# Bad news for Aruba Snorkeling & windsurfing



## tombo (Mar 21, 2010)

Aruba has some great snorkeling accessed from shore at Malmok and Arashi beaches near the area of the fishermen's huts. Also the fishermen's hut area is one of the top windsurfing areas in the world thanks to an almost non stop breeze to be enjoyed on mostly calm waters since the winds come from the island rather than from the ocean limiting waves.

I guess I should have said that these areas are CURRENTLY fantastic snorkeling areas and windsurfing areas, but it looks like they might not be so great in the very near future. I received an e-mail today from Sherri the lead moderator of the visitaruba.com board explaining that they are going to build a Ritz Carlton in this area possibly ruining the windsurfing, crowding the snorkeling areas nearby, and making private a huge expanse of public beaches that visitors have enjoyed for as long as visitors have vacationed in Aruba. The visitAruba.com board and other groups are getting people to sign a petition in an attempt to stop it.

Here is a copy of the e-mail Sherri sent me today and I am posting it here in case any TUGGERS want to sign the petition to help fight it. I already joined the group gladly as this is one of the most pristine public beach areas on the Island with no Motels, Hotels, Condos, or restaurants on the beach for miles. Currently there is nothing on the beaches but a few homes all the way from the Marriott resorts to the Light house. It would be great if we could somehow convince the Island of Aruba to keep it that way!



> " Hi Everyone,
> 
> This is in no way a solicitation. In stead it is a request to sign a petition to
> SAVE Aruba as we know it.
> ...


----------



## shar (Mar 22, 2010)

Just tried to sing the petition but could not get into screen to sign. I could read what other people said but not sign myself. Anyone have this problem?

Shar


----------



## MuranoJo (Mar 22, 2010)

I signed it. If this happens, it will certainly diminish our desire to return to Aruba.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 23, 2010)

I have been going to Aruba since 1994. It has changed a lot since then and has been built up tremendously in that time. There was no Marriott Ocean Club or Surf Club. Palm Beach wasnt nearly as crowded as it is today. When those resorts were proposed there were many complaints that Palm Beach would be ruined and while more crowded, its still a beautiful area.

Back then there was no restaurant at California Lighthouse. When the restaurant was built there were all sorts of complaints that it was going to ruin the entire area of the lighthouse. Instead the restaurant has become a favorite place to watch the sunset while having drinks/dinner. 

Aruba has many windsurfing events that bring thousands of people to the island. I highly doubt the government is going to do anything that will negatively affect windsurfing community. Also, one hotel is not going to "cut off" wind as the email says. Nor will one hotel destroy the snorkeling areas. All beaches on Aruba are public, they cannot be restricted to private use.

As much as we all like things to remain as they were in the past, progress is necessary and development happens.


----------



## tombo (Mar 24, 2010)

gmarine said:


> I have been going to Aruba since 1994. It has changed a lot since then and has been built up tremendously in that time. There was no Marriott Ocean Club or Surf Club. Palm Beach wasnt nearly as crowded as it is today. When those resorts were proposed there were many complaints that Palm Beach would be ruined and while more crowded, its still a beautiful area. .



Once the resort is built, it will never go away. The Ocean Club and Surf Club are forever. As you said Palm beach is much more crowded today because of all of the resorts Aruba allowed to be built. Why not keep a beach area uncluttered by people and high rise hotels? After the Fishermen's huts beach area is totally built up and filled to the max with resorts,  what will be next,  Baby Beach developments? In the US sections of coastline are deemed State or National parks so that current and future generations can visit prisitine, natural public beaches. Aruba has few swimmable public beaches left, and if they develop this one, that is one fewer for locals and tourists to enjoy.





gmarine said:


> Aruba has many windsurfing events that bring thousands of people to the island. I highly doubt the government is going to do anything that will negatively affect windsurfing community. Also, one hotel is not going to "cut off" wind as the email says. Nor will one hotel destroy the snorkeling areas. All beaches on Aruba are public, they cannot be restricted to private use..



All beaches are public, but the parking will become private. Can anyone drive up to the Marriotts and park to access Palm Beach? Nope, but you could before the Marriotts and other high rise resorts were built! All the way up Palm Beach the parking is restricted to the resorts PRIVATE parking lots. You have to cross PRIVATE property to acces the beaches for the majority of Palm Beach. Yes the beaches will remain public, but if the public beach access becomes blocked by private property owned by resorts, then the limited access in effect makes them private.

One hotel will not cut off the wind, but if you line up the high rise hotels here like the government allowed them to be lined up on Palm Beach yes they could. Do you really believe that the Ritz will be the only resort allowed to build here? Once the first one is built the flood gates are opened. Politicians say what is the big deal, it isn't like there isn't a resort there already. A precedent will have been set. The battle to save an area from development happens before the first development is built. Once the first one exists, more will inevitably be built. If it is possible to stop the development of the fishermen's hut area, at all, now is the time to do it.



gmarine said:


> As much as we all like things to remain as they were in the past, progress is necessary and development happens.



I am far from a tree hugger and I do believe in developing areas for commerce and residences, but not every desireable area that exists until no natural areas of value are left. If everyone had the attitude that progress is necessary and development will happen in all areas with commercial value we would have condo's right in front of Yosemite Falls, Marriott timeshares on the north rim of the Grand Canyon with Ritz Carltons on the south rim, Motel 6's throughout Yellowstone N P, a Hyatt Regency on top of Clingman's Dome, every mile of US shorline would have homes, motels, timeshares or condos, and every inch of prime real estate saved as nature parks would be sold to commercial interests. Aruba has precious few undeveloped swimmable beaches left, they need to save some for future generations before it is too late.

 I hope that many people sign this petition, that the government listens to the people, and that this area is set aside as a permanent national park for the enjoyment of current and future generations of Arubans and visitors. I doubt it can be saved but it is worth trying.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 24, 2010)

Are you aware that 20% of Aruba is already preserved as a national park ?  

I've been to Aruba more times than I can remember and have seen more complaints about different developments than I can remember. And all the the worries proved to be for nothing and with the exception of a more crowded beach, the changes were minimal.

We can argue all day about the development of Aruba but the bottom line is we dont live there. The people who's opinion matters are the ones who live there and who may want the jobs,revenue and tax dollars that a new resort brings in.

This petition seems to be done by tourists who maybe spend a week or so each year on Aruba. Has anyone involved in the petition bothered to check the opinion of the people who actually live in Aruba? If they didnt want the resort I'm sure they would be voicing their opinion to their own government.


----------



## tombo (Mar 24, 2010)

gmarine said:


> Has anyone involved in the petition bothered to check the opinion of the people who actually live in Aruba? If they didnt want the resort I'm sure they would be voicing their opinion to their own government.





Yes locals are opposed too. Here is an article from Aruba newspaper:


Construction of Ritz-Carlton proceeds
22 Maart, 2010, 09:28 (GMT -04:00)

Email dit artikel 
Print dit artikel 
 The excavator of constructor DHS, working on the terrain of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel behind Fisherman’s Hut. ORANJESTAD — The construction activities for the five-star hotel of Ritz Carlton behind Fisherman’s Hut have started. Clearance preparations on the terrain for the back garden of the hotel had already started last week.
By our reporter:
Ariën Rasmijn
It regards the terrain between the Marriott hotel and the second exit to Fisherman’s Hut. An excavator cleared the first part of the terrain last Saturday. According to foreman Carlos Rodriguez of constructor DHS, it is the only part that will be cleared for the time being. Partitions will be placed along the cleared terrain as well this week. Afterwards, the work containers from the constructors, amongst others Croon, Saint Contractors and DHC will be placed there. Rodriguez gave Amigoe a tour of the area where the hotel will be built between now and 2013. All cadastral markings had already been made, including the future sidewalk along the hotel. The hotel will be situated directly behind the eastern part of the beach and a considerable stretch behind the main road. The road will be restructured via a large traffic circle and be built at the current junction opposite the entrance of the Marriott hotel. According to Rogriguez, the final construction plans are less extensive than the original intention, despite the size of the project.
Excavator stopped
Campaigners against the arrival of the Ritz-Carlton were also present during the initial clearance activities. Amy Yrausquin-Roos, wife of AVP State-member Juan David Yrausquin, made a few calls to see if and how one could legally halt the activities. Her husband, also distinct opponent of the arrival of the five-star hotel, only has one vote in the parliament. “He is also given only twenty minutes on the floor. The decision is actually up to the government and Minister Sevinger to take action. For the time being, Hotelco is indeed allowed to start clearing the terrain”, says Amy. A mere handful of people showed up later on. One of them prevails upon the constructions workers to stop the excavator. Eventually he succeeds in contacting foreman Rodriguez who promptly endorses his request. When Rodriguez arrives at the site shortly afterwards, it appears the workers had actually finished their activities for the day. Actually, they had stopped an hour earlier because of the protest action. He promises his workers there is more work to be done on Monday, “when the trenches for the partitions will be dug.” According to him, the campaigners are entitled to protest. “This is your country and your nature. Fight for it”.
Nevertheless, he points out that considerable area’s of nature are being destroyed on the entire island for relatively small development projects. “Large terrains with old trees are cleared in Paradera and Santa Cruz. Nobody opposes that. Regarding this hotel? You should have started demonstrating a long time ago – when one had started working on the hotel strip.”
Online protest
A protest action had been announced via Facebook before Sunday morning, but was cancelled due to such short notice. Despite this difficult start, one can certainly observe a counter movement on the internet, stretching beyond the borders. “We receive mails from tourists and the online petition already received more than one-hundred signatures today”, a young campaigner said last Sunday at the terrain behind Fisherman’s Hut. “For example, we receive mails from timeshare holders who are sympathetic with this beach and feel cheated. One had promised there would be no more hotels.” More local opponents are also rebelling. An angler from Noord had posted pamphlets in the neighborhood, expressing his displeasure on the attitude of government and parliamentarians. According to him, many of the voters from Noord consider the disappearance of Fisherman’s Hut as thanks for their trust. “Some State-members say they are against, but nothing else happens.” It is reported that local newspapers had also refused to publish his argument.


----------



## chrisnwillie (Mar 24, 2010)

I have to agree here with gmarine. I just spent 4 weeks on the island and the vast majority of Arubans I spoke to, want the Ritz. I also watched them clearing the land, as it started during my stay.

I own at Playa Linda, and yes, the island has changed. Yes, it is now getting impossible for us at Playa Linda to cross the road in front of our resort. That area is drawing crowds in the evening, both tourists and locals, like I have never seen. 

Our beach is loaded with locals.....they come and enjoy the sea and sand as we do....they love the Wendys, the McDonalds, the Dunkin Donuts, etc.....

Bottom line for me is, this is their island. It's their country. I'm a visitor, a guest. Do I personally like all this building? All these fast food restaurants? All the traffic? No. But, most Arubans I spoke to, do. Therefore, I love the people, love the island, love my timeshare and will return regardless of the changes I don't personally 'approve' of.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 24, 2010)

From that article it sounds like there are some people against it but obviously not very many. If the vast majority of Aruban's were against the development I doubt the construction would be proceeding. 

And from what Chrisnwillie observed, most Arubans are for the development of the resort.


----------



## tombo (Mar 24, 2010)

gmarine said:


> Are you aware that 20% of Aruba is already preserved as a national park ?



How much of that 20% is swimmable ocean front beach area? None as far as I know. The national park is a beautiful desert with cactus and and wave swept cliffs where you can watch the ocean waves splash mist into the air as they crash on the rocks. The few beach areas in the National Park are all on the windward side of the island where the waves are so large and rough that swimming is a life threatening experience.  

You have a small beach called Boca Prins accessed by 4 wheel drive which is not swimmable http://www.fodors.com/world/caribbean/aruba/review-430629.html

Dos Playa Beach which is described as swimmable only for the thrill seekers and surfers http://www.aruba-travelguide.com/beaches/beach-2.html

The Natural Pool is a 4 wheel drive ride and only swimmable because it is not a beach, it is a pool surrounded by rocks protecting you from the violents surf and waves. 

If any of the 20% of the Island that is preserved as a National Park has a swimmable beach area, I have yet to find it. I love the national park, but the calm water preferred side of the Island has little undeveloped areas left, and what is left (like the fishermen's hut area) obviously is not preserved as a national park. 

This is a map of the Island showing the National Park. It is 18% of the Island, but it is an 18% that few would want to build on or vacation a whole week at. http://www.aruba.com/ExploretheIsland/maps.aspx

The National park is on the windward side of the Island where swimming is impossible on most days. All of the great beaches are developed except for the stretch between the Marriott and the lighthouse. If Ritz Carlton and others build there, there will be no nice undeveloped beaches left but Baby Beach. If I am missing some great National Park areas with swimmable beaches, please tell me where they are so I can go there next time.

If they totally develop the Fishermen's hut area it will not stop me from visiting Aruba because I only spend a small part of my vacation at the Fishermen's hut area (I will spend none there once it becomes developed), but it will be another piece of Paradise Lost which can never be recovered again. Surely they can save one nice swimmable beach area on this Island as an undeveloped destination for locals and tourists.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 24, 2010)

My point is there are preserved areas of the island and the beach area is still going to be swimmable. 
As far as undeveloped swimmable beaches try Boca Catalina, Hadacurari and Arashi. There are others but those three come to mind. I have spent many days on Aruba at unspoiled beaches. Many I dont even know the name of but there are plenty, you just have to leave the resort areas to find them.

I'm not for or against the develpment for two reasons. First, I dont live there. Second, I dont know anything about what the development entails.
Since you are against the development and posted this petition, do you know all the facts about it? For example, how much beach area will be taken up? Has an environmental study been done and if so what was the determination? What is the footprint of the hotel and how many acres is the resort going to take up? What is the maximum occupancy of the resort? How many employees is the resort expected to have and will a seperate parking area be needed for them? Are any other buildings being built besides the hotel? I'm sure there are dozens of questions that could be asked and someone could be expected to know if they are circulating a petition.

My point is, your in support of something that you dont know much about other than what you were told on a petition that is being circulated on a message board by people who dont even live on the island. Locals are apparently in support of it so why should people who visit a few days per year have anything to say about someone elses home?


----------



## tombo (Mar 24, 2010)

gmarine said:


> My point is there are preserved areas of the island and the beach area is still going to be swimmable.
> As far as undeveloped swimmable beaches try Boca Catalina, Hadacurari and Arashi.



Hadacurari Beach IS the Fishermen's huts area where they are planning to build the Ritz Carlton. You cite this as an example of a preserved beach to visit when this is the exact beach where they are building the Ritz Carlton!

Yes this is a nice beach that is CURRENTLY "preserved", but it will no longer be preserved as you describe it after the Ritz is constructed. This is why we are trying to stop the development of this area.

Here is the description of Hadacurari beach on an Aruba Beaches web site. web site:
http://www.aruba-travelguide.com/beaches/beach-1.html#hadicurari
Hadicurari (Fisherman's Huts)
White powder sand with some pebbles and stones, and very shallow water. Excellent for boardsailing, Hadikurari is the place of the annual Hi-Winds Pro Am Windsurfing Competion. Windsurfing accommodations (Sailboard Vacations & Aruba Boardsailing School) sits a couple of hundred yards up the street to the north of the beach. Accessible by public bus or car.

The first Ritz Carlton probably won't encompass the whole area, but eventually if resorts are allowed to develop here, Hadacurari beach will be like Palm beach. The Ritz Carlton is simply the first assault on the largest and nicest beach you describe as being "preserved".

Boca Catalina beach is already developed and surrounded by houses rather than High Rise Hotels. The reason this area is no very crowded is because it is surrounded by single family homes which in a way is good because no high rises will be built here with mega mobs of tourists descending on the beach each day. Aslo unlike the Ritz where they will relocate the public road to give the Ritz beach front access to Hadacurari Beach, the road at Boca Cataslina runs right by the ocean preventing the home owners from blocking access to the beach since you access it from the public road without having to cross private property. Once the Ritz is built you can't cross their property at will to access the beach. They will have security guards and parking passes.

Arashi Beach is the last beach you touted. Arashi beach is currently under assault from potential developers too.
This article says that they will build a 5 star hotel here by 2013, but not on the ocean, it will be across the street:
http://news.visitaruba.com/news/tierra-del-sol-five-star-hotel-at-arashi-in-2013


A Quote from the article:
"The guests will also use the Arashi-beach, but Van den Nieuwenhuijzen emphasizes that it will remain accessible for the public whatever the cost. "

So you named 3 preserved beaches. One is already developed and surrounded by homes, one is where they are building the Ritz which we are trying to stop if possible, and one is going to have a 5 star hotel built across the street from it by 2013.

Perhaps you can name some more prime undeveloped beaches in case the developers have missed them too. 

I just hope that there is a groundswell movement by locals to prevent the development of Hadacurari beach (fishermen's huts) before the last few undeveloped prime Aruban Beaches are covered with hotels and condos. From what I am reading, the assault on the last 2 has already begun.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 24, 2010)

Excuse me, I made a mistake about the name of the beach. Had I taken the time to do research on the internet before posting, as you have done, I would have caught the mistake. 
Like I said, I'm not for over developing but I dont know all the facts to make an informed decision. Blindly signing or passing around a petition without completely understanding the issue doesnt make sense to me. 
That the starters of the petition dont even live in the country makes no sense to me when it is the locals who support the development.

In my 16 years going to Aruba I've seen many complaints about development and they all have had two things in thing in common. First, they make assumptions about what MIGHT happen. 

Second they were started by uninformed outsiders who have no idea what the issue entails, other than they read about it on a message board. This is no different.
These people with the petition dont live there. They have no right to demand the government do anything. How would you like it if people from another country started a petition for something in Mississippi that you supported? It wouldnt make any sense would it?


----------



## ecwinch (Mar 24, 2010)

I am with GMarine on this one.

It's their island, it's their choice. Let's not perpetuate the image of the "Ugly American" by suggesting that we have a voice in what they decide to do. I think Aruba has had enough of that for at least another decade or so.


----------



## tombo (Mar 24, 2010)

gmarine said:


> Excuse me, I made a mistake about the name of the beach. Had I taken the time to do research on the internet before posting, as you have done, I would have caught the mistake.
> Like I said, I'm not for over developing but I dont know all the facts to make an informed decision. Blindly signing or passing around a petition without completely understanding the issue doesnt make sense to me.
> That the starters of the petition dont even live in the country makes no sense to me when it is the locals who support the development.
> ?



You slam the petition and those who promote it as uninformed, yet you cite a great example of an undeveloped beach to visit besides the Fishermen's huts area as Hadacurari beach to make a point that there are plenty of swimmable undeveloped beaches left in Aruba, when in fact Hadacurari beach is the exact beach where they will build the Ritz Carlton we are petitioning against. At least I am informed enough to know that the Fishermen's Huts and  Hadacurari  Beach are the same thing. In addition I am knowledgable enough about the facts to know that the other two beaches you cite as undeveloped places to swim are either already developed (Boca Catalina) or about to have a 5 star hotel built across the street from it (Arashi). Perhaps before slamming a petition and it's proponents as uniformed you should do a little research yourself. 

Did you even read the petition? You like to characterize the one's starting the petition as uninformed, yet you obviously didn't read a word of it.

The petition begins
 "To the Members of Parliament of Aruba
The petition of the undersigned citizens and visitors of Aruba"

This explains that it is being signed by both visitors and CITIZENS of Aruba, so obviously the petition is being signed by residents of Aruba too. To characterize the petition as all outsiders is to not read the first 2 lines of the petition. 

The petition has total transparency as you can see if you decide to read further into the petition because when you fill out the petition there is a drop down box where you declare yourself as either a Resident, an Aruban abroad, a timeshare owner, or a tourist. The government can easily ascertain how many of the petitioners are Aruban citizens and how many are not. What is there to complain about? It gives the Aruban tourism people the ability to easily see how tourists feel about the development (there is a section to place comments) and the government the ability to see how many on the petition are Aruban citizens who oppose the construction of the Ritz on this beach.



gmarine said:


> Second they were started by uninformed outsiders who have no idea what the issue entails, other than they read about it on a message board. This is no different



You state that people worry about the impact without having any of the facts. Once again simply read the petition. It reminds me of Congress voting for or condemning a bill without ever even reading it. The petition details adverse effects of building the hotel on the island and it's residents and cites studies to back up the facts. You on the other hand have no facts but adamnently state that the majority of Arubans are for the building of the Ritz  because one person on TUG posted and said the majority of people they talked to were for the hotel. Hardly a scientific study.

If you read the petition you will see that the authors not only researched the detrimental effects that the construction of this hotel will have, they cite 7 different studies from the University of Aruba, the Chamber of Commerce, and other sources to back up their assertations. Here is another part of the petition you must not have read:

"Furthermore, building of a hotel at the Fisherman's Huts will have detrimental effects for the island and its population since the disadvantages by far outweigh the advantages:

Each additional hotel room built will require at least 4 additional workers, which will result in an addition of 1,280 people. Furthermore, no provisions have been made to develop a high quality and productive labor market.

1. Infrastructural Effects: more cars, more traffic, congestion, crowding and displacement. Architecturally, the new non-green design, and the relocation of the road through local wetlands, will cause a decline in environmental health.

2. Business-Economic Effects: expanding the current room inventory will cause a negative spiral effect in terms of more rooms, lower occupancy rates in the industry and subsequent decline in industry rates and revenues. In terms of product planning and market development, there is a current void in positioning Aruba as an exclusive destination.

3. Environmental Effects: Fisherman's Huts is the exclusive nesting place in Aruba for the endangered loggerhead sea turtle, the area from the Marriott all the way to Malmok (and beyond) is known to have Indian archaeological deposits which are a valuable, fragile and limited cultural resource.

All independent studies and advices support the view that the construction of additional hotels is undesirable and irresponsible as the island has surpassed its carrying capacity and is now experiencing the costs of diminishing economic returns, social stress, and environmental destruction, with irreversible effects on the quality of experience for visitors and the quality of life of residents.

1. Chamber of Commerce & Industry - "Vision pa Gobernacion 2009-2013" dated May 2009
2. Wild Aruba
3. Nos Aruba 2025 - read full report
4. Sam Cole
5. University of Aruba, Strategic Tourism Action Plan 2007
6. University of Aruba, Nos Turismo di Manjan, Community analysis, 2009
7. University of Aruba, Tourism Intelligence Briefing, 2008"

The petition also lists legal reasons they feel the construction authorization was issued improperly:

"It follows with reasons to beleive that the permission to build was granted without proper authorization and details the issues.
"This property was granted without fulfilling all the necessary requirements. Some of these requirements included but are not limited to, a complete EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), a SEIA (Social Economic Impact Assessment).

Desarrollos Hotelco submitted an EIA which consisted of only a reference to an existing Executive Summary, which was originally prepared by Edminsten & Associates and submitted by the previous developer, Bazarian Int'l Financial Assoc. in 2005.

This is unacceptable given the superficial analysis, outdated numbers, and biased assumptions. Desarrollos Hotelco to date never submitted a complete and independent EIA.

Desarrollos Hotelco submitted SEIA consisted of only a reference to an existing Executive Summary, which was originally prepared by KPMG and submitted by the  previous developer, Bazarian Int'l Financial Assoc. in 2005. This is unacceptable. Desarrollos Hotelco to date never submitted a complete and independent EIA."

There are plenty facts in the petition if you would like to read it. I don't understand why you feel like you have to attack the petition, it's authors, and anyone who supports it without even reading it. If you don't care either way as you say, don't sign, but there is no reason to wrongly malign those who do as uninformed outsiders.

PS If people who vacationed in Mississippi annually wanted to start a petition to save a section of the Gulf Coast from development and invited Mississippi residents to sign, I would sign or not sign or not sign the petition depending on how I felt about it.  However I would not be offended and I wouldn't call people who vacation in my state annually uninformed outsiders. I would call them welcomed friends, who like many Mississippi residents, care about the future of the state they love.  The vote would always come down to the Mississippi residents, but the input and research by our guests would would be appreciated and considered by both the government and residents when deciding whether to develop or not.


----------

