Roseburg, Labega, Meyers, Jansen-Webster defend Soul Beach Festival economic value

GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament Sjamira Roseburg, Dimar Labega, Franklin Meyers and Veronica Jansen-Webster on Wednesday defended the broader economic value of the Soul Beach Music Festival during Parliament’s debate on the event, while also stressing the need for stronger procedures, clearer policy, and improvements in how government handles similar initiatives in the future.

Their remarks came as Parliament continued examining the 2025 Soul Beach festival, the use of public funds, and the findings of the Social Economic Council’s review of the event.

MP Veronica Jansen-Webster thanked Minister of TEATT Grisha Heyliger-Marten for bringing information forward and said the data presented should help put some of the ongoing criticism surrounding the event into perspective. She asked whether the increased activity linked to Soul Beach also translated into a measurable rise in government revenue, including tourism-related taxes and turnover tax in the period following the event.

Jansen-Webster also said she appreciated the minister’s warning about the possible consequences of repeatedly speaking negatively about a destination or its partners in public. She suggested that this kind of messaging can cause promoters and investors to think twice about returning. Against that backdrop, she asked whether government has received any signal from the Soul Beach promoters on whether they would consider St. Maarten again in the future.

MP Sjamira Roseburg said that while she had previously been critical of the Soul Beach matter, she believed the discussion in Parliament should be guided by a balanced reading of the full SER report rather than selected excerpts. She cautioned against using only isolated sections of the report, arguing that doing so could create an incomplete or distorted view for the public.

Roseburg said she respected the fact that the minister came to Parliament, presented information, and acknowledged that there were flaws in the process. In her view, that kind of accountability should not go unnoticed, especially when there is an admission that certain things could have been handled better and a willingness to improve in the future.

After reviewing both the minister’s presentation and the SER report, Roseburg said the evidence before Parliament showed that the festival did generate economic activity for St. Maarten. She pointed to the report’s finding that tourism-related spending linked to the event reached approximately US$7.2 million, and said that even using the more conservative estimate of about US$4 million, the conclusion remained that the island saw economic benefit.

Roseburg argued that the event contributed to tourism and economic activity through hotel occupancy, car rentals, taxi services, and broader visitor spending. She also pointed to the increased international exposure for St. Maarten through artists, influencers, and social media, and suggested that this visibility continues to benefit the destination.

At the same time, she said the SER report also clearly points to the need for more structured procedures and stronger policy going forward. For Roseburg, the lesson is not to dismiss the economic impact of the event, but to use the findings and recommendations of the report to improve future execution.

She said that if Parliament has been asking for data, then the existence of a report and supporting figures should be seen as a starting point rather than dismissed outright. Even where there may be disagreement over the interpretation of the data, Roseburg said it still represents a step in the right direction and something government should build on.

She urged that the recommendations made by the SER be followed and that the discussion now focus on both the economic benefits that were identified and the lessons that can strengthen future events that bring visitors to the island and stimulate the economy.

MP Dimar Labega also took the position that the country should focus on improving the framework rather than continuing to argue over whether the initiative itself had merit. He began by commending the minister for acknowledging that some steps in the financial and budgetary process were missed, saying it takes a certain level of maturity to openly admit that procedures were not followed perfectly.

Labega said nobody is perfect and that government officials, like anyone else, can make mistakes. What matters, in his view, is whether the country learns from those mistakes and improves the process. He said that is what he had expected Parliament to focus on, rather than continuing to circle around the same arguments.

Referring to the minister’s presentation, Labega highlighted the slide on policy improvements and strengthening the framework, saying this is where Parliament should now direct its attention. He argued that some policies may need to be modernized or clarified so that they better reflect the realities of St. Maarten’s economy and support future activities more effectively.

Labega said the minister saw an opportunity and moved to capture it, and he respected that proactive approach. He also argued that Soul Beach benefited a wide range of sectors across St. Maarten, and questioned why government initiative is criticized both when there is a lack of activity and when action is taken to create activity.

He said local businesses had raised concerns with him during the broader Soul Beach debate, asking whether St. Maarten wants events and economic activity or not. For Labega, the island cannot say it wants stimulus and then condemn the efforts taken to create it.

In his view, it is unrealistic to expect every new festival or event to produce a perfect result in its first year. He said major events typically take time to grow and establish themselves, and that despite contention surrounding the festival, Soul Beach still generated positive attention and movement in the economy.

Labega also reflected on his own experience attending Soul Beach in Aruba and events in St. Maarten, saying that feedback from people was generally positive, even where there were concerns about transportation or multiple venues. He suggested that those concerns were still part of a broader opportunity for visitors to experience different parts of the island.

He closed by saying the country should focus less on tearing down the initiative and more on ensuring that policies and procedures are strengthened so that future events can be carried out with less controversy and greater success.

MP Franklin Meyers reinforced that perspective by saying that from a business standpoint, negative public treatment of an event organizer could easily push such a partner to another destination. He said that if he were an organizer bringing an event of that scale to St. Maarten and was met with intense backlash, he too would consider taking the event elsewhere.

Meyers said the country cannot expect to benefit from large events if it creates an environment in which organizers feel unwelcome or unsupported. In his view, St. Maarten often criticizes its own opportunities while watching other destinations benefit from them.

He also pushed back against arguments that Soul Beach should be dismissed because its impact was projected or because the first year was not perfect. Meyers said business is about growth and investment, and that projections are a normal part of planning. If a target is not fully hit in the first year, that does not automatically mean the initiative failed.

His larger point was that government and Parliament must decide whether they want to encourage bold economic opportunities or continue creating the kind of uncertainty that sends those opportunities elsewhere.

‍