12 Comments so far

1. Manuel Pinto on November 1, 2009 2:03 pm

   The current trajectory / plan / ruling / instructions is to demolish both hotels THIS week: Las Palmas and Hotel Suerre. While most people agree that strong consequences should be issued such as fines, loss of permits, etc – there is great concern that the decision to return the affected area to it’s “original condition” will most certainly cause MUCH GREATER environmental damage.

   Two wrongs don’t make a right.

   Bringing bulldozers, backhoes and hundreds of trucks to remove the structures and refill the lagoons to accomplish this will create an embarrassing environmental situation, killing significant wildlife in the process.

   A more logical, environmental and social solution must be found. We know that many local organizations are actively trying to find and suggest solutions to avoid what is otherwise moving full speed forward. The article below written in Spanish also summarizes the same point.

   http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/octubre/19/opinion2127843.html

2. mike on November 1, 2009 2:28 pm

   Manuel, you are spot on about the potential for even greater environmental harm to be done by the demolition than the alternatives.

   This case is SO old and often personality driven, that I don’t think people on either side of the issue are seeing things clearly.

   Thanks for bringing some much needed clarity to a very murky situation.

3. Christer Ericsson on November 1, 2009 3:51 pm

   I agree with the previous two posts and would like to point out the irony of an environmental study made in 2005 indicated that the wildlife now prospering in the artificially amplified canal/lagoon is very similar to that of Gandoca-Manzanillo lagoon. This will now be landfill? Exactly how much wildlife is ok to kill in order to “restore”?

   The social and economic impact is left out of the equation. What will happen to the 30 full time employees at Suerre? Do their families have to pay for the wrongs that happened some 17 years ago by a previous owner. This affects everybody. Not only the two hotels now in the cross hairs. With the two largest hotels out of the picture major tour operators counting on their capacity then lose viability in coming to Caribesur and they will cancel all their business to the area. This will then of course not only affect the hotels involved but all business in the area from restaurants to souvenir vendors. What impact will this have on investor confidence in general in the area? Is it reasonable to believe potential hoteliers will take their business elsewhere due to judicial insecurity in regards to property rights ? What is the population supposed to live of if the tourist industry is crippled? The demolition is setting a catastrophic precedent not only for those who live and have their business south of Rio Cocles but all of Caribesur

4. Manuel PInto on November 1, 2009 4:20 pm

   Again, most of the community seems in agreement that the current path is not correct – BUT – at the same time it is also equally important to remember and point out that this area is a WILDLIFE refuge and NOT a development refuge.

   I personally live within the refuge and abide to the regulations set forth. It should be considered a PRIVILEGE and not a right to live within the refuge – and as such – if environmental guidelines are broken – there must be logical and predefined consequences. In the case of Las Palmas – losing that privilege to occupy the refuge seems correct (IMO) – but at this point to destroy it seems extreme and illogical – for may reasons. As for Suerre, it was believed that they paid their dues, indemnified and permitted to continue. The manner and timeliness of the order for them to cease is odd at best and is another serious point of contention.

   There is a fine line between protecting the environment and balancing that with development. That line has to be clearly defined by the authorities and must be clearly followed by the occupants of the refuge.

   As a realtor, I go out of my way to clearly identify and explain to my clients what living within the refuge means – what can and cannot be done and it is far different then other areas with far less protections. If we are to be able to continue to use the refuge as mixed use (humans and wildlife side by side and in balance) and set an example to the world that it CAN be done, then we must understand and respect the guidelines set forth so that we continue to preserve it into the future.

5. Colinsito on November 1, 2009 4:33 pm

   I can just hear the “self-proclaimed” environmentalists jumping for joy over this decision.

   Some will see it as a victory in keeping the area a cheap place they can live cheaply, pay virtually no taxes and contribute as little as possible to actually improving the economic standards of the local citizens.

   This action will only help keep the locals marginally or unemployed and greatly discourage foreign investment.

6. Christer Ericsson on November 1, 2009 5:16 pm

   Manuel,
   you are correct. Suerre paid a restitution and were indemnified. The resolution (MINAET R183-2005) however is being ignored. Yes, ignored. Evidently of no value in the eyes of this judge at Controlaria. In the light of this can you, Manuel, with a clear conscience recommend anybody buying anywhere in the refuge ? Yes, anywhere south of Rio Cocles and Manzanillo. Do you have a comprehensive list of all the requisites and what can be done and not done? Can you guarantee that this will not change with time, government or whim of a judge? Can you actually gurantee that the owner have ANY rights at all?

7. Manuel Pinto on November 1, 2009 6:14 pm

   There IS a manual of EXACT rules, regulations, guidelines and procedures as to what can and cannot be done in the refuge – YES. It is part of the Plan de Manejo. We have a copy at our office if anyone is interested – as it is otherwise out of print for now. It is my understanding that Las Palmas did violate some of those rules – such as draining of the swamp, creation of canals, cutting of trees, etc.

   We can also still with confidence offer most TITLED properties within the refuge to our clients – but again, go out of our way to clearly explain the limitations of what can or can’t be done – so as to limit any surprises and negative consequences. There are other properties based on specific locations and characteristics that I cannot with a clear conscious advise to purchase today.

   We are currently working with the muni and MINAE to create a certification program to local Realtors – certifying that a basic course has been taken and an understanding of the regulations can be properly communicated to their respective clients – thus eliminating or reducing many “misunderstandings”.

   Costa Rica – in principle – is a country of rights (too much sometimes ) – therefore I believe that Suerre has a strong case for contesting the orders. They have accepted and paid their fines in order to supposedly continue to operate freely. Let’s hope that be the case.

8. Christer Ericsson on November 1, 2009 10:36 pm

   I am glad you are confident, Manuel. I know that tonight all the staff at Suerre is burning the midnight oil fighting for their survival. And as you yourself say, lets hope that be the case. Well, I for one need more then hope. If a signed resolution by MINAET doesn’t protect you I sure wouldn’t bet my house on a out of print Plan de Manejo.

9. Paul Cone on November 2, 2009 9:44 am

   I’m sorry, I have no sympathy for what seems to be mostly the investor and real estate community speaking so far here. Costa Rica is not all about “foreign investment”. I have sympathy for those losing their jobs, but only so much. If it was a business that made guns or produced toxic waste that was being shut down, and people lost their jobs, should I also have sympathy? It is sad that it took so long for justice to be served but hopefully this will serve as an example of the consequences of breaking the rules. Two wrongs don’t make a right — they make two wrongs that should be remedied.

10. Christer Ericsson on November 2, 2009 10:56 pm

    Justice was served. Suerre remains open and the jobs were saved. And Suerre is not owned by foreigners but by Tico nationals if that makes any difference. I saw the tears of joy from people who’s jobs were saved. They are our friends and neighbors and I can assure you they know they know very well the reason people come as their guest is the natural beauty beauty that surrounds us and take great care in preserving it.

11. Paul Cone on November 3, 2009 10:40 am

    If they really want to take great care, then let them follow the letter of the laws that are designed to protect that natural beauty.

12. mike on November 3, 2009 11:47 am

    Paul, I don’t think anyone here disagrees with you on that premise. Especially iin terms of any future consruction/development either in or near the reserve.

    But both those structures have been there a very long time. Whether they ever should have been allowed to be built in the first place, is a big old moot point.

    Personally, I’m glad Suerre was spared the wrecking ball. the owners made good faith efforts to comply with regualtions and make restitution for past mistakes, many of which they did not make, so they didn’t deserve the wrecking ball.

    I also know a couple of people who work there and am very glad that they, given the state of the economy and the fact that, with US carriers having cancelled a total of 1000 flights in and out Costa Rica as this high season approaches because of lack of demand, will not be out of work. Because jobs are not likely to be easy to find for anyone.

    In terms of Las palmas, if it gets demolished, let’s just hope and pray the clean up and salvage job that gets done is environmentally sound and profesionally managed.

    Otherwise, well, a lot of damage could yet be done to the reserve.