The president of Globalia, the Spanish tourism conglomerate, in a press conference yesterday made a clarification that substantiated their claim regarding the construction of a hotel on National Park of the East grounds. The use of protected lands for the commercial development is being opposed by the National Hotel & Restaurant Association and the nation’s leading environmental groups, who say such action would set a dangerous precedent for other protected-status areas of the country.
At the press conference called yesterday to present his side of the story, Juan Jose Hidalgo, the head of Spanish conglomerate Globalia, showed journalists the letter he received from President Hipolito Mejia dated 14 January 2004 – the same day on which the Executive Branch submitted a bill seeking to exclude lots 20-A and 24-A to the Senate for approval. States the letter: “I am pleased to communicate that on this date I have authorized the start of construction works of the project known as Gran Palace Bayahibe Beach Resort, sponsored by the company you head, in line with the legislation that governs such matters and approved by the Tourism Ministry, so that it may be developed with success in the eastern region of the country.” A bill now in the Senate’s hands requests congressional approval to expropriate lot 24-A and lot 20-A from the National Park. Hidalgo also showed proof of his purchase of lot 24-A, with an area of 246,579 square meters, on 28 October 2000 for nearly US$3.7 million. Environmental Law 64-00, which at present prohibits construction on park lands, is dated 18 August 2000. Hidalgo told the press that he would be amenable to carry out the construction of the resort elsewhere if viable alternatives were presented to guarantee his company’s investment.
Hidalgo attributed the opposition to the construction of a hotel in the park to competitive interests.
El Caribe, in its coverage of the National Park saga, asks who the government benefited in the bill sent to the Senate with the request to similarly exclude lot 20A, now that Hidalgo has only owned up to his ownership of the property at 24-A.