SXMElections.com

Dear Editor,

Norako N. V., the private company of former Democratic Party ((DP)) island councilman and commissioner Nicolaas "Koos" Sneek, has initiated a court case against the Statia Housing Foundation (SHF), alleging non-compliance on the part of SHF in faithfully executing a Letter of Intent (LOI) signed between the two. In the public debate ongoing about this matter my name too is called in my capacity as former commissioner of housing. I would like to come back in a separate article on the reasons for SHF at the time pursuing investments in real estate, but would for now like to limit myself to the handling of this matter, especially by the (DP) leadership.

I listen regularly to the weekly (DP) program on Radio Statia and I am concerned that while they profess to inform the public, I sense this intent to inform is rather one-sided or at least incomplete. The hosts, usually party advisor Ernie Simmons, (DP) island council lady Adelka Spanner and party president Koos Sneek himself, have decided to focus all their attention on the how and why of SHF deciding to invest in properties, and why they think this was a bad idea. Hence their ire against me because I was part of the decision-making process, even though I was not a board member, but attended meetings on invitation. The foundation has a board and management who have been put there to make decisions they believe are in the best interest of the foundation. I imagine they have made these decisions after carefully weighting the relevant facts and pending acceptance by bank and other external bodies.

The programme hosts lose sight completely of the main issue in the current court case, namely their party president wanting to collect a penalty fee that in my opinion he has no right to. The relevant articles of the LOI says the following on page 2:

d. A sale will only be concluded when buyer will be able to acquire sufficient funding by means of a bank loan to purchase said properties.

e. Buyer will do all in his power to speedily expedite the process necessary to acquire sufficient funding to purchase said properties.

f. This letter of intent will be cancelled and consequently no sale will be concluded in the event Buyer is unable to acquire sufficient funding to purchase the properties. In this case Buyer will supply written proof of this to Seller.

g. In the event Buyer cancels this letter of intent for any other reason than mentioned in previous Par. f. Buyer will pay to seller five percent (5%) of the purchase price as mentioned in par. a.

Facts are: SHF's bank loan request was turned down, complying with conditions d and f; consequently there can be no compensation based on point g. Norako is using point e to suggest SHF did not do enough to get a loan, for example, by applying to more than one bank; this while Norako is aware from the beginning that SHF was dealing only with its one regular banking partner for this loan. Nowhere in the LOI (which by the way was written by Norako) is it stated that proof of a loan being turned down is required from more than one bank. SHF informed Norako at one point that they were free to offer the property to other interested buyers since the loan process was taking a long time. Consequently, there is no need to hold SHF accountable because Norako refused to seek other buyers.

Mr. Sneek says he did not pursue this matter as long as he was in the commissioner's seat. Only after resigning that position in July 2013 did he regain an interest in executing the LOI. The LOI was signed in February 2012 shortly after Mr. Sneek became a commissioner. Am I to understand that if Mr. Sneek had remained commissioner for another two years he would wait all that time to execute and then hold SHF accountable still? How serious is he if he really wanted to sell his property? Or is this a case of preying on the victim? The excuse that SHF initiated the process to sell the property is also false. It is known that Mr. Sneek had been putting the word out that he wanted to sell his property, which came to the attention of SHF at the time; prompting SHF to inquire about same. So the suggestion that he was "dragged" into this process by SHF is misleading to say the least.

I also want to remind you that what was signed was a letter of intent, basically an expression of interest. The usual process is that following this, once funding has been secured, parties would sign a "Sale and Purchase" agreement that would contain more specific deadlines for completion of the deal, at a notary.

These are the facts the (DP) programme should focus on and not on the board decisions that were made. Focus on your party president, who time and again reminds us that he is one of us, trying to claim monies he has no right to from SHF which belongs to us.

I challenge the (DP) radio show to present its audience with the articles of the letter mentioned above and let the public know what they understand from them and decide if Mr. Sneek deserves a penny because according to me he doesn't. And, should they come to the same conclusion as me, then the (DP) must demand that Mr. Sneek withdraw his case against SHF or be booted from the party. I call on all (DP) operatives, leader and board members to act and not be intimidated. I call on Julian Woodley, Ralph Berkel, Winston Fleming, Ernie Simmons, Adelka Spanner, Christina Woodley-Charles, Bernadine Woodley, Marietza Patrick, Charles Lindo, Raquel Spanner-Carty, and last, but not least, I call on Mrs. Nora Sneek to take a stand on this and take a stand for Statia. If you don't or if Mr. Sneek refuses, then the court will decide and the (DP) would have lost another opportunity to prove it really can stand up for Statia when it matters most. Call your president to order and bring this matter to a speedy close.

Glenn Schmidt