We need a better port

Dear editor.

Now that we are hearing the facts directly from the developers we can see that certain things that were being said were not true. I don’t think people were intentionally spreading things that were false but I believe that because we did not have the information we were guessing and there was a lot of speculation about certain things. After hearing the recent presentations we now know that there will be 30% less footprint in the port area so less damage is being done and that the Eden Rock site will NOT be destroyed at all. In fact Eden Rock ia almost the distance of 2 football fields away from the edge of the construction area.

It now seems that Seven Mile Beach is not going to be damaged either. To be honest I never believed it would be based on the earlier reports.

The developers will no longer use a hydraulic dredging process which everyone says is more harmful, they will now be using a manual dredging process which is better for the environment.

Because of all the anchoring during all these years with the cruise ships anchoring further out, a lot of our port area has already been damaged extensively over the past 40 years. Having the ships come in to shore will decrease that harmful anchoring.

Even though the government will give up $2.32 from the passenger fees towards paying for the port, they will get more passengers so their total revenues will not be reduced but will actually INCREASE slightly over the 25 years. To be honest, even if the revenues are a bit less we will still only be paying a small amount and not anywhere close to the amount we need to build the port.

If we can get a better port facility and we are not losing any money then I think it’s a good idea. We will need a better port for both cruise passengers and our cargo for the future.

Gracey Johnson