No, it can’t be!

Does Article 12 impede economic development? Back in 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s the CNMI’s economy was healthy and experiencing the upswing effect. Foreign investors were leasing private and public lands with no concern for Article 12. For almost 30 years of economic prosperity, the CNMI’s economy started experiencing the downswing effect. Was it because of Article 12? No, it can’t be! It was the indecisiveness and complacency of our elected leaders. Our elected leaders were forewarned that the garment industry will fold and leave the island because of change in quota policy by the WTO, making the CNMI no longer attractive for garment businesses. Our leaders failed to anticipate and plan for a replacement industry.

On or about early 2000, the CNMI was granted by the Chinese government the third tourist destination authorization for Chinese to vacation in the CNMI. The CNMI failed to capitalize on this destination authorization because it made entry into the CNMI difficult for the Chinese to vacation here. To date, over 100 destination authorization were granted by the Chinese government—a missed opportunity for the CNMI. Was it because Article 12? No, it can’t be! It was lack of foresight and poor decision-making by our leaders to take advantage of being the third to be granted the destination authorization.

Then Continental Airline pulled out from the CNMI and went to Guam. Was it because Article 12? No, it can’t be! It was the failure of our leaders to strategically negotiate the airline’s request to establish a hangar in the CNMI. It’s another missed economic opportunity to the CNMI. There were other missed economic opportunities but definitely not because of Article 12. No, it can’t be!

Citizen for Change Article 12 group is claiming that Article 12 is making it difficult for land owners to borrow from local banks. It is a deception because banks continue to loan and are accepting real property as collateral. If Article 12 impedes economic development, then why would two investors lease recently a private land in Marpi to develop into a mega resort? Why would investors be interested with the San Antonio public land prime property to develop into mega resort if they are concern about Article 12?

No, it can’t be because of Article 12!

Since public land is collectively owned by Northern Marianas decent and the intent of our Article 12 is to improve the economic and livelihood of NMDs, then how can we as NMDs achieve such intent? My personal opinion is through economic land leveraging. Lease of public land should not compete with private land. If private land is not available, then public land will be an alternative but with conditions requiring no less than 50 percent NMD employment opportunity at federal or local minimum wage, whichever is higher, and lessee should be required to maintain all improvements in good condition to prevent diminution in real property value.

For leases on public land that will expire, it should be strategically renegotiated to directly benefit NMDs. If lessee decides to continue leasing, then renegotiation should require no less than 50 percent NMD employment opportunity at federal or local minimum wage, whichever is greater, plus profit-sharing. The appraisal value of the real property should not be just on the public land but to include all improvements. The new lease should be renegotiated based on the total value of public land and improvements, where portion of this appraised value can be negotiated with the lessee to represent NMD’s shares.

If lessee decides not to continue leasing, then land and improvements should return to land owners. An RFP can be issued to seek the most qualified operators with a profit-sharing scheme. Job opportunities will be created for NMDs and U.S. non-NMDs. Therefore, bringing back all of our people who left the CNMI for better job opportunities in Guam or the U.S. mainland. Fan tachu taotao tano ya ta dimanda i direchu’-ta gi tano-ta!

Jesus Taisague
Koblerville, Saipan