Home > News > Carifesta Avenue Lands

Carifesta Avenue Lands

//
Comments are Off

The AFC has noted that the Government is in discussions with a company from Qatar to dispose of lands on Carifesta Avenue – namely NIS and GNS grounds, for the construction of a hotel and boardwalk, on the basis that these lands are State Lands.

The Party also notes the fact that the ownership of these grounds is under dispute – whereby the City Council is claiming ownership, additionally, there is a claim that there are restrictive covenants on these grounds, limiting their usage for recreational purposes only.

Irrespective, the Party notes that no information has been made publicly available about either the Government’s Urban Renewal Plan or the process to be employed in transferring ownership.

The AFC demands that the disposal of any state lands, particularly in prime locations, be done in an open and transparent manner.

Recall that several officers under the APNU+AFC government have been charged for allegedly disposing of state properties at claimed below market value, should the disposal of these properties, not be done in an open and transparent manner, similar charges will be leveled on all officers based on the precedence established by the current government.

Any claims by the Government that the value of the lands have been set by the Valuation Department should be taken with a pinch of salt. All market values previously established by this agency have been disputed – notably for acquisition of lands for the Gas to Shore project as well as for New Demerara Harbour has been deemed as unrealistic and are currently being challenged in the Courts.

Current Market Value is determined by what the market aka persons or companies interested in purchasing these lands would be willing to pay.

In the case against former Minister Winston Jordan, the PPP Government claimed that 2.5 acres of land, in the Kingston area, which was sold to a private individual was worth more than G$5B – the country now expects these grounds, covering some 13.2 acres, five times larger than the disputed property, will be valued with the same base acreage rate.