cabin or tent, and haul your gear in.

On St. Croix there is no history of accommodating campers in development plans- not a single resort, hotel, condo or residential development has allowed camping on their property - nor have any current projects on the horizon have plans to accommodate campers, as far as I am aware. Had the condo development, planned for the Southgate property in the past, been built to completion, there is no doubt that camping would have been prohibited. But at the meeting Wednesday, some individuals would have had you believe that beach-side camping is now the sacred cow, and absolutely no restrictions should be placed on “traditional”camping.

The Environmental Assessment Report prepared by SEA, section 7.07 Recreational Use, states clearly, “At Southgate Coastal Reserve, SEA will endeavor to balance protection of wildlife, for whom this reserve was designated, with the need for natural recreation areas for the people of St. Croix. Camping will be accommodated to the extent that it is compatible with critical wildlife activity…SEA will provide fire rings, sanitary facilities and receptacles for trash disposal for those who wish to enjoy primitive camping.” Again, in accordance with its mandate to protect the wetlands area and wildlife of Southgate Coastal Reserve and to accommodate recreational use for all the people of St. Croix, SEA proposes to restrict some of the more recent, less “traditional” trends in beach-side camping that have a negative impact on the wetlands environment and the enjoyment of other recreational users.

To mandate that one group of users, campers, not be inconvenienced in ANY way, to the detriment of the wetlands, wildlife, and other users’ experience, is not only unfair and counter to the Conservation Easement of the deeds, but a violation of SEA’s rights as a property owner. The CZM committee made it clear that the decision of reasonable access is up to their sole discretion, but one would hope that discretion will be guided by the rule of law, precedence, and reason, not whim.

SEA has at no time to this date blocked access to the beach at Southgate (such as the VI Government did at Lindquist Beach on St. Thomas for more than a year) to either day users or campers and has no plans to do so. It has proposed to control vehicle access to the beach through its property. There will be a road available for emergency vehicles, handicap access, loading and unloading of equipment for special events, and maintenance. For the general public, there will be a parking lot and open unrestricted access to foot traffic 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The Open Shorelines Act, Title 12, Section 402, declares the public, individually and collectively, has the right to use and enjoy the shorelines of the Virgin Islands. Nowhere does it guarantee the right of the public to “drive up to” and “park on” the shoreline, and the history of permitting by CZM bears this out. Where established access routes preceded development, developers of shoreline areas have been required to allow “dedicated access” and “reasonable parking”.

Let’s take a look at some of those developments. At Turner Hole in Grapetree Bay the Divi Carina Bay Resort provides a parking lot a couple hundred feet from the beach, across a street that vehicles have been known to use at excessive speeds. You can not drive down to the beach, park there, nor pitch a tent to camp on their property. At Davis Bay, the Carambola Beach Resort built a public parking area, the initial entrance to which is now closed due to driveway deterioration and petty crime in the lot, several hundred feet, up multiple stairways, from the beach. The lot now allocated to the public is over 1000 feet from the beach, all uphill, the last couple hundred feet of which are at a steep grade exceeding 10%. This is to the nearest point of the beach, to reach a place to safely enter the water is approximately 700 feet further. You can not drive up to, park on, or camp on the beach. The Buccaneer Resort controls all access to the beaches on their property, public access to the beach may be rented for $6 per day per person. No camping is allowed on the beaches. The beach at Tamarind Reef may be reached from a parking lot a couple hundred feet away, there is no camping allowed. I could go on, but these examples should suffice, to my knowledge, no shoreline development has ever been required to provide public parking directly on the beach.

And the developments on the horizon? Seasonal camping takes place at both Robin Bay and the beach running south of Sprat Hole on the West End. Have the developers of the Robin Bay or William and Punch projects allowed for the continuation of traditional (or modern) beach-side camping at those locations? Does the CZM intend to mandate unrestricted vehicle access, beach-side parking, and camping on those properties?

Finally, I’d like to put the issue of distance to “reasonable parking” in perspective.
Six hundred feet…….. SIX…..…HUNDRED…….FEET… Whew! Sounds like a lot. For comparison, the public meeting Wednesday, May 2, took place in the conference room, upstairs, at the Henry E. Rohlsen International Airport. Anyone who has been to the airport lately knows that all the closest spaces in the parking lot are reserved for TSA, other airport offices, and rental car agencies. The public must park in the furthest spaces. Therefore, nearly every one of the dozens of people at that meeting had to walk more than 600 feet, and up a flight of stairs, from their parked car to the conference room. I didn’t hear a single complaint from those in attendance regarding their walk to the meeting.

The Government parking lot in Christiansted is, to my knowledge, further than 600 feet from all VI Government offices located in Christiansted. So, if you work for a government office, or have business to attend to at a VI Government office in Christiansted and park in the government lot, you have to walk more than 600 feet to conduct said business.

SEA’s proposal of a parking lot 600 feet from the beach with dedicated unrestricted wheel-chair friendly level access falls somewhere in the middle, distance-wise, and on the easy end of the difficulty scale, of what has been considered “reasonable access” at all other beach-front developments in the Virgin Islands. It meets the requirements of the Conservation Easement on the deeds, helps to preserve and protect the wetlands and wildlife of the Southgate Coastal Reserve, and does not impose an undue hardship on any recreational users, nor interfere with “traditional” beach-side camping. If anything, it enhances the “traditional” aspects of camping by restricting the modern non-traditional trends. If beach-side camping is at risk in the Virgin Islands, the camping crusaders would be wise to focus on developments planned for Robin Bay and Sprat Hole Beach. With the persistent pro-development climate, Southgate beach may well become the last place to experience traditional family beach-side camping on St. Croix, thanks to the generosity of an anonymous donor, the stewardship of the St. Croix Environmental Association, and the consideration and forethought of the St. Croix CZM committee in allowing SEA to manage the property in a way that will benefit ALL the people of St. Croix for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Michael Dance
Sally’s Fancy, St. Croix