What if one of Sint Maarten’s most valuable properties could become a national investment rather than simply another piece of land sold to private interests?
That is the question being raised as the country faces decades of financial commitments under the ENNIA resolution, while the future ownership of Mullet Bay remains a matter of national interest.
In a letter to the editor, Melisa Molanus is challenging Parliament and Government to examine whether purchasing Mullet Bay could transform part of Sint Maarten’s financial burden into a productive, locally controlled asset.
And she is asking government to put the numbers on the table.
Beginning in 2027, Sint Maarten is expected to contribute approximately 2.082 million Caribbean guilders annually to the ENNIA Resolution Fund for 30 years.
That amounts to more than 62 million guilders over the repayment period.
The country also carries a separate guarantee exposure of up to 32.45 million guilders under the 500-million-guilder Peak Facility, although government projections anticipate substantially less being required.
Molanus argues that these financial obligations make it especially important to examine every available opportunity connected to the ENNIA resolution.
And Mullet Bay is directly connected.
Sint Maarten negotiated a right of first refusal on the property, giving the country an opportunity to consider acquiring it before a sale to another buyer, subject to the applicable arrangements.
Proceeds from a potential sale are intended to support the ENNIA Resolution Fund.
But Molanus believes government should first determine whether ownership could produce greater long-term value.
So what would buying Mullet Bay actually cost?
Using a hypothetical acquisition price of 153 million Caribbean guilders, spreading the principal over 30 years would amount to approximately 5.1 million guilders annually before interest.
However, that figure is not a confirmed purchase price, and financing would make the actual annual payments considerably higher.
For example, a fully financed 153-million-guilder purchase over 30 years at five percent interest would require approximately 10 million guilders annually in debt repayments.
That is before accounting for development, infrastructure, maintenance and operating expenses.
Which brings us to the most important question.
Could Mullet Bay generate enough revenue to pay for itself?
Molanus suggests government should examine possibilities including long-term leases, commercial concessions, development partnerships and other economic returns.
But the proposal does not yet include verified revenue projections or a complete financial model.
Government would need to determine how much income the property could realistically generate, how development would be financed and what risks taxpayers would assume.
There is also another consideration.
Mullet Bay Beach has been confirmed by the Court as public property, making it important to distinguish the public beach from the surrounding privately owned land involved in any potential acquisition.
And then there is the ENNIA question.
If Mullet Bay is sold to another investor, proceeds are intended to help finance the resolution.
If Sint Maarten purchases the property instead, government would have to demonstrate how that transaction affects the Resolution Fund, the country's existing commitments and its overall financial position.
The choice is not simply between owning Mullet Bay and losing it. It is between two financial strategies whose long-term costs and benefits have not yet been publicly established.
Molanus is therefore calling for transparent financial modelling before Sint Maarten's opportunity to exercise its right of first refusal disappears.
Her argument is not that government ownership is automatically the better option.
It is that the numbers should determine whether it is.
For a country already committed to decades of ENNIA payments, the decision could have consequences extending well beyond the next government administration.
So should Sint Maarten allow Mullet Bay to pass into new private ownership, or could a carefully structured national investment deliver greater value for future generations?
Before that decision is made, shouldn't Parliament and the public know exactly what each option would cost—and what Sint Maarten stands to gain or lose?