It also say relocation of all members. Sounds like 3 plazas (they don't say how many units) and a 300 car parking lot? Can't fit much else.
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
Sosua Beach Unions Want More Involvement
- Status
It also say relocation of all members. Sounds like 3 plazas (they don't say how many units) and a 300 car parking lot? Can't fit much else.
Oh look...you can kind of see a model of the area.
detrasdelrumor.com.do
Asociación de vendedores de Sosúa y Ministerio de Turismo Llegan a un acuerdo.
PUERTO PLATA,- En el de hoy el Ministerio de Turismo y Asociación de vendedores de la playa Sosúa arribaron a un acuerdo de reubicación, luego de una importa
detrasdelrumor.com.do
Just as good as this board
rumours…
Unfortunately no plan either to find on the CEIZTUR website (link to the plans but they are not to find there anymore...
https://we.tl/t-BVwpJZlSlX (ENLACE PLANOS)
But a lot of information regarding costs and so on.....
The ones interested have look at the below...
ceiztur.gob.do
https://we.tl/t-BVwpJZlSlX (ENLACE PLANOS)
But a lot of information regarding costs and so on.....
The ones interested have look at the below...
Comité Ejecutor de Infraestructuras de Zonas Turisticas | CEIZTUR - Licitaciones públicas nacionales e internacionales - CEIZTUR-CCC-LPN-2022-0003
Comité Ejecutor de Infraestructuras de Zonas Turisticas | CEIZTUR
ceiztur.gob.do
It has been written several times that "The Beach Vendors have no legal rights".
Maybe or maybe not.
A very knowledgable friend told me about the concept of Adverse Possession.
In a nutshell:
It is the legal concept where Title can be granted to someone who resides on or is in possession of another persons land.
It would require a Dominican Attorney to review the facts of the case to determine if the Beach Vendors or the organization or individuals currently in control of the property currently under discussion could qualify for a claim.
Would anyone with any real legal knowledge like to share their insight on this concept?
Because from my perspective it would seem that there is enough money at stake that if a claim was made and the possibility of prevailing in the legal action existed...there would be attempts made to sit down at the settlement table really quickly.
You can get more with a kind word and a gun...than with just a kind word.
Maybe or maybe not.
A very knowledgable friend told me about the concept of Adverse Possession.
In a nutshell:
It is the legal concept where Title can be granted to someone who resides on or is in possession of another persons land.
It would require a Dominican Attorney to review the facts of the case to determine if the Beach Vendors or the organization or individuals currently in control of the property currently under discussion could qualify for a claim.
Would anyone with any real legal knowledge like to share their insight on this concept?
Because from my perspective it would seem that there is enough money at stake that if a claim was made and the possibility of prevailing in the legal action existed...there would be attempts made to sit down at the settlement table really quickly.
You can get more with a kind word and a gun...than with just a kind word.
The President of the Country is involved , so its highly doubtful that his People have not checked out about these matters of Property Rights of squatters , or " Adverse Possession" etc etc etc ( and they most definitely are Squatters at least on the Public Beach part)
again ..these are very intelligent people who are running the Show and they have BIGGER GUNS ... the rest of us are CLUELESS in Such Big Business and Tourism Matters which affects the entire North Coast ..
This is a Done deal ..anyone who cant see it just does not understand how things work in the DR .. all the very obvious signs and blessings are right there to see.
and again, we are all just GUESTS ..
again ..these are very intelligent people who are running the Show and they have BIGGER GUNS ... the rest of us are CLUELESS in Such Big Business and Tourism Matters which affects the entire North Coast ..
This is a Done deal ..anyone who cant see it just does not understand how things work in the DR .. all the very obvious signs and blessings are right there to see.
and again, we are all just GUESTS ..
Title by adverse possession is a very common and well known concept in the US. The rules vary state by state. Many require the taxes to have been paid,. No idea if it exists here. Many of the casitas are within the 60 meter set back, so the point is moot. for them. I'd be real surprised if the others haven't already looked into this.
Google translated the above:
For some reason, I don't believe that anything close all of the current association members will be in that new square to be constructed. Anyone think this will house 50 odd businesses? Nor does this account agree with other reports that there will be ONE plaza and TWO restaurants in other locations with associated bathrooms. I think Detras is detras on this one. But that is just me.
In General, Fabio is pretty good. He missed the mark on this one since there is no way all vendors can fit in one plaza. And there is only one plaza, not three in the governments plans. He also failed to mention the very significant 300 parking spaces.
Note they carefully state members of the association. I'm guessing there are less members than there are persons renting space from association members.
I don't know the exact status of the law here, but in most countries squatters can gain rights to the land after they have occupied it for many years (usually between 15-25 years). So typically, as long as the true owner asserts a claim to his own land and evicts the squatters before the expiration of that period, the clock on the squatters rights goes right back to zero and they again need to spend the prescribed period of time before they can acquire it based upon squatters rights.
There is some precedent, like this, which is about rural land and it is very specific as to it being farm land:
High Court rules for squatters’ right’s
<p>Santo Domingo.- a right to the lawful, peaceful, continuous and uncontested possession of rural propertieswas acknowledged by the Constitutional Court on, which on Monday issued ruling TC/0036/12, against the Dominican Agrarian Institute (IAD). The constitutional ruling for Isidro Melo Otaño...
dominicantoday.com
Another that seems to favor owners and not squatters, but the wording is confusing as in many articles I read on DR news.
Squatters, illegal evictions in the District Attorney’s crosshairs
<p>Santo Domingo.- The frequent invasions of urban and farmlands by squatters seriously violates the right to property and pose a permanent threat to the country’s social stability, according to business leaders and professionals. They said the actions by what National District Attorney, Yeni...
dominicantoday.com
With the backing of the President of the DR and the Ministry of Tourism, any squatters on Sosua Beach don't stand a chance in court. That is just my opinion, What does the DR1 legal team say? What exactly are the laws? If anyone finds them please post a link.
As I've said before, I don't expect any of the current vendors ending up in a plaza. The Executive Branch is involved, the President probably walked away with a Penthouse and 10 plaza spots. He didn't fly all the way to Sosua and go home with nothing. The remaining plaza spot leases got handed out to other gov't suits and Presidential cronies. Those plaza spots are valuable money makers because of the location and the future condos/Hotel. I'm sure they're long gone.
Comments like "relocation of all members...plazas" is just fluff and BS to keep the beach vendors calm and compliant till it's too late.
@windeguy
I am waiting for you to address the possibility that the Beach Vendors or the organization organizing and renting to the Beach Vendor could have rights under the legal concept of Adverse Possession.
This legal concept makes many of the assertions you have made like "The Beach Vendors have no rights" dead wrong factually.
But if you were expressing your opinion.
I understand that and respect them.
No one knows if this concept has been explored.
But a case could be made they could indeed have rights.
As far as I know a legal case has not been made in the courts.
But if I am wrong, I am sure someone will let me know.
Someone tell T-Dog to stop reading the thread.
His commentary is not funny and only shows he has nothing of substance to contribute.
I am waiting for you to address the possibility that the Beach Vendors or the organization organizing and renting to the Beach Vendor could have rights under the legal concept of Adverse Possession.
This legal concept makes many of the assertions you have made like "The Beach Vendors have no rights" dead wrong factually.
But if you were expressing your opinion.
I understand that and respect them.
No one knows if this concept has been explored.
But a case could be made they could indeed have rights.
As far as I know a legal case has not been made in the courts.
But if I am wrong, I am sure someone will let me know.
Someone tell T-Dog to stop reading the thread.
His commentary is not funny and only shows he has nothing of substance to contribute.
I am sticking with my story that the have NO rights at all. If they explore this concept in the courts, the ONLY people that will win are the LAWYERS.
You come up with something that is not proven to apply, a legal concept, and call what I say dead wrong. OK. Have it your way. I am wrong you are right.
At the end of this, let us see what actually happens, shall we? This is the DR. As some like to say the rules are made to be broken. In this situation, don't you think the association would have thought of this if it were an option? At least you are now done waiting for my response.
- Status