Closed-door talks between top Interior Department officials and the operators of the storm-battered Caneel Bay Resort at Virgin Islands National Park seem poised to move forward a path the National Park Service set in 2013 to see the resort operated as a concession owned by the federal government.
Rob Wallace, Interior's assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, visited St. John recently to walk the grounds of the resort pounded by back-to-back hurricanes in September 2017 and to meet with Gary Engle, the principle behind CBIA, LLC, which has operated Caneel Bay since 2004.
Supposedly the two came to at least a verbal agreement to let Park Service contractors determine the extent of environmental contamination on the resort grounds, a determination that could guide the terms of a long-term lease. However, neither Wallace nor Park Service officials would comment on the matter.
The long-term role of CBIA at Caneel Bay could be murky. Engle in the past has tried to be freed of any cleanup costs associated with environmental contamination. Plus, the resort for all practical purposes reportedly isn't operational at this point, as no substantive repairs have been made since hurricanes Irma and Maria struck in 2017.
The law Congress passed in 2010 pertaining to the long-term operational fate of Caneel Bay specified that once the Retained Use Estate that CBIA has been operating under expires in September 2023, CBIA "shall transfer, without consideration, ownership of improvements on the retained use estate to the National Park Service" unless a lease agreement is finalized. As a result, the question arises as to what position the Park Service and CBIA would be in if efforts to negotiate a long-term concessions lease fail and CBIA simply walks away at the end of the RUE?
The 2010 law does allow CBIA to transfer its right to a lease to another party, but only with the Interior secretary's approval.
Todd Sampsell, president of Friends of Virgin Islands National Park, said Friday that he was aware of Wallace's visit but didn't receive a full briefing on the negotiations.
"They just assured us that there was no secret deal," Sampsell said. "But they confirmed that they were on Caneel and we know that Gary Engle was on the island at the time."
Sampsell said the park superintendent, Nigel Fields, told him Thursday night that they "have essentially gotten to the point of an agreement on a term sheet that would allow the Park Service to at least begin the environmental assessment work. He described it to me as being nonbinding at this point, and the work that they would need to do would take them probably to at least May. In his mind, that needs to happen before they can do the (appraisal) for a lease to be able to actually finalize an agreement."
Sampsell said he expected to get a formal briefing from Fields when that agreement is announced. "That could be as quickly as in the next day or two," he added.
Kristen Brengel, senior vice president of government affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association, said it was her understanding that the announcement would be "just a statement that they are working towards a lease."
The 2010 law allows for a lease of up to 40 years. Engle in the past has sought a 60-year extension of the RUE, saying such a timeframe was necessary to entice investors. He also has said he needed about $100 million to rebuild the resort.
But should the Park Service agree to a lease with a tony resort charging $600 or more a night, or strive to see more affordable lodging that would give more visitors the opportunity to actually stay inside the park? They're not being locked out of visiting the national park, as there are less expensive properties on St. John, ranging from Airbnb and "villas" with rates that fluctuate through the year to motels, but many visitors traveling to the National Park System prefer the experience of staying inside a park.
"I struggle personally with that because I've got members of my own board that say we need a high-end, five-star resort back on Caneel," said Sampsell. "As a conservationist, that really bothers me a bit. But, I would say we've talked to several parties that would be really interested in working with the Park Service, redeveloping Caneel, looking at how could it better serve the community here, provide more public access, be more sustainable, and still be a revenue generator for a leaseholder."
Traveler has been told there is no shortage of companies in the hospitality industry that would bid for the Caneel property if the Park Service opened it to competitive bidding, and Sampsell said the same.
"In the conversation I had with the (NPS) regional director, he said there's been everybody from private investment individual partnerships to global hotel chains expressing interest," said Sampsell. "There's no shortage of interest if they were to be creative and open that up to a competitive process."
But first, he said, the extent of environmental contamination needs to be determined.
"That should have already been done. And frankly, that's going to help inform what the future needs to look like," he said.
But Sampsell also voiced support for seeing the Park Service let the RUE expire in September 2023 and opening up the bidding process to more companies.
"I guess my question is, would waiting until 2023 and opening it to a more competitive process, would that really be a bad thing at this point?" he said.
Is this coverage important to you? National Parks Traveler is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit media organization that is focused on national parks and protected areas. If you find daily editorial coverage about national parks important, please donate to the Traveler.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Just wait until 2023. What does it matter at this point as this is the lifestyles of the Rich and Famous anyways.
Yes, I agree; wait until 2023 and let a new administration make a clean, fresh, start. Through his actions and his threats, Engle has clealy shown that he's unworthy of being trusted with any role in the management or operations of any of our national parks and the Trump Administration has repeatedly and thoroughly demonstrated that it has no respect for the law or our national parks. None of the people currently maneuvering around this Caneel Bay situation can be trusted; they all, all of them, need to just get the hell out and leave it to the next bunch to come in and sort it out.
These recent machinations are just adding more reinforcing evidence. As the article indicates, the president of the local park support group down there "was aware" of Rob Wallace's visit but "didn't receive a full briefing" on it. Why not? Does the Trump Administration not believe that the public has a right to know what goes on behind closed doors and under the table relative to our national parks? Are they intending to do a full public briefing instead? Don't bother to answer; I think I've already got the picture.
"They just assured us that there was no secret deal," Sampsell, president of the local park support group, said. "But they confirmed that they were on Caneel and we know that Gary Engle was on the island at the time." Well, that damn sure reassures me. If Rob Wallace and Gary Engle say there's no secret deal being worked, well then I can rest easy knowing that, based on the personal histories of both of them and the enterprises they represent, there's no skullduggery there. That's as good as getting Bernhardt and Everson to personally vouch for it.
And, about that 40 year lease option, boy howdy, park superintendents sure have lots of oversight and enforcement leverage over concessionaires that hold 40 year leases now don't they? There's an old saying that applies to federal public servants trying to oversee and enforce those kinds of longterm contracts. When the feds try to enforce contract provisions that the contractors want to ignore, the contractors just give them the "we be" response, as in we be here long after you be gone, and stall them out, maybe whine about too much regulation in the meantime.
Again, at this point, none of the people currently maneuvering around this Caneel Bay situation can be trusted; they all, all of them, need to just get the hell out and leave it to the next bunch to come in and sort it out. Any benefit to getting an environmental assessment started is far outweighed by the risk that these republicans will find a way to use it as a vehicle to pull another fast one on their way out.
Yeah, because they did such a good job the last time they were in charge.
Yeah, ecbuck, for a couple of reasons. First, because they really did do a much better and actually more honest job when they were in charge and, second, because the majority of American citizens believe they did a better and more honest job and attested to that belief when they voted to change administrations. Oh, but I forgot that doesn't matter to you. As you already went on record proclaiming in one of your recent comments, you don't actually believe America is a democracy do you? And, you're thankful for it aren't you? I guess all I can say to that is love it or leave it. Bye.
Really, the prior admins did a better job with Caneel? Then how did we get were we are now in the first place? And no, I don't believe American is a democracy because it isn't. It is a representative republic and yes I am thankful that is the case. Nothing worse than mob rule.
You better hope America never becomes a democracy where majority rules. Let's say 2 wolves and a sheep are discussing what's for dinner. You get the picture. We are a representative republic for a reason. Our form of government has remained relatively intact for over 200 years. The way things are going now, I won't give it another 200 years.
I'm not a fan of luxury lodging in our parks however given the history of this property I hope it can be rebuilt as close to it's former self as possible. As for the path moving forward, I hope whichever one is chosen, the terms and responsibilities are better defined than it appears the current one is. I'd also opt for something much less than 60 years, particularly given the pace of change we see these days and the difficulties in trying to account for every future eventuality.
Yes, wild places, I can tell you, based on experience, that those ultra-long, locked into place, lease agreements are not the way to go. Yes, very long leases make longterm concessionaire financing of improvements easier; however, private sector financing of capital facility improvements on federal, taxpayer owned, land, especially in national parks and on national security related holdings is a bad idea in the first place. You're providing a backdoor to the potentially corrupt privitization of national assets when you mix ownership claims in these situations; Delaware North's antics in Yosemite is just one example.
And, I believe that example also supports my comments about the potential difficulties park superintendents can face trying to exercise proper federal oversight over concessionaires that hold such very long and entrenched kinds of contracts. It's not a problem with every contractor; but, when it is a problem, it's a bad problem. Despite all the talk about how hard it is to get rid of bad federal employees, park supeerintendents are generally SES and the public really does have leverage to get them moved out rather them let them stay entrenched. However, in the case of a bad concessionaire holding a very longterm contract, you end up arguing with an army of corporate attorneys, as was the case with Delaware North over the Yosemite caper and with trying to get Engle to uphold his obligations at Caneel Bay.
And, ultimately, your point about the pace of change we see these days and the difficulties in trying to account for every future eventuality is also correct. How a park needs to be managed decades from now can be different from what is needed today and an extremely longterm contract just poses an obstacle to flexibility.
We truly do need to get back to good governance principles; find a way to provide taxpayer financing of capital facility improvements on federal, taxpayer owned, land, especially in national parks and on national security related holdings; and return the full ownership of national assets to the national public. If small towns across America can float municipal bonds for their streets, schools, and water systems, then the United States can find a way to do something similar for our critical national assets. It's just an infrastructure issue.
What did I miss? The next administration is 2023? What happened to January of 2021?
Just read these last couple of comments. The evidence is stacking up. It couldn't be more clear and present and dangerous and it comes from their own mouths, their own writings, and their own comments. The rightwing republican party does not believe in American democracy, perhaps never did. They don't believe in majority rule. We, the people, are the "mob" to them and nothing more. They don't want American democracy and won't defend American democracy. They can't be trusted to defend our country or its values in any way whatsoever.
They are unprincipled nihilists, out for themselves. They are openly contemptuous of the fact, can't even be bothered to disguise their contempt for the fact, that "our form of government has remained relatively intact for over 200 years" and they sure don't want or intend to "give it another 200 years..." They emit a disembodied shriek anytime any of us dare to bring up the deep loyalty their party leaders have and have repeatedly demonstrated for the toxic agents of hostile foreign powers; but, their fundamental disloyalty to America couldn't be any more obvious.
They're not here to support our national parks and public lands. They're here to spread the poisonous propaganda their foreign masters want them to spread.