I listened with absolute revulsion at accusations made by Fenton Telemacque and others in connection with an acquisition of his land sandwiched between the two branches of Melville Hall River. Given that I was the one who did the valuation, I wish to put forward the other side since in those situations there are two sides, and the third side is more symbolic of the facts.

Presently everyone is a Valuer, and feel strongly on their opinion on what should be given weight in any given situation based on location is routine and who neglect to look at the Land Acquisition Act Chapter 53:02, which govern the assessment of compensation similar to the way there are provisions in the constitution on the appointment of a President.

The property was acquired on 11th November 2004, and the Land Acquisition Act in Section 19 (a) words to the effect, states "the value of the land shall be the amount which the land in its condition derived from comparable sales one year prior to acquisition"; therefore only comparable within the period 11th November 2004 to 11th November 2003, should be utilized; while Section 19 (b) states "the special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is a purpose for which there are statutory provisions not already granted", therefore the potential of the land for other uses is eliminated if planning permission was not initially sought.

Thirdly, Section 19 (a) v; states "that no allowance shall be made of any increase in value the land acquired likely to accrue for a use to which it will be put"; consequently the land was an abandoned Prawn Farm therefore comparable sales of only agricultural land one year prior to the declaration of the notice of 11th November 2004, is the manner in which to value plus any residual value of structures on-site - potential, closeness to an airport and change of use is clearly forbidden by the Land Acquisition Act.

In the valuation that was accepted, the author took housing sales of lands containing 3,000 to 7,000 square feet at Marigot, Melville Hall and environs, which are lands that front a public road while the subject land was an island enclosed by two branches of the Melville Hall River with absolutely no declared road access. It was basically agricultural land lacking proper access while the land referred to on the northern side of the airport is agricultural land containing some urban services with a variety of bearing tree crops possessing direct access onto the Lyons Road - that is a significant disparity.

Furthermore in a housing valuation land must be reserved for roads, open space, sidewalk as well as other uses amounting to 20% to 30% so if a parcel is agricultural containing 4.30 acres, it cannot be remotely considered based on differing acreage and use; one cannot take the full acreage and multiply by $4 to arrive at a figure of $749,232; that approach is unrealistic and reflects an over-compensation since during the hearing I spent a full two days explaining that aspect to the tribunal. One must compare "like with like" hence one cannot mix apples and oranges as occurred in utilizing housing comparable to apply to agricultural land containing 187,308 square feet as opposed to 3,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet contained in the comparable - that is incorrect procedurally and unattainable in the real world situation.

The parcel in question was purchased for $14,190 or $3,300 an acre or seven cents per square foot while other parcels in the immediate area or adjacent thereto were selling at a higher unit price since it was fully recognized that the land had no definite access, and it was surrounded by two branches of the Melville Hall River. For that reason this land is totally dissimilar to the parcels sold in the area because it had no positive access - when I arrived on the site there was no road or track and I had to cross the river from the airport side to enter onto the land. In the hearing I hinted why I valued the parcel at the figure I used because it was different from all the other parcels in the area, particularly with its serious access constraints. I also provided a residual value for the remnants of the buildings, ponds, pipe works, and the Dam to complete the valuation.

Invariably I pity Telemacque for referring to my deceased son in the way he did, and I take serious umbrage with his unsavory and venomous comments since he is fully aware of the circumstances of this most vicious murder, which the family is still unable to accept and cope with. It would also be remiss of me if I did not indicate that Matt in this highly charged atmosphere was extremely tolerant in allowing Telemacque unbridled latitude in his views - I honestly though that Matt was fair, and balanced, and above that.

The god of heaven is my only buoyancy, and he will silence my detractors in their tracks in his own good time.

Wilfred T. Dalrymple