PHILIPSBURG:--- In a fiery Central Committee meeting focused on the Nature Policy Plan, Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion delivered a blistering critique of the current administration's handling of the Belvedere property purchase. The former Finance Minister accused the government of procedural shortcuts, a glaring lack of transparency, and operating on a basis of "favoritism" rather than fair and consistent policy.
MP Irion’s questioning dismantled the government's narrative surrounding the land deal, raising serious doubts about the integrity of the process. He pointedly asked whether Parliament had approved the purchase, a critical step required for the original Belvedere acquisition years ago. "What's the difference between that purchase of Belvedere and this purchase of Belvedere?" he challenged, highlighting a concerning departure from established procedure.
The MP’s scrutiny intensified as he probed the financial details of the transaction. He demanded to see the government’s own appraisal reports for the land, questioning whether the administration had simply accepted the seller's valuation without due diligence. "Typically, the government does not depend on appraisal reports of the sellers," Irion stated, implying that to do so would be another example of the government "operating in favoritism." He called for the appraisal reports for both properties involved in the deal to be made public.
A central point of contention was the "extra" land the current minister claimed to have negotiated. MP Irion cast doubt on this claim, suggesting this portion was already part of a previous agreement made by former councils for cultural and historical preservation. He demanded clarity: "Wasn't that already part of the then agreement? Or was that only in 2024, 2025 negotiated?" This line of questioning suggests the current government may be taking credit for a provision secured by its predecessors.
Furthermore, Irion slammed the absence of this significant land purchase from the new 2025-2030 Nature Policy Plan. He pointed out that previous policies included government-owned lands such as Emilio Wilson Park, but the newly acquired Belvedere property is conspicuously absent. "The government recently purchased a huge amount of land. Why is it not reflected in the policy? What is the plan with this?" he asked. This omission, according to Irion, reveals a profound lack of vision and planning.
The MP's remarks painted a picture of a government making major decisions in a vacuum, without budgetary foresight or a coherent strategy. He questioned where the operational funds for maintaining the property as a public park would come from, noting that such expenses were not reflected in the budget. By failing to integrate the purchase into its own policy and budget, the government, in Irion's view, proves it is not serious about its stated goals. The entire affair, from the murky purchase process to its policy exclusion, raises troubling questions about accountability and the administration’s stewardship of public assets.