The League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands believes that it is high time that the whole story of Ritz-Carlton’s inadequate application and the response to it by the St. Thomas Committee is revealed to the public. It is a long story and not limited to the road question, but at this time we will stick mainly with that, responding first to statements attributed to Attorney James Hindels in the St. Thomas Source article of February 23, 2000: "ROADWAY ISSUE COULD HALT RITZ EXPANSION," by Jean P. Greaux Jr.
Attorney James Hindels maintains that the opinion by the Legislature’s Chief Deputy Legal Counsel, Yvonne Tharps, is not accurate, that it is not based on fact. According to him, the road in question is not and never was a primary access to Bluebeard’s Beach.
Furthermore, he is quoted as saying that the "roadway stops about 250 feet off the shoreline."
In 1965, Henry Reichhold conveyed a section of the road (now designated Route 322) by deed of dedication to the Government of the Virgin Islands for public use. In the same year, the road was accepted (Act No. 1400) as part of the public road system. Counsel Tharpes’ opinion addresses the road as a public road and as a donation of trustland, not only as an access road to the old Bluebeard’s Beach.
The only site map in the application (the Environmental Assessment Report) that shows Route 322 marked as "Public Road to be Vacated" (in tiny letters) places it no further than 100 feet from the mean high water mark. If it is 250 feet from the shoreline as Hindels claims, either the map must be wrong, or he has an unique idea of what "shoreline" is.
Attorney Hindels is quoted as saying that the opinion concludes that the government may dispose of the road segment using "proper procedures."
In the 37-page opinion, there is indeed mention of the possibility of the diversion of the road to so-called "foreign purposes" – in this case to the private use of The Ritz-Carlton Club. The opinion, however, by means of numerous citations of case law and portions of the V. I. Code, finds this to be an extremely remote possibility.
In fact, the opinion concludes: "When land is dedicated for street, roadway or highway purposes by the owner and accepted by the Government, such action is equivalent to a taking, albeit voluntary, and the property so taken may not lawfully be applied to another purpose by the government, unless it be a public use not inconsistent with its use as a street, a roadway or highway."
The issue over the ownership of Route 322 has created a delay in the ability of Ritz-Carlton to use its permit. Ritz-Carlton should have settled the question of the public road before making application to the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Commission, or during the pre-hearing process. Not doing so has resulted in an invalid permit. That is not just our opinion — it is the law that no permit shall be issued without proof of ownership of the property upon which the development is to be placed.
The Ritz-Carlton created this delay all by itself, and it ought not to be blaming others. In fact, it ought to be apologizing for creating such a messy situation.
"If it is determined that the roadway cannot be used, there is little room to expand," Hindels said.
It is true that, given the restrictions (both local and federal) placed on the development of beaches and wetlands, there is little room for Ritz-Carlton to expand.
However, the final plans show a new extension of Route 322 past the entrance to the existing hotel, behind the buildings, and all the way to
the Cabrita Point Road. This proposed new road could be substituted for the section of Route 322 that has to be vacated. The problem is that The Ritz-Carlton Club is being marketed as strictly private, and the management has, thus far, declined to consider any compromise.
Another compromise that the Ritz-Carlton has refused to consider is any reduction in the size of the units on the beach. After the hearing, the four five-story buildings were re-designed so that each has levels of three to six stories. This may render them more aesthetically pleasing, but the number of units was not reduced, and the footings of the buildings are spread out more, pushing them further back towards the wetland.
Attorney Hindels stated that "either the community wants the hotel
or it doesn’t."
The league recognizes the need for additional hotel rooms in St. Thomas, as well as the excellent reputation earned by the Ritz-Carlton as a popular vacation choice by higher income level tourists. We welcomed the expansion of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. The community wants the hotel, but not, we trust, by compromising the law of the land. The hotel chose to present an application that was inconsistent with the CZM Act and failed to follow the Rules and Regulations set forth by the CZM Commission. Some improvements were made between the hearing and the decision to grant the permit, most notably the
dedication of a public access to the beach at Great Bay. (The original access was to be limited to the vastly inferior Muller Bay.)
Most of the changes made between the hearing and the decision were not improvements, and more importantly, were not opened for public review and comment.
There are two other clearly illegal things about the permit, and the League has compiled a list of 17 deficiencies in the application that remain unaddressed, and which support the League’s original contention that the application should not have been accepted as ready for public hearing.
In addition, the league has identified seven significant changes that were made after the hearing, the impacts of which were inadequately assessed. The public has been denied an opportunity to respond to those changes.
In a later article, the League of Women Voters will describe the deficiencies and illegalities of the project in detail.
The St. Thomas Committee of the CZM Commission seriously erred in approving Permit CZT-2-99L for the Ritz-Carlton expansion. The permit should be revoked, the road issue resolved, and a new application submitted that addresses all of the deficiencies.
If allowed to stand as is, the existing permit will set a dangerous precedent for future development in the coastal zone. Marriott Hotel Services has an obligation to handle its very special St. Thomas property with the sensitivity it deserves, and the CZM Commission has an obligation to see that all of the elements of the expansion project are consistent with the V. I. Coastal Zone Management Act.
Editor's note: Helen W. Gjessing is a retired biology professor and member of the League of Women Voters.
