Finally. DPNR (and presumably CZM) understand that ". . . being able toreach the beach by boat satisfies the access requirement."(Quoting Jamal Nielsen, (DPNR) I applaud the admission. It evinces a heretofore uncharacteristic understanding of the Open Shorelines Act. Why then, would a Senator make a public statement that he was told by CZM that the owners of Lindquist "were in violation" as was broadcast on the radio several times on Tuesday? What some do not understand is there is a constitutional issue with regards to a "taking," even for walking to beach access. You have to pay for it. The piles trash and garbage left on Lindqvist, rapists dragging women into the bush and assaulting them, frequent gunfire, abandoned vehicles and all that goes with years of trespassing show abjectdisrespect for being allowed to use such a valuable resource. The concept that land access to V.I. beaches is permitted under the statute, without more, is absolutely wrong. Taken a step further, it means I could come through your house you built on the beach path if that were the only practical route to the beach. Thankyou, DPNR, if, in fact, the statement attributed to DPNR spokesman Jamal Nielsen is a direct quote. Too bad it comes years after the V.I. Gov't. spent so much taxpayer money, again taking the wrong position in fighting taxpayers.
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to firstname.lastname@example.org.