How have U.S. Virgin Islands officials and local communities reacted to the sale and proposed redevelopment of Epstein’s islands?
Executive summary
U.S. Virgin Islands officials have pursued legal and financial accountability for Jeffrey Epstein’s ownership of Little St. James and Great St. James, winning a settlement that returned more than $105 million in cash and tax benefits and committed funds toward environmental remediation and survivors’ claims [1] [2] [3]. Local reaction to the subsequent sale and proposed resort redevelopment has been mixed: some officials frame the outcome as justice and restoration of public trust, while many residents and watchdog reporters express skepticism, anger over past official coziness with Epstein, and wariness about a luxury redevelopment that may erase or commodify painful history [4] [5] [6].
1. Officials: litigation as reparation and a political win
The U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general’s office made the settlement its signature victory, securing $105 million in cash, the return of over $80 million in tax benefits the government said were fraudulently obtained, and a share of sale proceeds from Little St. James—outcomes officials presented as both compensatory for victims and corrective of past impunity [2] [3] [4]. The settlement also included a modest environmental remediation payment tied to damage on Great St. James, which the government said had involved the razing of historical structures tied to enslaved workers [1]. Officials have explicitly framed these legal gains as restoring public faith that the territory’s laws can be enforced against wealthy wrongdoers [4].
2. The buyer’s pitch and officials’ cooperative posture
When investor Stephen Deckoff purchased the two islands in 2023 and announced plans for a luxury resort, his public statements emphasized economic renewal and collaboration with the territorial government, promising a “world-class destination” and expressing eagerness to work with USVI authorities [6] [7]. Government spokespeople and the settlement framework enabled a portion of sale proceeds to flow to the territory, a political and fiscal boon officials have touted after years of costly litigation [8] [3].
3. Community skepticism and accusations of past complicity
Local reporters and residents have pushed back hard, pointing to deference, payments and influence Epstein had with past governors, attorneys general, and other institutions in the territory—evidence which undercuts confident official narratives and fuels mistrust about whether redevelopment will respect victims and local interests [5]. Coverage documents long-standing ties between Epstein and USVI elites, and locals note that many officials knew of Epstein’s suspect behavior yet failed to act, a history that colors how many view any redevelopment tied to the island [5].
4. Concerns about redevelopment, zoning and transparency
Journalistic accounts and local sources raise substantive planning questions: the islands were historically zoned for residential use, not hotels, and residents and government offices reported seeing little concrete permitting or construction activity despite publicized resort plans, raising doubts about timelines and the sincerity of redevelopment promises [9] [10]. Skeptics fear a luxury resort could sanitize or commodify sites of alleged abuse, and they point to the need for transparent planning applications and community input before the islands are altered [10] [6].
5. Survivors, restitution and the politics of memory
Officials emphasize that settlement proceeds and the government’s share of sale revenue are intended to support survivors and remedy harm, a claim that has political resonance but also provokes scrutiny over how funds will be allocated and whether economic redevelopment will benefit local communities rather than outside investors [3] [11]. The modest environmental remediation agreement for Great St. James is cited as acknowledgement of cultural and historical damage, but observers argue the monetary terms and process may understate responsibility and fail to address deeper communal healing [1].
Conclusion: cautious victory, contested future
The legal outcome represents a clear official victory and potential resources for victims and the territory, but community reaction remains fractured: some officials celebrate accountability and economic opportunity, while reporters and many residents insist past complicity, zoning hurdles, transparency gaps and moral questions about turning a site of alleged crimes into a luxury destination demand slower, more inclusive decision-making [4] [5] [10]. Public trust will hinge on visible, accountable use of settlement funds, transparent permitting, and meaningful engagement with survivors and local stakeholders—areas where reporting shows work still to be done [3] [10].