 about the circumstances surrounding Government’s decision to exchange Crown lands on which the Bagatelle Disposal Facility, St Thomas, is sited for a portion or portions at River Bay, St Lucy, owned by the operators of a private recycling firm.
Not the least of those concerned has been the Chief Town Planner, who as required by law, should have been consulted before any agreement was reached on permitting the operation of a recycling facility at Bagatelle.
Understandably, the official Opposition, as is its right and duty, has also questioned the so-called land swap and has even threatened legal action to prevent its completion.
In his memorandum cited above, the Chief Town Planner referred to an extract from the minutes of a Cabinet meeting of March 8 at which it noted B’s Recycling’s interest in taking over the operations of the state-run Bagatelle Bulky Waste Facility at no cost to Government, and the offer of a suitable portion of land in River Bay to replace the land lost to Government by the proposed relocation of B’s Recycling to Bagatelle.
• B’s Recycling should submit a Relocation Plan acceptable to the Ministry of Environment and Drainage and the Town Planning Department.
• B’s Recycling should come to an agreement with the Ministry of Housing and Lands on the transfer of a portion of land in the area of River Bay, St Lucy, of an acceptable size and location.
Yet, we find that in a letter of June 28, the director of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) was asking the Chief Town Planner to investigate “unauthorized excavation activities” by B’s Recycling at Bagatelle.
“Officers of the Department, who visited the site on June 26, 2012, were informed that these activities were in preparation of creating space for the placement of compactor equipment. This proposed piece of equipment is likely to generate noise, vibrations and combustion products when in operation.
“Clearly, an environmental impact assessment is required for this operation, noting that the site is mainly residential and dust emanating as a result of these activities has impacted on neighbouring communities.
In the face of such clarity, one is moved to ask what could have given rise to the “discrepancies” so delicately referred to by the Chief Town Planner?
Now, let’s be clear: a private sector firm that is in the business of making profit is never going to engage in a swapping of property unless it stands to benefit.
The most curious thing about the proposed land swap, as I understand it, is that it started with an “exchange of the portion of land at River Bay for the lot at Fort Denmark” in Queen Street, Speightstown, St Peter.
A subsequent offer of an exchange of land at River Bay turned into “the entire River Bay lot comprising approximately 9.97 acres for the addition of the Bagatelle lot of 19.2 acres. The Bagatelle acquisition would facilitate the move of B’s Recycling from Cane Garden”.
The questions is: what would have been the initial motivation to exchange the infamous lot at Fort Denmark? That lot was, incidentally, the basis of a no-confidence motion in Parliament introduced by the then Leader of the Opposition Clyde Mascoll against Prime Minister Owen Arthur eight years ago.
Knowledgeable people are agreed that the location at Fort Denmark makes a perfect site for a tourism investment. What would, therefore, have been the size of the initial portion of land at River Bay that could compensate for this most attractive seafront property?
Within less than a month of the first request for an exchange of land, the River Bay principals indicated in another letter to the Ministry of Housing that they were aware of the ministry’s interest in acquiring the land at River Bay for use as a recreational area by the people of Barbados.
It was clearly now apparent to the principals that there was indeed a genuine opportunity for an exchange since both parties have a interest.
Indeed, given the interest expressed by Government in pursuing a green economy, in particular, and enhancing the environment in general, the exchange could now be justified beyond dollars and cents. There is now a purpose that makes the exchange easier to sell to the public and may be a win-win for the principals and the Government.
However, several issues have emerged from the proposals, including the relative sizes of the lots.
Since the lots are in two completely different locations and are used in different ways, the matter ought to be a fair exchange on the basis of value.
Further, it is known that the Bagatelle site contains a wealth of metal which is the business of B’s Recycling. Therefore, the land carries an intrinsic value in its bowels. That value, however, can only be realized if the metal is extracted, which becomes an issue for the environment around the Bagatelle site – an issue with respect to the future cost of bulky waste and an issue with respect to the future of the business being based on the price of metal and its impact on the project’s profitability.
So it was then that one month after the principal’s second letter, Cabinet agreed to enter into the land swap, and by the end of May, the chairman of the SSA had informed its manager that “Sanitation Service Authority operations at the said site ceases on 3rd June, 2012”.
Amazingly, for a Civil Service that has a reputation for inertia, it took less than five months between the principals’ request for an exchange of land and the EPD’s concern about “unauthorized excavation activities” at Bagatelle.
To my mind, the actions of B’s Recycling suggest that the project is extremely viable from the perspective of a businessman.
However, it is still necessary for the concerns of the Government departments to be addressed. It is also necessary that the initial exchange be transparent and follow the principle of fair value with respect to the lots.
Finally, there is one very important element of the political dimension, which is that Parliament must be fully informed since the transaction is tantamount to a land acquisition.
The State has released a tracking page where you can see how regions are doing in regards to meeting the reopening metrics. Ten days from the first opportunity to reopen no region has met all 7 criteria.
The page and matrix can be found here.
“Perspectives from Main Street: The Impact of COVID-19 on Communities and the Entities Serving Them” summarizes a nationwide survey of nonprofit organizations, financial institutions, government agencies and other community organizations. The survey was conducted in April 2020 with nearly 3,900 respondents serving rural, suburban and urban communities.
Nearly 7 out of 10 respondents indicated that COVID-19 was a significant disruption to the economic conditions of the communities they serve and that recovery is expected to be difficult.
The most frequently cited impacts of COVID-19 were income loss, business impacts, health concerns and basic consumer needs.
Over one-third of respondents indicated it will take longer than 12 months for their communities to return to the conditions prior to the disruption from COVID-19.
The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, along with the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have called on Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to change the guidance disallowing the employee retention tax credit for employers that provide health care benefits for furloughed workers. The congressional leaders say that the guidance “runs directly counter to congressional intent.” Prior to the issuance of the guidance, the NAM urged the IRS to allow employers only providing health care benefits to qualify for the credit.
Since the release of several FAQs and a safe harbor provision by the Treasury Department, a number of Paycheck Protection Program borrowers have expressed a fair amount of angst regarding their need for these funds and, indeed, tens of millions of PPP loan funds have already been returned. Bruce L. Blasnik, CPA, at Council friend and Associate Member O’Connor Davies LLP, writes that the reason for this angst is understandable as neither the Act nor the SBA have defined “necessary” or “ongoing operations,” nor have they provided any meaningful guidance that would shed additional insight into the meaning of these terms. In this article, we share our thoughts on what this guidance means and how to apply it. We encourage all PPP borrowers to take action now to avoid the possibility of significant penalties in the future.
Tyson Foods is preparing to reopen some of the processing facilities it had shut down due to the coronavirus pandemic, and the company has joined with Matrix Medical Network to set up mobile health clinics at its sites around the country to provide testing and diagnostic services to its workers. Tyson has also added new safeguards inside its plants, along with offering bonuses and boosting its short-term disability pay to 90%.
The Wall Street Journal Reports that “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will control the shape of much of the next stimulus package, has called liability protections a must-have ‘red line’ for Republicans, saying he won’t support Democrats’ call for further state and local aid without it.
US Trade With the World Dropped Sharply in March.
Imports of goods and services fell by 6.2% from February, to $232.2bn, but exports fell even more, by a record 9.6% to $187.7bn, widening the trade deficit. Trade was already falling before the coronavirus pandemic began, but with supply chains disrupted and unemployment swelling, its decline will continue.
US factory orders fell by 10.3% in March, the largest decrease since the reading began in 1992, the Commerce Department said Monday. Inventories, unfilled orders and shipments each declined in March.
General Electric Co said it was planning to cut the global workforce of its aviation unit this year by as much as 25%, or up