Ecology organizations loose case against construction of Ritz-Carlton

May 13, 2011 7:45 AM

ORANJESTAD — The four ecology organizations that had instituted proceedings against the government last September to block the construction of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, have lost this lawsuit.

The administrative judge dismissed the latter because the ecology organizations had not submitted an official notice of objection against the permit.

The letter submitted to the Governor on June 1st 2010, which included their objection against the construction, does not count as a note of objection, according to the court.

The institutions Tortugaruba, Rainbow Warriors, Birdlife Conservation and Aruba Marine Mammal Foundation had instituted the proceedings. Unfortunately, their objection against the building permit granted to hotel developer Desarrollos Hotelco on May 20th last year was declared inadmissible. The ecology organizations had namely submitted their objection to the Governor instead of submitting a so-called LAR note of objection to the Minister of Infrastructure. The day after they had submitted the letter to the Governor, they were informed that their objection had been redirected to the minister in question for ‘reply and advice’. With that, the ecology organizations assumed their objection had arrived at the right address after all.

However, the judge did not agree with this argumentation. All the more so, because when one of the representatives of the ecology organizations had submitted the objection, co-workers from the Cabinet of the Governor had drawn her attention to the fact that the organizations could also submit a LAR note of objection. Earlier on, this representative declared before the attending judge that the ecology organizations had not followed up on that advice from the cabinet employees because they thought that by submitting the protest letter to the Governor, the handling would proceed quicker. Later on, the ecology organizations pointed out that the judge had misunderstood this, but that defense was rejected now.

Furthermore, the court found that the ecology organizations should not have assumed that due to the reply letter from the Governor the next day, everything would work out well with their objection. According to the court, the Governor requesting ‘a reply and advice’ from the Minister of Infrastructure namely does not mean that the Governor requested the Minister to handle the protest letter from the ecology organizations. The ecology organizations could have deduced that from the reply letter from the Governor, according to the judge.

However, their defense that with this, the Governor meant that their letter had not been forwarded to the correct address and that subsequently the Governor had redirected it to the correct administrative organ, namely the Minister, does not hold, according to the judge. Although government institutions are compelled to redirect mail to the correct authority, there was no question of this in their case, it appears from the verdict this morning. This means that the ecology organizations had not made an official objection against the construction permit and the appeal was dismissed, according to the judge.

The four ecology organizations are now considering whether to take their case to a higher court.

(Source: Newspaper Amigoe)

12 May 2011