sudden movement re destruction of the new pier

[Bluespicker]

That's some great news if it happens. I remember when they were building that monstrosity.....the sound of the pile drivers sucked and we could never figure out why they needed a large pier there. I had figured it had something to do with the new GPR and that more large resorts would follow next to it. Either way I hope the pier gets torn down and any more mega resorts stay away from town.

[beer_dude]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Dude -- Beer Dude -- the accompanying album cover??? Come on, you're crapping out on us (heh heh)...

Steve

Steve here's the other half of the subject!

[Heather]

I read an article in Por Esto yesterday about the pier. From what I could understand (my Spanish reading skills aren't perfect), it appears that this past Thursday, Ultramar began making REPAIRS to the pier from where it was damaged during the hurricane.

Whomever wrote the article seemed pretty angry that this company continues to act with impunity despite its orders to demolish the pier. The article cited seeming indifference on the part of federal authorities to stop Ultramar and said that the owner of Ultramar is making a mockery of the amparo (amparo is, I think, a cease-and-desist order). So the saga continues.

By the way, Steve, I'm sure you read this article, too, so please correct any errors in what I perceived to be what it was about. I just like reading the newspaper for practice.

[ryberg]

Thanks, Beer Dude. Like the Clash cover a bit better.

Originally Posted by Heather

I read an article in Por Esto yesterday about the pier. From what I could understand (my Spanish reading skills aren't perfect), it appears that this past Thursday, Ultramar began making REPAIRS to the pier from where it was damaged during the hurricane.

Didn't see that article but you're right (and your Spanish must be doing OK!) because that was what Delmy told me she found out when she recently looked into some machinery out there on the end of it. We knew it couldn't be for demolition already, as that would have constituted a construction-type project in Mexico beginning ahead of schedule. But the question then becomes why the same people going for (and failing to get) an injunction to stop the destruction of the pier would at the same time spend money on repairing it...

Whomever wrote the article seemed pretty angry that this company continues to act with impunity despite its orders to demolish the pier. The article cited seeming indifference on the part of federal authorities to stop Ultramar and said that the owner of Ultramar is making a mockery of the amparo (amparo is, I think, a cease-and-desist order).

I'd pretty much agree with that view myself, I think.

Steve

[MikeW]

So the trick is:
Find out the names of the people being bought, or not doing their jobs, and get their names published.

[PortlandNative]

Does anyone know if the Court's decision was reduced to writing? If so, I'd love to get my hands on a copy of the Order. I'm curious if the denial was based on substantive or procedural grounds. It's possible that continued litigation may be on the horizon, if the issue of illegality has not been completely adjudicated. For instance, the Court may have merely ditched the Motion on the question of jurisdiction.
Ryberg, do have any way of getting your hands on a copy of the written opinion, if there was one?

[ryberg]

Sorry, not that well connected! And now that you mention it, I don't remember seeing or hearing in any of the recent reports such details along those lines. However the implication (if for no other reason than by omission of any others) was pretty clearly that the court was upholding the ruling of PROFEPA (read EPA), which focused on a principal and secondary reason:

principal: failure to include mention of nearby coral reefs in the EIS that was submitted by the owners (or those they hired to do the study) as part of the application/approval process for the project in the first place

secondary: reported use of the pier for refueling or other fuel-related transport in violation of the restrictions established for its use upon approval of the project

So pretty substantive, if that is in fact what this latest injunction rejection was based on.

Steve

[PortlandNative]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Sorry, not that well connected! And now that you mention it, I don't remember seeing or hearing in any of the recent reports such details along those lines. However the implication (if for no other reason than by omission of any others) was pretty clearly that the court was upholding the ruling of PROFEPA (read EPA), which focused on a principal and secondary reason:

principal: failure to include mention of nearby coral reefs in the EIS that was submitted by the owners (or those they hired to do the study) as part of the application/approval process for the project in the first place

secondary: reported use of the pier for refueling or other fuel-related transport in violation of the restrictions established for its use upon approval of the project

So pretty substantive, if that is in fact what this latest injunction rejection was based on.

Steve

No doubt that's on the merits! My Lord, what's with these people?!! They casually failed to address the reefs in the EIS??!!!! Unbelievable.

[ryberg]

The new pier was clausurado (closed by government order due to violations) yesterday by PROFEPA, the main environmental protection agency in Mexico, at the federal level. Newspapers say that that the PROFEPA representative for the State of Quintana Roo, Guadalupe Márquez, put through the order.

The reports say, however, that demolition of the pier will be under the purview of SEMARNAT, Secretaría de Medio-Ambient, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (or Environment, Natural Resources & Fishing).

Apparently PROFEPA officials oversaw the removal by Ultramar workers of Ultramar materials or belongings on the pier, as no one will even be allowed to set foot on it, much less use it, while the order remains in effect.

Steve

[Jimmy-James]

Originally Posted by ryberg

The new pier was clausurado (closed by government order due to violations) yesterday by PROFEPA, the main environmental protection agency in Mexico, at the federal level. Newspapers say that that the PROFEPA representative for the State of Quintana Roo, Guadalupe Márquez, put through the order.

The reports say, however, that demolition of the pier will be under the purview of SEMARNAT, Secretaría de Medio-Ambient, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (or Environment, Natural Resources & Fishing).

Apparently PROFEPA officials oversaw the removal by Ultramar workers of Ultramar materials or belongings on the pier, as no one will even be allowed to set foot on it, much less use it, while the order remains in effect.

Steve

Again, another positive step in the right direction but I won't be doing my dance of joy until that blight is fully removed.

Thanks for the updates Steve.

[PortlandNative]

Good news. At least they can't haul cruise ship passengers to that pier as long as the Order is in effect.

Thanks for tracking this issue, Steve.

[ryberg]

It's been a good while since we've seen a cruise ship off shore here. Must be several weeks now, at least.

A follow-up point: one report indicates that this recent move was appropriately timed in light of yesterday being World Environment Day.

Steve

[billwarm]

I have only been to Playa once and I remember a pier by the Porto Real and one south of that by 1st street. Which one is this thread addressing?

Thanks,
Billwarm

[TnJ]

Originally Posted by billwarm

Which one is this thread addressing?

one near p. real...

[TnJ]

Originally Posted by ryberg

It's been a good while since we've seen a cruise ship off shore here. Must be several weeks now, at least.
Steve