Tweet
Island sold cheap
Published: Thursday | October 13, 2011
Dr Wykeham McNeill
1 2 >
- PAAC questions below-value sale of Negril property
The Urban Development Corporation's (UDC) decision to sell a 23-acre island known as Booby Cay in Negril for $351 million - substantially less than its original forced sale valuation price - is not sitting well with Parliament's Public Administration and Appropriations Committee (PAAC) which wants the entity to speedily explain the disparity.
Committee chairman Dr Wykeham McNeill said yesterday that the committee has raised questions about the impending sale/divestment two years ago, but had heard nothing until the sale had been completed.
Booby Cay, said to be a stone's throw away from the Negril beach and close to two large hotel chains, was sold to a housing developer.
"In the year 2009-2010, we met with the UDC and indicated that we would like to know what was being divested and if they could let the committee know what was being divested, and the process by which that would take place. Subsequently, we heard about the divestment of this parcel of land," McNeill said. "In January of this year, it was brought to the committee, and the (committee secretary) wrote to the UDC seeking this information. Now that this information has come, there are some items that we would like to clarify."
According to him, among the questions the PAAC wants answered are how the final price was determined and how many persons tendered.
Information reaching The Gleaner is that the property was valued at $800 million, with a forced sale price upwards of $650 million. However, a second valuation brought the price down to $400 million, with a declaration that a section of the property was a fish sanctuary, and could not be disturbed. The forced sale recommended price for that valuation was $380 million.
Fish sanctuary
After the meeting, one committee member told The Gleaner he wanted to know when the area in question was declared a fish sanctuary and who made the declaration. According to the member, the fish sanctuary declaration halved the price.
Yesterday, the meeting said it would be issuing an invitation to the UDC to appear before the committee, which has as part of its remit, the monitoring of expenditure in government.
The staunchest critic of the committee's announced intention was Dr St Aubyn Bartlett, the only one of eight government members present at the meeting. Five opposition members were also present.
"My question is whether or not it is in our remit to question the sale of a property by a government agency. Where in our terms of reference are we given that right to so do?" Bartlett asked.
Rushing to remind Bartlett of the committee's terms of reference, opposition member Dr Morais Guy read a section of the Standing Orders which outlined the committee's remit.
Remit of committee
He said it was the remit of the committee to "enquire into the administration of Government to determine hindrances to efficiencies, and to make recommendations to Government for improvements of public administration".
Said Guy: "This particular matter falls under that third remit of the committee and, as a consequence, it is quite in order for the committee to ask those questions."
Bartlett said he was not convinced that the read section gave the committee the authority to investigate the sale of a property by an entity, which he believes would be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, which examines expenditure post spending.
Committee member Dr Omar Davis waded into the debate, asking Bartlett to dispel the notion that he was against any probe on issues of national importance.
"Not at all, not at all," said Bartlett, asking if all the sales of property by Government would be examined or if the committee would be cherry-picking sales for investigation.
erica.virtue@gleanerjm.com
Bwoy, T Dowl, wi m us
Comment