Sweetheart deal going sour

[Karl]

Sweetheart deal going sour - Report to estimate cost for Bogue lands, St James PC to find buyers
published: Thursday | February 28, 2008


Adrian Frater, News Editor
Western Bureau:
The sweetheart deal, which saw political activists, families and associates of politicians illegally taking over and occupying St James Parish Council lands at Bogue, in St James, could turn sour for some of the occupiers, based on the latest developments out of the council.

In a recent interview with The Gleaner, the chairman of the parish council and mayor of Montego Bay, Charles Sinclair, said the council was now awaiting an engineer's report to determine a final cost for the property, which is divided into more than 30 lots and is considered prime real estate.

"Once we have that engineer's report, we will be able to work out a final cost," said Sinclair, who noted that the property will not be sold below market value. "If the current occupiers cannot afford it, we will move to other buyers. There will be absolutely no concession to them."

Illegal occupation
The Bogue property became controversial in 2003, during the last People's National Party administration, when the then opposition Jamaica Labour Party raised an alarm about political activists, the families of politicians and at least one politician, taking over sections of the property without the requisite authorisation for their private use.

Sinclair, who was then a regular councillor, was instructed by then mayor, Noel Donaldson, to investigate the claims. In his report, submitted in December 2004, Sinclair produced a scathing 12-page document in which he claimed he had uncovered "gross irregularities, abuse of power and political nepotism".

Following the release of the report, the then minister of labour and former prime minister Portia Simpson Miller, appointed a committee, headed by publisher Lloyd B. Smith, to examine the issues and make recommendations to bring closure to what was then being called 'The Bogue lands saga'.

Since becoming mayor, following last December's Local Government elections, Sinclair has been working assiduously to bring closure to the issue. However, he has made it clear that expediency will not stop the council from making sure that the illegal occupiers do not benefit from their occupation.

No special treatment
"Even if the present occupiers are able to purchase the lands they are now occupying, it will not be the end of the matter for them," said Mayor Sinclair. "They will be required to pay the building fees for the structures they have erected and they will also have to pay a 'means profit', which is a form of rental, for their six-year occupation.
"As I have said before, those who cannot meet the council's terms and conditions will have to leave," added Sinclair. "There will be no special considerations or concessions."

[Karl]

Looks like the "Audley Shaw issue" type is not unusual?

[Gamma]

jezas crise....remind of the ideals and concepts again?

left right and centre.....how can anyone support dem kinda trough feeding deh? how dat benefit jamaica?

mi god!!!

as i said before pj patterson is not a man prone to empty words ....... mi nuh blame him for not wanting to live in jamaica under the jlp (or ndm for that matter) because it not looking pretty the gorging that took place!

[Gamma]

karl, for the umpteenth time..... SHAW is entitled to use the old road out of necessity to enter his property and the government could not stop him?

i suppose i would be shocked if i thought you actually believed some of what you post.

[Assasin]

you have time fi Karl.

Fi certain man the PNP can't do no wrong them have to find a JLP equal.

That is their way of supporting the wrongs done under the government for the last 18 years without accepting the fact that it was the PNP who had POWER.

[Muadib]

Why yuh muss lower yuhself suh ? Is the PNP really worth it ?

Duh bettah.. dig deep.

[Karl]

karl, for the umpteenth time..... SHAW is entitled to use the old road out of necessity to enter his property and the government could not stop him?

i suppose i would be shocked if i thought you actually believed some of what you post.

gamma: I waited long for you to address rthe man's letter. Stop dancing around the matter at hand.

OK? Since you would like me to haul...errrrr? ...get you to the water - Explain to me why you think Shaw was speaking about land he already owned? Kindly tell me why he had to get the ministry's authorisation/compliance/agreement on price to sell the land he already owned?

Pleeeeeeeeease I am asking why he wanted from the Ministry of Lands or any other government agency a valuation on land he did not own? Possible to effect formal purchase of same?

...and why he wanted to honour a contract to purchase at an agreed price with government officials? Exactly as he said - to agree on puchase price?

...and finally if the lands he had captured were not government lands what the hell was he engaged in with the government about the lands? ...should he not be as you are suggesting be dealing with those non-government owners of the land?!

SHAW was responding to questions on his capture of a particular piece of land! ...and he intimated and said he wanted to...and was in negotiation to purchase same...all he said and I had lifted from his letter!

Pleeeeeeeease???!!! Stop?! ...or present chain of custody of the land? ...or have Shaw retract his original letter and come again?!

[Muadib]

Karl, Shaw response was given within a certain context. If you are unaware of the context my advise to you is to educate yourself on the matter and stop forming the fool.

You cannot seek to properly interpret Shaw statement if you are not aware of some BASIC facts.

Is anyone (besides yourself) questioning Shaw's ownership of the land the Gas Station is on ? All now yuh nuh answer that question.

[Gamma]

karl...stop it.

[Chubble]

The PNP spokesman on Local Government claimed that Shaw captured the land and refused to dialogue with government agencies to pay for it.

Shaw, however, said that the land was nothing more than an old road.

"It is a little strip of land which represents a part of an old main road, which would have been owned by the Ministry of Works," Shaw told The Gleaner yesterday.

The land is 844 square metres in size or just a shade under quarter acre.

"That (the old road) was the access to the land. When I owned it (gas station), I brought the Ministry of Works down and showed it to them and they say OK. I specifically said to them that I would be prepared to purchase it," Shaw said.

"The truth is that you want to involve Audley Shaw's name because it is sexy and romantic. What is being referred to as a piece of land is an old road and to get on the blasted land you have to drive on the old road," Shaw said.

[Karl]

The PNP spokesman on Local Government claimed that Shaw captured the land and refused to dialogue with government agencies to pay for it.

Shaw, however, said that the land was nothing more than an old road.

"It is a little strip of land which represents a part of an old main road, which would have been owned by the Ministry of Works," Shaw told The Gleaner yesterday.

The land is 844 square metres in size or just a shade under quarter acre.

"That (the old road) was the access to the land. When I owned it (gas station), I brought the Ministry of Works down and showed it to them and they say OK. I specifically said to them that I would be prepared to purchase it," Shaw said.

"The truth is that you want to involve Audley Shaw's name because it is sexy and romantic. What is being referred to as a piece of land is an old road and to get on the blasted land you have to drive on the old road," Shaw said.

That is how I saw Shaw's letter - pointed to that "little strip of land which represents a part of that okld main road"...that strip of land and nothing else but that "little strip of land".

Why gamma...forget the rest they'll say anything...cannot see that I do not know?

Shaw captured! Matters not if it is a "little strip" or "access road that he must be allowed to use" - He has no right to "capture".

btw - "Capture" means he has taken possession and secured for his own use to the exclusion of any other save and except with his permission to use same! That is tiefin!

The "little piece of land" MUST be left for public use...even if in our opinion others could only go to entrance of Shaw's property and retreat/turn around! The "little piece of land" was not Shaw's and thus not his to use as he saw fit...save and except to have access to his property and as route to leave his property.

Before he owned the land he said in his letter he had 'captured' it! ...then engaged with the governement to have a valuation done with aim of purchasing same. To be fair to him he is claiming that he captured with an understanding from 'some' government person...that he could "capture".

Just figured he should have known better - permission to "capture"="tief" is just not on.

[Gamma]

he has every right to it's use! story done! in fact he did not even have to purchase it....it was an EASEMENT recognised by law.

i'm done karl because your mind was made up before you knew the facts!

[Karl]

he has every right to it's use! story done! in fact he did not even have to purchase it....it was an EASEMENT recognised by law.

That I have said all along!

What I have also said all along and am saying is, he has no right to capture...and or hold for his sole use!

Somehow you are refusing to differentiate...and I know you know the difference...that an easement to allow ingress and egress does not equate to ownship!

i'm done karl because your mind was made up before you knew the facts!

I have done no such thing - I have pointed only to facts outlined in Shaw's letter! Not one single solitary other area of information!

[Gamma]

as i said...i'm done. how is a distinction made in this case? he has to use it to gain access to the land the USE is the capture?!! sole use? who else used the land or for what? it's a business the PUBLIC uses it to access the land. who did he exclude? that is a far cry from fencing off land and preventing anyone from coming on it!

to say i'm disappointed in you...is a gross understatement.

[Muadib]

How does what happened with the Bogue lands get labelled as an "Audley Shaw" Issue ?

Yuh tink yuh likkle almshouse tactics a fool anybody ?

Kern did probably tink di same way.. now him cornah dark... ah hope him did save a few a di bulbs fi himself..

Check Yuhself.