First of two parts
As Source reporter Jim Day wrote on May 5 ("CZM approves Crown Bay project"), the Port Authority now has the permits to expand the cruise ship pier and build a commercial center at Crown Bay. It is likely that the permit for the pier is now in the hands of Governor Turnbull and will soon be transferred to the Legislature for ratification.
It is true, as Day also reported ("No one fights Crown Bay plans at CZM hearing"), that little opposition was voiced at the public hearing on April 9, but it is also true that the opposition had little chance to be heard. VIPA was given two hours to present the proposed projects. The four persons who signed up to testify had five minutes each, leaving many questions unasked and unanswered.
The most important part of a Major Water Coastal Zone Permit application is the Environmental Assessment Report, or EAR. To be accepted as "complete," and ready for the CZM public hearing, an EAR must supply detailed information as well as specific diagrams and maps.
Unfortunately, the term "complete" does not mean "adequate." The EAR for the Pier Expansion, CZT-3-02(W), is not adequate. Important information is missing; whole sections are omitted, while some other sections are out of order. Most important, where impact statements are required, only beneficial impacts are described.
Because of the shortcomings, the League was dismayed that this EAR was deemed complete. Its acceptance by CZM as ready for public hearing confirms the widespread perception that government agency applications for development projects are not reviewed with the same scrutiny as those submitted by the private sector.
Most of the League's environmental concerns were at least partially addressed as conditions of the permit. However, many corals, other invertebrates, and algae will be removed in the process of expanding the pier, and the area that will receive the transplants is still designated only as "hard substrate off of Water Island." The answer to our question as to how long that diver monitoring of the success of the transplantation effort would be conducted was "as long as necessary."
The primary concern of the League is the failure of VIPA, and subsequently CZM, to assess the impact of the project honestly. The EAR states that the Port Authority wants to expand the cruise ship pier in order to accommodate larger vessels now being built by the cruise lines.
Both The West Indian Co. and the St. Thomas-St. John Chamber of Commerce continue to support the pier expansion. Why does the League question it? It is the consequences that concern us, starting with the impact of 15,000 to 18,000 people arriving and departing on any one day during the peak season — more than that if ships are anchored in the harbor. This issue has not been addressed seriously by any administration, certainly not by the Port Authority or WICO. Other than taxi and tour operators, the residents of St. Thomas have been given no opportunity to express their views as to the direction tourism in the territory is going.
Quantity versus quality
What are the impacts that ought to be considered and are not adequately addressed by the two EAR's submitted for the Crown Bay project? Can our current infrastructure handle the increased stress that larger numbers of visitors will place on security, water, power, waste and health services? Can the harmful effects on already established, but struggling, tourist-serving businesses in downtown Charlotte Amalie and Havensight be ignored?
We will look at those questions more thoroughly in Part 2, addressing the impacts of the proposed commercial center. For now, we focus on what we consider to be the immediate and most widely felt effect of increased numbers of cruise ship passengers: increased traffic congestion.
There may be fewer cruise ships anchoring in the harbor and tendering passengers to the Charlotte Amalie waterfront (thus easing an extremely dangerous situation that is understandably unpopular with the passengers), but how can it be claimed that there will be no added frustration for both visitors and residents because of further traffic congestion at both ends of town and on all of the other mid-island roads as well?
The EAR clearly states that there will be increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Sub Base as a result of the Crown Bay development. However, it fails to make the case that most of the increased traffic will be during off-peak hours and that the only real congestion might occur in the late afternoon. We believe that the traffic on a day when both berthing places are occupied will spell misery for the many people who already work in the area, those who live to the west, and those who must frequent the area for shopping and for business with the public agencies located in Sub Base and Nisky Center.
In order to address needed infrastructure improvements, VIPA obtained agreements with the Public Works Department and the Water and Power Authority to install a sidewalk, widen the roads of the area and provide additional street lighting. However, there are no written assurances from WAPA or DPW included in the CZM file. Most of these suggestions were part of the 1984 Master Plan. What is the guarantee that they will be in place by the time the pier is complete?
Outside of government agencies, only taxi operators were given the opportunity to suggest solutions to the traffic impact. They suggest using Crown Mountain Road for tours, and depositing passengers who wish to go to town at Rothschild Francis "Market" Square. Again, we have no assurances when, or if, the proposed Market Square improvement project will be approved.
Because of the extensive area of the proposed Crown Bay commercial center set aside for shops, tour vehicles "will be marshaled in the Cyril E. King Airport area." This is not only impractical; it is a parking solution that would not be permitted to a private developer. Since VIPA has not demonstrated the need for all of the proposed commercial activities, some of the area could be used for the construction of a two-story parking garage for taxi staging and all-day parking by government employees of the area agencies as well as commercial center employees.
Another suggestion is a hybrid or completely electric-powered "trolley" shuttle system to carry passengers from both the Crown Bay and WICO docks to town and back. It would be a free service offered by VIPA and WICO. The shuttle would run more or less continuously to town and back, most frequently at peak traffic hours. Taxi and tour operators would still take passengers on island tours, but the shuttle would alleviate a lot of the traffic on Veterans Drive.
Even with the road improvements, the parking garage and the shuttle system, congestion in the Sub Base area when both expanded piers at Crown Bay are utilized will remain a serious problem. The League has recommended that VIPA take another look at the possibility that the area could be put to better use as an extension of the Crown Bay cargo facilities. The "Alternatives" section of the EAR does not address the subject; but then, why would VIPA suggest alternatives to its pet plan?
We are well aware that our recommendation will get nowhere with the Port Authority. VIPA's goal to accommodate as many additional cruise ship passengers as possible is understandably self-serving, especially considering its determination to snatch preferred berthing away from WICO.
It is the short-sighted acceptance of VIPA's pier expansion goal by the St. Thomas business community, including the St. Thomas-St. John Hotel and Tourism Association, that continues to amaze us. And where is the rest of the community? Does everyone really think that preparing to acc
ept as many passengers as possible is the best way to restore and maintain St. Thomas's place as the top tourist destination of the Caribbean? Might we be better off putting our efforts into striving for a higher-quality tourism product rather than a greater quantity of day visitors?
Condition the Senate ratification?
In post-hearing comments that it submitted, the League asked CZM to request that Governor Turnbull commission a study by a reputable off-island firm, one not connected with the cruise ship industry, on the capacity of St. Thomas in terms of the number of cruise ship passengers that can be comfortably handled in a single day, with the firm to make recommendations for improvements that will assure a pleasant tourist experience while maintaining and improving the quality of life of the residents. The League suggested that WICO and VIPA share the cost of the study.
CZM did not respond to this request or to any of the suggestions and questions submitted by the League during the post-hearing comment period; so, we have sent the request directly to Governor Turnbull, with copies to all 15 senators.
The League is not asking for complete denial of the pier expansion, but we will ask the Legislature to refrain from considering the ratification of the pier until the capacity question has been settled. Ideally, if the governor does not commission the study, the Legislature will embrace the idea — perhaps even fund it!
The League also is very disturbed that the question of who will assign berthing on the days when fewer than five of the newer, larger ships are in port, is still undecided. The present battle between WICO and VIPA is embarrassing and harmful. We believe that the question of berthing preference must be decided in an equitable manner, first with the premise that WICO's dock is already built and that the Havensight Mall dividends are supporting the government retirement system. For example, on a one-ship day, WICO gets it; three ships: two to WICO, one to Crown Bay; and so on.
Can the Legislature persuade WICO and VIPA of their moral obligation to arrive at an equitable solution? Probably not, unless there is a groundswell of support from the public. Reader, what do you think? The League of Women Voters wants to hear from you.
Next: The commercial development
Editor's note: Erva Denham is president of the League of Women Voters of the Virgin Islands; Helen Gjessing chairs the League's Committee on Planning and Environmental Quality.
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 source@viaccess.net.
Publisher's note : Like the St. Thomas Source now? Find out how you can love us twice as much — and show your support for the islands' free and independent news voice … click here.
