Good morning,

I am writing to address the confusion and misinformation circulating regarding recent events, particularly concerning statements made by Neil Kanter. It is crucial to provide clarity and ensure that accurate information is disseminated to all members of our community.
Firstly, I want to clarify that the article in question was not censored. Rather, during a board meeting, an agreement was reached not to mention a specific company that has been a source of contention within our community. This decision was made in the interest of maintaining unity and avoiding further division among our residents. It is important to note that this decision was not driven by personal vendettas, but rather by the desire to represent the diverse perspectives of our community. Vecinos Association recognizes the importance of listening to all its members and acknowledges that the majority of owners do not agree with certain tactics employed by the aforementioned company, particularly regarding the installation of the barrier in HMB. As a representative body, it is our responsibility to consider the viewpoints of all stakeholders and make decisions that reflect the collective interests of our community. When the article was presented by Neil, it was acknowledged that it contained valuable information that would benefit the community.

We were pleased to see recognition given to Ivan Penie and ZOFEMAT for their commendable efforts in cleaning HMB beach. However, due to our neutrality on barrier issues and our commitment to using Mexican guidelines for Sargasso mitigation, it was decided not to mention the company in question. Despite this decision, Neil chose to publish the article on a Vecinos-owned forum without adhering to the board's directive, thereby undermining the authority of the board and diminishing the significance of Ivan's and ZOFEMAT's work.

As President of Asociación de Vecinos de Akumal Norte and a full-time resident of Akumal Norte, I share your concerns about the divisive tactics employed by certain entities within our community. It is imperative that we focus on the broader goals of unity and progress, rather than individual interests or agendas.

Vecinos remains committed to thriving and supporting community projects that benefit all residents, and I urge you to consider the bigger picture as we move forward together.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Warm regards,

Ricardo Mangione

President, Asociación de Vecinos de Akumal Norte

Get it together, Team.  Most of us come to Mexico, in part, to escape partisan bickering, threats and tensions (yes, and the weather) up north.  I think if we all can take a deep breath and step back, we'd admit that Akumal Norte residents on all sides of the barrier and sargasso mitigation question (pro, con and huh?) are well intended, concerned and include many hard working volunteers - Vecinos board and non-board locals included.

I am neither for nor against the barrier, but like all of you, I do favor understanding all the options and opportunities we have to mitigate sargasso infiltration.  The inclusion or exclusion of the name of a controversial organization (the EPA - tho' I didn't know it was controversial) isn't a credible reason for refusing the publication of that organization's article. This isn't the KKK writing about its philanthropy in race relations or Hamas telling readers about its great work in Gaza. If you think the EPA article had misleading information, publish it with a rejoinder. 

The Vecinos board is doing excellent work on tough issues. It has broad shoulders where that work rests. The board will be more effective if it can just brush the chip off those shoulders and move ahead. 

Thank you, Ricardo, for recognizing the “commendable efforts” I’ve made to engage ZOFEMAT in conducting occasional beach cleaning along Half Moon Bay. But your posting above confuses the issue by implying that I do this work as a private citizen when, in fact, I do it in my capacity as Project Manager of EcoProteccion Akumal (EPA).  And, frankly, promoting beach cleaning is only one of my many job responsibilities at EPA.  

Although critically important, beach cleaning alone is not an effective strategy for fighting the harmful impact of Sargassum Inundation Events (SIEs). Not only are there significant downsides to excess beach removal but it does nothing to protect the reef in Half Moon Bay.  This report from the US Environmental Protection Agency summarizes the harmful impact to marine ecosystems when rotting sargassum accumulates in the water:

Impact of Sargassum on Aquatic Ecosystems  

The importance of addressing sargassum buildup in the water is also addressed in the sargassum management guidelines developed by the EIMAS consortium sponsored by the Mexican government.  As a scientific consultant to EIMAS, I am pleased that Vecinos has posted a link to our guidelines on your website and impressed that Vecinos has actually made “a commitment to using these Mexican guidelines for Sargasso mitigation”. This is the same commitment made by EPA! 

In fact, EPA is already working hard to follow the EIMAS guidelines on the Vecinos website and, under my leadership, has developed a four-pronged sargassum mitigation plan for Half Moon Bay that includes:

1.     Deploying a barrier to deflect as much sargassum as possible away from Half Moon Bay.

2.     DAILY beach cleaning of most (but not all) of the residual sargassum that does still reach the shore.

NOTE: EPA originally proposed that individual beachfront property owners should be responsible for cleaning their own beach concession but this approach is proving ineffective. EPA is now hopeful that we can cooperate with ZOFEMAT and Vecinos de Akumal Norte, A.C. to fund and implement a more centralized and coordinated beach cleaning plan for the entire beach along Half Moon Bay.

3.     Relying on a natural sargassum drying strategy for the thin bottom layer of sargassum left on the beach.

NOTE: To avoid excess removal of sand, it is important that the bottom-most layer of sargassum NOT BE REMOVED from the beach but, instead, be spread out to dry naturally.  An “Enzymatic Spray” can be applied to sargassum that’s left to dry on the beach in order to limit toxic fumes from hydrogen sulfide.

4.     Transportation and disposal of sargassum through an adequate and centralized strategy, using approved disposal services and legal disposal sites.

NOTE: EPA has engaged with ZOFEMAT to provide containers for the collection of sargassum removed from the beach as well as a FREE disposal service for weekly removal of these containers. 

If you disagree with EPA’s decision to build our sargassum mitigation strategy around the deflection barriers recommended in the EIMAS guidelines, I invite you to debate this or any alternative strategy that you suggest from the “Mexican guidelines for sargassum mitigation” that you mention above.

Iván Penié 

What is censorship? That is the question. The substance of the complaint is that most of the Board rejected the wording of a proposed posting on VOX that would be construed as the official opinion of the Board of the Association. The Board has the right to decide by democratic vote what to publish, representing their official position. That’s not censorship, and one of the Board members on the losing side of the vote calling it censorship does not make it so. If I or an individual Association member like me, whether defending or attacking the Board, were blocked from posting their personal opinion – that would it be censorship.

Newspaper editors decide every day upon limits to the content of news articles regardless of the opinion of the reporter. Network News Departments every day decide what to report or not report regardless of the opinion of individual staff members. According to you, that would constitute censorship. Should every newspaper and magazine publisher fire their editors as unnecessary because what was written is sacrosanct and cannot be changed?  Members of the Board of Vecinos represent the Board, not only themselves, and cannot elevate their own position over that of the majority. They always can then, as you have done here, whine about it without being censored.