As the crisis involving the proposed closure of the Pelican/Simpson Bay Resort has become a reality, and the gates of the resort have been shuttered, leaving hundreds of travelers scrambling to find and pay for often inferior replacement accomodations, I have received many emails and comments.
Many have accused me of having either a bias or an agenda. Not true, I come in with no preconceptions; I have no dog in the fight. I do form opinions based on the information I recieve, and several factors contribute to that.
Several have asked why I haven’t published any of the letters to the editor critical of the new “owners”.
Steve, this is for you. This seemed to be one of the better letters I saw, though i have not read every single posting. If there are others that might be worth looking at, feel free to forward me the links.
One factor I will point out that played a role, consciously or unconsciously, is the letters I did use or quote all came from readers/owners who did not hide behind anonymous. Especially impactful to me if someone is going to level accusations or challenge the ethics of someone else.
I’ve been asked if there were points in some opposed to the new owner groups that I wished to refute.
In fact, there are, using the letter below as a “position paper” if you will.
I have seen several cite the “millions in maintenance fees placed in off shore accounts”. I have not seen specific documentation of this accusation, but it is my understanding that Royal manages properties in a number of countries; I’m guessing the bulk of the funds collected is centralized in a country other than the particular resorts they manage. Until I see something more substantial to the accusation, it comes under “Have you stopped beating your wife” class of question.
More information can absolutely help me make a new decision.
The loss of two hundred jobs leads to the domino multiplier costing 800 jobs. Again, I have no reason to challenge the reports that have indicated that the new management would preserve at least around 100 of those jobs, and as many as 145 positions. So using the same logic, it could be argued that the union insistence on maintaining the same work force for a property in financial straits is in fact responsible for impacting the livelihood of 4-600 people.
And on the issue of jobs, where is it written that jobs that may have been necessary before, still are necessary and will always be necessary? I’m supposing the demand for horse shoers was greater in the 1800’s than it is today. And the drop in black smith business probably meant less demand for anvils, and horse shoe nails.
You don’t see as many people driving around delivering milk in glass bottles to the box on the side of your house; more of our bridge tolls are collected automatically by transponders, and you don’t need Madge to connect your call to Ethel anymore.
People should get paid to do the jobs they do; and there should be enough people doing the jobs to ensure the pleasurable vacation experience owners have enjoyed and come to expect for almost three decades from a resort that it is clear is much loved by all sides of the debate.
Hopefully reports that this could be resolved within 48 hours are not overly optimistic and lead to a long lasting solution to a resort that has had its share of problems, both man made and natural.
Feel free to email me here.
We are Pelican timeshare owners and have come to this wonderful island for nearly twenty years. We have made many friends and have indeed found it to be the “Friendly Island.” We bought into Pelican while staying there at an RCI exchange. We found the local staff to be friendly and exactly what we wanted. Soon, many of those staff became not employees to us, but friends and “extended family.”
What Royal, QIT and the “new owners” are doing to the employees and timeshare owners is criminal. It affects the island’s economy seriously. It is obvious that Messrs Corso and Sutton have planned this for some time and have not only bilked the timeshare owners out of several millions in “maintenance fees” placed in off-shore accounts. They have also removed the income of nearly 200 residents of the island.
If you use the normal effect, that one employee supports four other employees of other businesses, it means this felonious activity has affected over 800 residents of our beautiful island. It is a domino effect and will be felt economically throughout the island, I am sure.
It is now the time for the parliament to stand up and do what is needed. I do not think it out of reason for the parliament to step in, “nationalise” the resort and return it to its rightful owners, both timeshare owners and countrymen of our island home. We all have a vested interest in seeing “Pelican” returned to operation and keeping the “operating” funds where they belong, not in an “off-shore account.”
Name withheld on request.