What is known about the subsequent ownership and redevelopment plans for Little St. James and Great St. James?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A 2023 sale transferred Jeffrey Epstein’s Little St. James and neighboring Great St. James to financier Stephen Deckoff for roughly $60 million, and the new owner has announced intentions to redevelop the islands as a high-end resort—an effort that supporters call a reclamation of place and critics warn risks erasing or profiting from a traumatic history [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows concrete details about the buyer, price and resort intent are public, while precise redevelopment plans, schedules and community or regulatory approvals remain unevenly disclosed and under scrutiny [4] [5].
1. Sale and chain of title: who bought the islands and when
Multiple mainstream outlets reported that Stephen Deckoff, a U.S. financier, acquired both Little St. James and Great St. James in a transaction announced in May 2023 for about $60 million, marking the transfer of properties long associated with Epstein’s ownership to a new private investor [1] [2] [3]. Public histories of Little St. James note earlier ownership changes—Epstein purchased the island in 1998 via an entity called L.S.J. LLC—so Deckoff’s purchase is the latest chapter in a documented sequence of private sales [6].
2. The buyer’s stated intent: a luxury resort and “new chapter”
Deckoff and reporting about his purchase have framed the acquisition as a transformation: several sources say he plans to turn the islands into an upscale resort, with one later profile specifying ambitions for an ultra-luxury, roughly 25-room property expected to open to paying guests [1] [5]. Coverage summarizes the public pitch as creating an exclusive destination that “respects” local natural beauty—language consistent with rebranding efforts—but details about design, operators, timelines, and financing commitments vary across outlets [5] [4].
3. What’s on the islands now and what would redevelopment affect
Descriptions of Little St. James’s built environment—helipad, private dock, water systems, pools, multiple villas, gym and private beaches—underscore the scope of facilities a buyer inherited and could repurpose for hospitality use [1]. These inventories provide a factual baseline for redevelopment feasibility while also explaining why a buyer might envision a luxury resort rather than complete demolition or public memorialization [1].
4. Public reaction, ethical questions and scrutiny
News reports and subsequent coverage make clear the islands’ notoriety—repeatedly invoked as part of Epstein-era civil and criminal allegations—will shape public response to any redevelopment, with advocates calling for careful stewardship and survivors and critics warning against commodifying a site tied to documented abuse [1] [4]. Observers and some outlets frame redevelopment as either reclamation or attempted erasure; this dual framing reflects competing agendas: investor profit and place-making versus accountability, memorialization and survivor-centered approaches [4].
5. Gaps in the public record and outstanding practical matters
Available reporting confirms buyer, price and general resort intent but leaves important specifics unreported or opaque: detailed blueprints, exact timelines, local permitting status, environmental assessments, community agreements with the U.S. Virgin Islands or mechanisms for survivor consultation are not comprehensively disclosed in the cited coverage [4] [5]. Consequently, assertions about a precise opening year or completed design should be treated as aspirational reporting rather than established fact [4].
6. How narratives may shape future coverage and local outcomes
Media stories about the purchase emphasize dramatic closure and reinvention while later profiles and tourism write-ups present the islands as a potential high-end getaway—a narrative shift that can privilege investment appeal over lingering legal, moral and community questions [1] [5]. Readers should note that some outlets repeat promotional details (such as a 25-room plan) that appear in optimistic tourism-centered pieces, while investigative and local reporting focus more on transparency and the voices of survivors and residents [5] [4].