Cedrick resigns from his district

https://www.thedailyherald.sx/islan...-ends-with-his-resignation-from-district

He also brought up Orient in a combative speech?

He asked why Orient is not in the red zone?

Property in the red zone can not rebuild!

https://stmaartennews.com/french-side-news/homes-red-zone-areas-french-st-martin-will-not-rebuilt/

Interesting

I thought that was interesting as well. Why would anyone want the Orient Bay area listed in the red zone? That would be a foolish thing to do with the island still in recovery mode.

My uninformed impression is that residences in other St Martin areas, equally as exposed as Orient Bay, are being listed in the red zone and told that they cannot rebuild their homes on family-owned land. Meanwhile, people are rebuilding on the equally exposed beach in Orient with no such red zone restriction.

Can anyone confirm or refute my uninformed impression?

That would be my uninformed impression also, along with the fact that Orient Bay is mostly a tourist occupied area, with few homes being owned by local St Martiners, as compared to Sandy Ground, which is local owners and residents, for the most part.

Nuance to red-zone restrictions; homes intended for year-round occupation can't be built in them, but other construction, including hotels can. I suspect the issue is that (as Carol has mentioned) around Orient there aren't as many locals attempting to build year-round housing, but that non-residents are being allowed to build/rebuild despite the area being red-zoned whereas locals in the other areas are not.

Sounds like France is allowing money to talk and rich builders to skirt red-zone restrictions. This is of course unfair to the local citizens, especially those who are trying to rebuild family homes.

Thank you for the clarification.
carib cheers from someone easily confused.
doctorj

Jenni--thanks. I kind of thought that was what was going on, in addition to many homes in Orient Bay being owned by people from mainland France.

I am totally confused.

f the government classifies an area as red-zone, does that mean no building can be done in that area or is it just full time residence(s)? I don't understand that difference because a single family dwelling is a single family dwelling whether it is occupied full time by a single family or occupied by multiple different families.

Does a red-zone designation mean that if a family is displaced they can no longer build a home there and therefore lose the rights to the property? What about the red-zone designation for temporary housing such as B&B's, rental properties, and/or hotels? Does the government then seize the property and give it away to the rich builders/developers in that case?

If the red-zone designation allows for the government to seize people's properties and then have a developer come in, is that possibly what Cedric is hinting at? If Orient Bay is designated a red-zone and the government can then seize property, wouldn't that then allow for a developer to come in a rebuild Club Orient?

Just my confusion trying to decipher what exactly the red-zone designation is.

Do you really believe a rich developer would buy the land in a red zone, such as Club Orient if it were in a red zone, and rebuild the small chalets that made the place what it was or would they build a big grande hotel for other wealthy vacationers. Think that would be the end of Club Orient? I do!

Up front: Club O already has permission to rebuild from the government. And Club O is not (currently, as least!) for sale.

I suspect the difference between residential vs. temporary housing (i.e. someone staying in a hotel) is that people staying temporarily are going to be easier to evacuate. We know that here in the US we have, with alarming regularity, people refusing to evacuate in the face of an oncoming storm because they want to "protect their home". At some level I understand the impulse to protect the homestead. Honestly, I'm still massively P.O.ed that the parts of Club O that survived the storm were looted because there was no one around to protect it. Still, lives are more important!

Is this unfair to those who have lived on a patch of land for generations that is marked as red zone? Yeah. And this isn't an easy thing. We have this same issue in the US where Federal Flood insurance pays to rebuilt houses that will be destroyed again in the next decade or so. It's very sad when people can't rebuild. On the other hand, the government catches flack when they can't save people who have stayed behind...