SINT MAARTEN (COMMENTARY – By Tadzio Bervoets) - For generations, Mullet Bay has been part of everyday life in St. Maarten. We go there with our families, swim, fish and spend time with friends. People earn their living there. As discussions about the property’s future continue, we need to know how our access to the beach and the environment around it will be protected.
The July 7, 2026, Court of First Instance ruling confirmed that the beach is public property and was never acquired by Sun Resorts. The land behind the beach is privately owned. Government now needs to establish and publish those boundaries and legally secure reasonable access to the beach. People should not have to rely on a private owner’s goodwill to reach public property.
That also means being fair to the people who work there. Beach vendors should be subject to clear rules on sanitation, safety, congestion and environmental protection. Those rules should apply equally, and established vendors should have a fair opportunity to comply. They should not be pushed out simply because a future development would prefer a different kind of beach experience for its guests.
The owners of the land behind the beach have rights too. Any development proposal must go through the required planning and permitting processes, with proper public review and conditions that government is prepared to enforce.
As a marine conservationist, I am particularly concerned about how decisions affecting Mullet Bay will account for Mullet Pond. The pond is a Ramsar wetland of international importance, designated as Site No. 2270. St. Maarten has responsibilities to maintain its ecological character and ensure its wise use. We need to understand how any proposed development would affect drainage, water quality, mangroves and wildlife before decisions are made. Environmental assessments must inform what is allowed, with enforceable safeguards and monitoring that continues beyond construction.
Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs has also raised questions about the privately commissioned master-plan process that need answering. These include the property boundaries, St. Maarten’s first right of refusal, the proposed sale and its connection to the ENNIA resolution. She has questioned who authorized the planning exercise and how it is being financed.
The public should have those answers. What land does the proposed plan cover? Who commissioned it, and who is paying? What role has government agreed to play? What legal standing would the outcome have? Could participation affect St. Maarten’s first right of refusal? And what would a sale mean for ENNIA-related obligations and the country’s finances?
These questions should be settled before government lends its support to a development vision. A privately commissioned plan may offer ideas, but we need to be clear about whose interests it represents and how it would fit into public decision-making.
The same applies to consultation. Residents need enough information to question proposals and a real opportunity to influence decisions. That includes being able to say what should be protected, which uses should continue and where development would be inappropriate. Asking people to comment on a concept that has already been drawn up is only one part of that discussion.
There is room to discuss responsible development at Mullet Bay. But we first need clarity on the boundaries, guaranteed beach access, protection for Mullet Pond and a full explanation of the country’s legal and financial position. These are matters for government to address openly.
Mullet Bay matters to the people of this island. Government has a responsibility to protect our access to it and to explain the decisions being made about its future. We should not have to wait until a sale is agreed or a development proposal is well advanced to find out where the public stands.
Tadzio Bervoets
