Amanda, you brought up the subject of "sustainable development" on another thread that I think is getting too personal between two others so I started this thread to open a discussion on the subject.

I am curious as to how you would describe "sustainable development" as it pertains to AC. It appears to me that the island cannot sustain the current level of development. When there is talk of moretoriums on vehicle permits, hardware stores, grocery stores and there is concerns over traffic, crime, garbage, sewage, roads, insufficient power and water, etc - in other words, an inability to provide the necessary infrastucture for the current population - I do not see the logic in allowing more development of condos and hotels that, to be viable, will need to bring more people to the island.

Maybe I am missing something. But, if the current amount of people living and visiting the island cannot find ways to finance needed infrastucture, then how does bring more people to the island creating more of a demand for infrastucture improve the situation?

Forget the moretorim on vehicles, hardware and grocery stores, how about a moretorium on development until these issues are solved?

Las Vegas started with the slogan "build it and they will come". AC seems to have the slogan "come and maybe later we will find a way to build it". - infrastucture that is.

There is a program under development that will generate the $$ to finance infrastructure:
Ambergris Caye Local Building Authority ( ACLBA) Impact Fee Schedule (Permit Fees)
http://www.sanpedrodaily.com/ACLBAfees.html

The comparison shows fees charged in Florida, Jamaica, Costa Rica and Trinidad. My concern is in those places the infrastucture was already in place and the fees were to help generate the income to support the additional needed infrastucture for new projects. Not so on AC. The infrastucture is not sufficient for the current population.

There exists a false premise in Belize- IMO - that what ever is needed can be payed for thru more tourism as opposed to accepting the need for those currently living there to pay for and invest in the infrastructure not only to support further development, but to provide for their needs of today.

Is it fair to expect future development to pay for the lack of current infrastucture?

Seems that we have managed to accomplish quite a bit:
Expanded, improved airstrip.
RO water supply and distribution system.
Sewer treatment plant and drainage system including lift stations.
Much improved roads.
Cobblestone and concrete paving of streets (still expanding).
Bridge over the rio.
Central park rebuilt.
Perhaps this isn't enough but certainly some major improvements.

Agreed, but the real issue is not what has been done but what needs to be done. I go back to my comments about moritoriums. If there is perceived to be a need for the different ones that are and have been proposed, then I think future development should also be considered for moritorium.

But if the permit fees will generate the $$ to install infrastructure, then we need more development to generate the fees.

Infrastructure=

The island doctors are overworked.
The police have to patrol 28 miles of island.
The fire dept. is understaffed.
The EMS system needs improvement.
The roads need work.
The electricity supply needs updated.
The airstrip is close to maxed out.

Just how much are those permit fees?
And who determines the best use of the dollars?
Is it time for the BTB to spend some (a lot!) money on AC?

The one word in your last response concerns me, Jesse, "IF"

Last I heard they were not going to charge the fees.

I see no possible way that permit fees could put a dimple, much less a dent in the cost of the necessary infrastructure needed to support current projects much less future projects. If the permit fees were high enough to pay for the infrastructure, those fees would discourage development.
I agree with reaper that it's time for the GOB to start stroking the goose!