Dear Editor, It was with great interest that I read your editorial today on the issue regarding Divi
and Fort Amsterdam. You spoke of compromise, which I absolutely agree with.
But I have to question. Where is the compromise on Divi’s part?
They erected the sign and fence without informing or discussing anything with government. It is also my understanding that when Minister Jacobs asked to meet with
the manager, she was told that he is not authorized to meet with her. That’s compromise?
I don’t think so. In my opinion and of many others, the sign and gate were put up to intimidate and keep people out, not encourage them to visit the historical site.
I disagree with your veiled suggestion that perhaps some development (Divi business venture) should be allowed to take place. This would be a huge mistake, in my opinion. There should be no compromise on this.
The only development that should be allowed is to make the site a safer, more protected, more informative site for the public to visit. Restore the ruins! Mark trails with guide ropes for visitors’ protection! Perhaps a small museum! Divi has shown over the years in many ways that its intention is to keep local residents off its property. I doubt that any development planned by Divi would actually encourage the community to visit.
I hope Minister Jacobs and the Monument Council continue to pursue this, and that the Fort can be made open to the pubic, and can become a viable historical spot for all to appreciate.
Barbara Cannegieter – TDH