Church or Co-operative it does not change the price of eggs!

EDITOR: I write in response to an article in the December 30th issue of the NEWS captioned “Not the church, says Pastor.”

There are several inaccuracies in that article which if allowed to go unchallenged will give the impression that the central issue as outlined in my letter to the editor in the December 16th issue of the NEWS is of no consequence and that this writer is nothing but a trouble maker. {{more}}

I wish therefore to address what I consider to be an attempt at diversion from the real issue at stake.

The article says that the church is in no way connected with any activity with the lands in question – it is the Co-operative, a co-operative that carries the name of the church and whose membership is predominantly (if not all) from the church – but there is no connection – thanks for the clarification, though, it is the co-operative not not the church that approached the Minister for the land – my apologies to the church. Secondly, what is meant by “… because in the whole community there is no bakery.”

Had the writer of the article checked he/she would have discovered that there is in fact a bakery in the area established (since in the 1990s) that is owned and operated by the Adams’ family, Pastor Crease close relatives. Moreover, that bakery is located less than three hundred yards from where the co-operative’s bakery was operating!

Then there is this very interesting quote “the bakery will be built on lands outside the fenced area” but “…there are two houses on the area for the playing field…”

This one fits in perfectly with the objective to deceive! The truth is, all the lands in question are in fact outside of the fenced area – so if the houses are” on the area for the playing field” does it not follow then that the bakery will be built on the area for the playing field?

Another thing, WE, meaning the entire leadership of the Upper West St. George District Management Committee have not only expressed our disagreement to the placement of those houses but we have also expressed our concern for the safety of the two occupants given the location of the houses to the extreme South Western end of the lands in virtually what one will call the river bed. I ask, nay beg the writer of the article to visit the area.

Crucially, those lands as marginal as they are were never surveyed and given to the occupants of those houses who incidentally were working on the estate and living in a house on the lands when those lands were acquired on… fencing of the actual playing area does not mean that a playing facility is complete. In fact the Dauphine Playing Field as I have stated before is incomplete so why give away the lands needed to complete the facility?

So the central issue here is not about Curtis King or any other ‘trying to stop’ the construction of a bakery. In fact I have already given tangible support to that co-operative’s effort both at the individual and professional levels. It is not about which private entity receives the land. Thus, whether it is the church or co-operative, it does not change the price of eggs!

The central issue I wish to restate is one of the key principles on which our so called Christian – democratic state is built – respect for one’s property.

You cannot forcefully acquire private property on the premise that you are going to use it for a public/community purpose and then turn around and hand it or a portion of it to a private institution to run commercial/business activity – that will be WRONG!

And if we have leaders, be they political, community or church leaders who cannot see the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION, nay WRONG in such an action, then God … help us all!

Curtis M. King