A lot has been said on this Web site and others about Jekyll Island and the pending development. Unfortunately, most of what has been written comes from passion not from facts. I respect everyone’s opinions but do not believe it’s fair to publish knowingly wrong statements in an attempt to win support for a cause. And for the most part, the arguments that have been written online so far are not reality-based.
It’s important for everyone to understand that Georgia's Jekyll Island is a state park. It is not a nature preserve – although three state laws do protect 75 percent of this island from development -- so some development is allowed.
Nearly a quarter of this island has already been developed and just a hundred or so acres can be further developed. Most of the developed land today takes the form of golf courses. The next significant type of development currently on the island is housing. Just over 425 homes are built in this state park and most of those are inhabited by permanent residents who understandably love the island just the way it is. (By and large, most of these folks living in the state park oppose redevelopment plans and are fighting hard against it).
But there’s an even greater burden for Jekyll Island than for any other Georgia state park. Jekyll is the only state park in Georgia that must be self-sustaining.
The only money that can be used for the upkeep of Jekyll (beaches, roads, maintenance of the historic district) must come from Jekyll. The Jekyll Island Authority does not receive money from a general fund or share any money from Georgia’s state park system.
As a result of being a state park, the state is required to manage the island in a way that allows all residents of the state and those from other states to visit the park and have an enjoyable visit.
Unfortunately, the island has suffered a decline over the years. Hotels and other businesses have seen their guests and customers go away. As that has happened, the state has earned less and less money to maintain Georgia’s jewel, further accelerating the decline.
The Jekyll Island Authority reports that the annual traffic count on the causeway in 1990 was 1,021,276 vehicles. In 2006, that number was just 474,270 – down 47 percent. Similarly, visitation to the island in 1990 was 3,125,105. By 2006, that number had plunged to 1,640,977 – a more than 50 percent decline.
Less rounds of golf are being played. Less tours of the historic district are being taken. The convention center hosts fewer and fewer conventions.
The bottom line is that by any measurement used, the results show fewer people are enjoying Jekyll Island. Even though Georgia’s population has surged 144 percent since 1960 and other coastal destinations like Tybee Island and St. Simon’s have seen visitation increase, Jekyll’s visitation dwindles.
There is a compelling need for improvements to the island. Local businesses and chambers of commerce have been asking for these improvements for years. The governor didn’t magically decide to redevelop Jekyll. He’s responding to a critical and long overlooked need on the coast.
The Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island would have you believe that all Georgians are against redevelopment on the island; that the only repairs needed are some improvements to existing hotels; and that the proposed development will destroy the beautiful island.
None of these statements are true.
First, the Initiative has not conducted an independent survey. The numbers being used to sway your opinion are from an online push poll that includes false and misleading questions such as "Do you favor including the proposed 160 time-share units (selling for $16,500 per week) within the TSC?"
As a supporter of Linger Longer's plan, even I would vote no to that question. So it’s no surprise that many people vote exactly the way the Initiative would like them to vote.
But the proposed vacation club has never mentioned a cost of $16,500 per week. Instead, owners who pay $16,500 can visit Jekyll Island for seven days a year for the rest of their life. Business owners on the island and in nearby Brunswick say that’s a good thing. Time-share units are 90 percent occupied year-round, which helps even out the seasonal cycles. Businesses find time shares extremely attractive and find the proposed Town Center concept essential for their future.
Second, the state has already tried the "just build a hotel" approach and it has failed. Rehabbing 1950s, 60s and 70s era hotels will not bring more visitors to Jekyll – certainly not enough to pay for the expensive rehabs.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the proposed Town Center development will not destroy the character of the island. In fact, it will echo the architecture from the renowned historic district. It will create a small, walkable neighborhood with parks, shops, public plazas and convenient beach access. This architecturally beautiful neighborhood will replace an aging strip mall, a 1960s convention center and four asphalt parking lots.
The Town Center represents just 1 percent of the entire island and only 4,000 feet of the 9-miles of open beaches. It will not touch the dunes or destroy the beach.
The Town Center will not be a private development in the hands of private developers. It will remain state-owned land open year-round to day visitors, overnight guests and island residents.
The state must use the small amount of developable land on Jekyll Island wisely to create an attractive place for visitors – whether for the day or the week – in order to economically sustain Jekyll Island.
As for the $500 million profit one diarist claims is in store for Linger Longer, this number is completely unfounded. In fact, Linger Longer will invest more than $350 million into the project.
A losing bidder created the $500 million profit figure as a way to turn the public against development because he did not win the right to partner with the state. (A Fulton County Superior Court ruled against that developer on January 14).
Another misunderstanding that has spread across the internet relates to Sen. Jeff Chapman's Jekyll Island resolution. Neither the developer nor the authority has ever "derided" him or his resolution. However, his position to preserve the environmentally unsound asphalt parking lots does not make the best sense for the island – either financially, environmentally or sentimentally. [excerpt: Therefore, Be It Resolved That, in view of the intent of Jekyll Island State Park’s founding legislation and Master Plan, the present oceanfront parking areas and beach access points be maintained for the benefit and convenience of the general public].
The Linger Longer plan already maintains every public access point and improves them by adding showers, restrooms and changing facilities. The only point of contention is whether the asphalt lots are removed.
Finally, this is a public process. And that process is ongoing. Updates to the current plan will be announced this spring so there's still time to offer constructive suggestions.
If you want to learn more about the current proposal and make suggestions about ways to revitalize Jekyll Island please visit RediscoverJekyll.com or JekyllIslandAuthority.org.